Saucer Chip Shot Method ruled Illegal

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

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

couldn't he just say that he's intentionally hitting the chip shot fat?

[14ledo81]

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

I thought we did get those? Mulligans? :-D

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

But the rule clearly says that the BALL must not be pushed, scraped or spooned.

If you "scrape" your golf ball with the grooves of a wedge, that's still legal. You're using a different definition of "scraped" than the ROG are using. It'd be like saying the golf ball cannot be "pinched" off the ground, or "swept" off the ground, or "flipped" or "shoved" or whatever. They describe the motion of the clubhead and the resulting action to the ball.

The fork example was reasonable, I think, but since you don't like it, here's another one: when you scrape ice off your windshield, the ice might fly off in small chips immediately, but you still say it was "scraped" off.

If you scrape food off your plate with a fork, you don't care if it flicks off into the sink or trash can or sticks to the fork, just like the ice. You're still "scraping" the food off the plate, just as the saucer shot "scrapes" the ball off the ground (or along the ground if you chose to "saucer putt").

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by iacas

If you "scrape" your golf ball with the grooves of a wedge, that's still legal. You're using a different definition of "scraped" than the ROG are using. It'd be like saying the golf ball cannot be "pinched" off the ground, or "swept" off the ground, or "flipped" or "shoved" or whatever. They describe the motion of the clubhead and the resulting action to the ball.

The fork example was reasonable, I think, but since you don't like it, here's another one: when you scrape ice off your windshield, the ice might fly off in small chips immediately, but you still say it was "scraped" off.

If you scrape food off your plate with a fork, you don't care if it flicks off into the sink or trash can or sticks to the fork, just like the ice. You're still "scraping" the food off the plate, just as the saucer shot "scrapes" the ball off the ground (or along the ground if you chose to "saucer putt").

All I really object to is how "obvious" this is to some people based on the Rules of Golf.  I totally agree with the ruling (or decision, or whatever its called) but I think it is more nuanced than people are suggesting.  The most apropos definition of "scrape" that I found is " to move (a rough or sharp object) across (a surface), esp to smooth or clean."

Lepp does exactly that, so I get how his shot is ruled illegal, but I guess what I, and others, are trying to determine is where the line is drawn.  Regular chip/pitch shots are certainly OK, and I see how his aren't, but somebody asked earlier if his would be OK if he simply started with his club off the ground, and I don't think that is an unreasonable question.  If he starts with his club off the ground, then what separates his motion from a regular pitch shot?  It would be only the separation of the hands and the distance that his club is in contact with the ground, no?  So, what distance is acceptable?

This is all I'm getting at.  There is a grey area in there somewhere.

[Stretch]

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

[rustyredcab]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

...

This is all I'm getting at.  There is a grey area in there somewhere.

I'm with Golfingdad.

How far behind the ball does the club need to contact the ground before it is a scape? Does it need to be intentional? I play with guys who hit it fat and have shallow swings. When they hit behind the ball, the club stays near or on the ground before making contact. Is that OK? If you use a putting stroke in the rough for a short chip, the club in in the grass, on or very near the ground, for a good bit before contact with the ball.

So is really just about him never bringing the clubhead off the ground in his backswing?

I'm not looking to fight the ruling (looks like a dumb stroke to me) or to nit pick the ruling bodies' definition of the word "scrape." I just want to know if it is the dragging of the club on the ground for so long the issue. And if so, how long is too long?

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by rustyredcab

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

...

This is all I'm getting at.  There is a grey area in there somewhere.

I'm with Golfingdad.

How far behind the ball does the club need to contact the ground before it is a scape? Does it need to be intentional? I play with guys who hit it fat and have shallow swings. When they hit behind the ball, the club stays near or on the ground before making contact. Is that OK? If you use a putting stroke in the rough for a short chip, the club in in the grass, on or very near the ground, for a good bit before contact with the ball.

So is really just about him never bringing the clubhead off the ground in his backswing?

I'm not looking to fight the ruling (looks like a dumb stroke to me) or to nit pick the ruling bodies' definition of the word "scrape." I just want to know if it is the dragging of the club on the ground for so long the issue. And if so, how long is too long?

I think those are all valid questions - just wanted to point out that I don't think Lepp touches the ground on his backswing - he brings it back a bit above the ground, drops it to the ground, then brushes it forward.

Maybe a differentiation could be made between the saucer shot and what people do on standard pitch shots, in that the saucer pass has a clearly linear forward stroke, whereas any pitch shot, no matter how ugly or fat, always has some arc to it (descending then ascending).  But I agree with those who say it's a gray area and not obvious.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Stretch

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

I feel like this is a dig but I am too stupid to realize it.

[WalkTheCourse]

As a hockey player, I take personal offense to the illegality of this rule...

