Saucer Chip Shot Method ruled Illegal

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

All three groups represented in the joint rules committee have agreed that it's a scrape.  Why Canada missed it at first is, and probably will remain, a mystery.  Maybe they just didn't want to come down on a fellow Canadian.  For anyone who has made a study of the rules as I have for more than 20 years, it's quite obvious.  There are some things about the rules which do puzzle me, but this isn't one of them.

I don't know that it is THAT obvious.  There is a grey area in there somewhere, is there not?  I mean, the pitching method I recently learned involves actively using the bounce of the club to help give you room for error.  It does this by keeping the club from entering the ground, and instead gliding along under the ball allowing you to hit it fat without really hitting it fat.  Couldn't a person argue that that is "scraping?"  I mean, in my case, we're talking about 2-3" maximum of club contact with the ground, and in his case, maybe something closer to 12-15" so there is an obvious difference there, but where is the line drawn?

Is it simply because he starts with the club on the ground?  Or does it have something to do with the fact that his hands are separated?

I'm not saying that I disagree with the ruling, but that I don't think it's fair for you to say that it's "quite obvious."

Ever scrape a plate into the garbage?  Same motion, same result.  Scrape is scrape.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Ever scrape a plate into the garbage?  Same motion, same result.  Scrape is scrape.

Have you seen my swing thread?  Do you honestly think that I ever throw food away???

So I guess it's like the old porn definition of "I know it when I see it?"  There isn't really a way of defining it other than to point to James Lepp and say "that's a scrape?"

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Ever scrape a plate into the garbage?  Same motion, same result.  Scrape is scrape.

Scraping a plate means you take your fork and move it along the surface of the plate while it's in contact of the food until it reaches the end of the plate.

I don't believe his saucer shot remains in contact with the ball along the ground for a period of time beyond what a standard shot out of the sand does, which is why some of us are asking why is that considered a scrape.

[CorkDoinWork]

Shouldnt have been made illegal. i play hockey and find this to be quite interesting. But thats just my opinion

[bkuehn1952]

It may ultimately be that the USGA/R&A; will put a "Decision" in the Decisions on the Rules of Golf in the same manner that they clarified that a pool cue type shot was a push.  I don't know the process by which they decide what goes into the book but the "saucer shot" is odd enough to warrant a "Decision" .  After all, they have a "Decision" listed explaining that jumping near the hole to make one's ball fall in is against the Rules and that would seem pretty obvious to most of us, too.  Time will tell.

[rogolf]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

All three groups represented in the joint rules committee have agreed that it's a scrape.  Why Canada missed it at first is, and probably will remain, a mystery.  Maybe they just didn't want to come down on a fellow Canadian.  For anyone who has made a study of the rules as I have for more than 20 years, it's quite obvious.  There are some things about the rules which do puzzle me, but this isn't one of them.

I can assure you that had nothing to do with it all.  It was judged on the quality of the contact between the ball and the club being no different than an ordinary stroke and therefore not a scrape, spoon or push.  Scraping the ground was not considered as a "scrape".

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by rogolf

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

All three groups represented in the joint rules committee have agreed that it's a scrape.  Why Canada missed it at first is, and probably will remain, a mystery.  Maybe they just didn't want to come down on a fellow Canadian.  For anyone who has made a study of the rules as I have for more than 20 years, it's quite obvious.  There are some things about the rules which do puzzle me, but this isn't one of them.

I can assure you that had nothing to do with it all.  It was judged on the quality of the contact between the ball and the club being no different than an ordinary stroke and therefore not a scrape, spoon or push.  Scraping the ground was not considered as a "scrape".

According to the joint rules committee, you are wrong.

[rogolf]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

According to the joint rules committee, you are wrong.

Yes, that is now known, as of the most recent joint rules committee meeting (April, 2013), and I was not disputing the decision they reached.  But I've given you the basis for the original decision (and it's not, as you speculated, that James Lepp is Canadian).  The definition of "scrape" is now a little bit clearer.  It's interesting that 14-1 talks about pushed, spooned and scraped.  Pushed and spooned seem to be actions describing contact with the ball, but scraped appears to be an action that does not describe contact with the ball, but with the path of the club.  If these terms are to continue to be used in the Rules, they need to be better understood.  The analysis of the saucer pass has contributed to that understanding.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I don't know that it is THAT obvious.  There is a grey area in there somewhere, is there not?  I mean, the pitching method I recently learned involves actively using the bounce of the club to help give you room for error.  It does this by keeping the club from entering the ground, and instead gliding along under the ball allowing you to hit it fat without really hitting it fat.  Couldn't a person argue that that is "scraping?"  I mean, in my case, we're talking about 2-3" maximum of club contact with the ground, and in his case, maybe something closer to 12-15" so there is an obvious difference there, but where is the line drawn?

Is it simply because he starts with the club on the ground?  Or does it have something to do with the fact that his hands are separated?

I'm not saying that I disagree with the ruling, but that I don't think it's fair for you to say that it's "quite obvious."