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

All I really object to is how "obvious" this is to some people based on the Rules of Golf.  I totally agree with the ruling (or decision, or whatever its called) but I think it is more nuanced than people are suggesting.  The most apropos definition of "scrape" that I found is "to move (a rough or sharp object) across (a surface), esp to smooth or clean."

That's why it's obvious to some of us. :)

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Lepp does exactly that, so I get how his shot is ruled illegal, but I guess what I, and others, are trying to determine is where the line is drawn.  Regular chip/pitch shots are certainly OK, and I see how his aren't, but somebody asked earlier if his would be OK if he simply started with his club off the ground, and I don't think that is an unreasonable question.  If he starts with his club off the ground, then what separates his motion from a regular pitch shot?  It would be only the separation of the hands and the distance that his club is in contact with the ground, no?  So, what distance is acceptable?

It's not necessarily the distance but the shape, IMO.

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Maybe a differentiation could be made between the saucer shot and what people do on standard pitch shots, in that the saucer pass has a clearly linear forward stroke, whereas any pitch shot, no matter how ugly or fat, always has some arc to it (descending then ascending).  But I agree with those who say it's a gray area and not obvious.

I was going to respond to your post, but Bill said what I was going to say.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

I think those are all valid questions - just wanted to point out that I don't think Lepp touches the ground on his backswing - he brings it back a bit above the ground, drops it to the ground, then brushes it forward.

Maybe a differentiation could be made between the saucer shot and what people do on standard pitch shots, in that the saucer pass has a clearly linear forward stroke, whereas any pitch shot, no matter how ugly or fat, always has some arc to it (descending then ascending).  But I agree with those who say it's a gray area and not obvious.

Originally Posted by iacas

It's not necessarily the distance but the shape, IMO.

OK, I think I got it now, and I am going to concede on this one.  I am trying to physically do something in between Lepp's chip and a normal chip that would fall into my "grey area" and I can't do it.

There is no way for me to get the club on the ground and staying there in a straight "scraping" line unless I start there.  If I try to start with the club up off the ground and then bring it down quickly (something closer to the arcing motion of a chip), it bounces right back up (and I'm betting that if the ground was soft, instead of bouncing up, it would just stick), unless I do something really awkward and sort of pause my swing.

You guys win this battle ... but the war ain't over yet!!!!!!!

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

I think those are all valid questions - just wanted to point out that I don't think Lepp touches the ground on his backswing - he brings it back a bit above the ground, drops it to the ground, then brushes it forward.

Maybe a differentiation could be made between the saucer shot and what people do on standard pitch shots, in that the saucer pass has a clearly linear forward stroke, whereas any pitch shot, no matter how ugly or fat, always has some arc to it (descending then ascending).  But I agree with those who say it's a gray area and not obvious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

It's not necessarily the distance but the shape, IMO.

OK, I think I got it now, and I am going to concede on this one.  I am trying to physically do something in between Lepp's chip and a normal chip that would fall into my "grey area" and I can't do it.

There is no way for me to get the club on the ground and staying there in a straight "scraping" line unless I start there.  If I try to start with the club up off the ground and then bring it down quickly (something closer to the arcing motion of a chip), it bounces right back up (and I'm betting that if the ground was soft, instead of bouncing up, it would just stick), unless I do something really awkward and sort of pause my swing.

You guys win this battle ... but the war ain't over yet!!!!!!!

But why does there have to be a war?  Bridge players don't fight over the rules of contract bridge.  Tennis players don't contest the rules of tennis.  Same for just about any other individual or partner game or sport.  I have never been able to quite grasp what it is that drives so many golfers to constantly dispute the logic or reasoning behind the Rules of Golf.

The real problem that I see is that most of the more ardent protesters haven't made a real study of the rules and don't really understand the fundamental principles which the game is based on, and how each rule can be traced back to those fundamentals.  All they can usually see is that there is a rule that they don't like, so the knee jerk reaction is to complain about it.  Then when an explanation is offered they refuse to accept it, because it doesn't fit their vision of the game (see ball in divot hole for a prime example).  The rules either make the game too hard, or too slow, or this or that occurrence is "unfair".

If golf is too hard, then maybe it was the wrong choice for that person.  It is a hard game to learn, and golf's difficulty only changes with skill development, but the rules don't have any effect on that.

Playing by the rules does NOT make golf slower, nor is there anything unfair about their application.  Those are myths perpetuated by those same golfers who don't have a fundamental understanding of the rules.

[ay33660]

"The rule that would be breached is Rule 14-1 that says in part the club can't be pushed, spooned or scraped," explained Dale Jackson, chairman of Golf Canada's rules committee. "Scraped here basically means you are intentionally dragging or pulling the club along the ground before it hits the ball, which is what he does."