It seems pretty obvious to me.  In your pitching method you are still swinging the club freely.  In this other thing the club is not swung, it is dragged along the ground.  It is far more "not a swing" than an anchored putting stroke, and like the anchored putting stroke needed to be banned.

[David in FL]

Originally Posted by CorkDoinWork

Shouldnt have been made illegal. i play hockey and find this to be quite interesting. But thats just my opinion

Playing one sport has nothing to do with the interpretation and understanding of the rules of another....

.....but that's just my opinion.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by David in FL

Quote:

Originally Posted by CorkDoinWork

Shouldnt have been made illegal. i play hockey and find this to be quite interesting. But thats just my opinion

Playing one sport has nothing to do with the interpretation and understanding of the rules of another....

.....but that's just my opinion.

By that line of reasoning, we should get overs without penalty for a foul ball (out of bounds) just like in baseball.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by turtleback

It seems pretty obvious to me.  In your pitching method you are still swinging the club freely.  In this other thing the club is not swung, it is dragged along the ground.  It is far more "not a swing" than an anchored putting stroke, and like the anchored putting stroke needed to be banned.

I don't know, it probably seems like I'm just being pedantic, but I'm really just trying to see it clearly.  The rule says ... "The ball must be fairly struck at with the head of the club and must not be pushed, scraped or spooned." I fully get that it is obvious that the stroke looks weird.  I am also willing to stipulate that club is definitely being scraped along the ground.

But the rule clearly says that the BALL must not be pushed, scraped or spooned.  It isn't at all obvious to me that scraping is referring to the club against the ground.  Like newtogolf pointed out earlier to fourputt about his food example (while I was busy trying to crack jokes :)) the "Scraping" that he is referring to is not so much the scraping of the fork against the plate, but the fact that the fork is against the food for an extended period of time.  This shot does not provide more contact between the club and ball than a normal shot.

I'm fully on board with them deciding it doesn't fit the bill of a fairly struck shot and amending/clarifying the rules to make it expressly illegal, I just don't agree that it's CLEARLY or OBVIOUSLY illegal now.  That's all. :)

[Meltdwhiskey]

Well said golfingdad.  I think it was a little grey before - and it's good they are clearing it up.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback

It seems pretty obvious to me.  In your pitching method you are still swinging the club freely.  In this other thing the club is not swung, it is dragged along the ground.  It is far more "not a swing" than an anchored putting stroke, and like the anchored putting stroke needed to be banned.

I don't know, it probably seems like I'm just being pedantic, but I'm really just trying to see it clearly.  The rule says ... "The ball must be fairly struck at with the head of the club and must not be pushed, scraped or spooned."  I fully get that it is obvious that the stroke looks weird.  I am also willing to stipulate that club is definitely being scraped along the ground.

But the rule clearly says that the BALL must not be pushed, scraped or spooned.  It isn't at all obvious to me that scraping is referring to the club against the ground.  Like newtogolf pointed out earlier to fourputt about his food example (while I was busy trying to crack jokes :)) the "Scraping" that he is referring to is not so much the scraping of the fork against the plate, but the fact that the fork is against the food for an extended period of time.  This shot does not provide more contact between the club and ball than a normal shot.

I'm fully on board with them deciding it doesn't fit the bill of a fairly struck shot and amending/clarifying the rules to make it expressly illegal, I just don't agree that it's CLEARLY or OBVIOUSLY illegal now.  That's all. :)

Look at it like this.  The ball is being scraped off the ground.  That is what is meant by the term scraped .  The ball is not being fairly struck with a golf swing as the rules require.  I think that you are trying to read more into it than is actually there.  I'm going to make an assumption that this case is not the first one involving such a stroke modification which is why the term is in the rules in the first place.  It would be quite clear if they had included a decision at the time of it's inclusion, but it also may be that they thought the term was self explanatory.  That may well have been possible in an era when every comment from the rules committee wasn't being questioned and picked over like an antelope carcass on the Serengeti.

[Paradox]

but what if he started with the club an inch off the ground and THEN moved it along the ground to strike the ball????

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Paradox

but what if he started with the club an inch off the ground and THEN moved it along the ground to strike the ball????

It doesn't change the definition of "scrape".

[rogolf]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

It doesn't change the definition of "scrape".

Not trying to be difficult, but where would I find the definition of "scrape" as it pertains to the Rules of golf, while recognizing that "ball moved" in the Rules has a completely different definition than what would be considered as "moved"?

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by rogolf

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

It doesn't change the definition of "scrape".

Not trying to be difficult, but where would I find the definition of "scrape" as it pertains to the Rules of golf, while recognizing that "ball moved" in the Rules has a completely different definition than what would be considered as "moved"?

I've made the only point I can make on that topic.  If you choose not to accept it, then there is nothing I can do about it.  Not every word used in the Rules of Golf has a special meaning which only applies in that context.  Sometimes a chicken really is just a chicken.