Thank god for the word "intentionally" because otherwise I would be taking a penalty stroke at least once every 10 iron shots or so.

That is how often I hit a fat shot on average.

In the winter I would end up with a massive 12 inch divot.

In the dry summer I would be "scraping" the ground for at least 6 inches before I strike the ball.

And I know that I am scraping across the ground because the resulting point of contact on the ball is right at the equator and results in a screaming worm burner.

Well maybe because I do end up hitting this type of shot at least 3 or 4 times a round it may be considered intentional ??????????

Sucks to be a bad golfer.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

But why does there have to be a war?  Bridge players don't fight over the rules of contract bridge.  Tennis players don't contest the rules of tennis.  Same for just about any other individual or partner game or sport.  I have never been able to quite grasp what it is that drives so many golfers to constantly dispute the logic or reasoning behind the Rules of Golf.

The real problem that I see is that most of the more ardent protesters haven't made a real study of the rules and don't really understand the fundamental principles which the game is based on, and how each rule can be traced back to those fundamentals.  All they can usually see is that there is a rule that they don't like, so the knee jerk reaction is to complain about it.  Then when an explanation is offered they refuse to accept it, because it doesn't fit their vision of the game (see ball in divot hole for a prime example).  The rules either make the game too hard, or too slow, or this or that occurrence is "unfair".

If golf is too hard, then maybe it was the wrong choice for that person.  It is a hard game to learn, and golf's difficulty only changes with skill development, but the rules don't have any effect on that.

Playing by the rules does NOT make golf slower, nor is there anything unfair about their application.  Those are myths perpetuated by those same golfers who don't have a fundamental understanding of the rules.

I agree with newtogolf that this is a good post and well stated ... unfortunately, it was based on a misunderstanding. ;)  My "war" comment was facetious. ;)  Further, I didn't mean that Erik and sacm won this battle of rules arguments and I'll get them in the next battle of rules arguments.  I meant that they won this discussion, but there will be more.  Whether it be about anchored putters, Sergio Garcia crying, Beautiful women, reverse pivots, politics, whatever.  I'm not giving up trying to best them in a battle of wits!  (Hopefully neither of them is Sicilian and we won't be fighting to the death ;))

I don't want to be thrown into the crowd of people that like to question rules just for the sake of questioning them.  (In fact, if you read back on all of my posts in this thread, I never even questioned this decision - just everybody's easy justification of the decision)  But I do like to try and think outside the box often, and in cases like this my goal is to try and get everybody else doing the same.

Cheers!

[TourSpoon]

Originally Posted by Stretch

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

I heard that Vijay played in a tournament and said he "Scraped it around". I think they should have DQed him on the spot for admitting to this abomination.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

But why does there have to be a war?  Bridge players don't fight over the rules of contract bridge.  Tennis players don't contest the rules of tennis.  Same for just about any other individual or partner game or sport.  I have never been able to quite grasp what it is that drives so many golfers to constantly dispute the logic or reasoning behind the Rules of Golf.

The real problem that I see is that most of the more ardent protesters haven't made a real study of the rules and don't really understand the fundamental principles which the game is based on, and how each rule can be traced back to those fundamentals.  All they can usually see is that there is a rule that they don't like, so the knee jerk reaction is to complain about it.  Then when an explanation is offered they refuse to accept it, because it doesn't fit their vision of the game (see ball in divot hole for a prime example).  The rules either make the game too hard, or too slow, or this or that occurrence is "unfair".

If golf is too hard, then maybe it was the wrong choice for that person.  It is a hard game to learn, and golf's difficulty only changes with skill development, but the rules don't have any effect on that.

Playing by the rules does NOT make golf slower, nor is there anything unfair about their application.  Those are myths perpetuated by those same golfers who don't have a fundamental understanding of the rules.

I agree with newtogolf that this is a good post and well stated ... unfortunately, it was based on a misunderstanding. ;)  My "war" comment was facetious. ;)  Further, I didn't mean that Erik and sacm won this battle of rules arguments and I'll get them in the next battle of rules arguments.  I meant that they won this discussion, but there will be more.  Whether it be about anchored putters, Sergio Garcia crying, Beautiful women, reverse pivots, politics, whatever.  I'm not giving up trying to best them in a battle of wits!  (Hopefully neither of them is Sicilian and we won't be fighting to the death ;))

I don't want to be thrown into the crowd of people that like to question rules just for the sake of questioning them.  (In fact, if you read back on all of my posts in this thread, I never even questioned this decision - just everybody's easy justification of the decision)  But I do like to try and think outside the box often, and in cases like this my goal is to try and get everybody else doing the same.

Cheers!

I quoted you more for your battle/war comment than as an example of your overall rules orientation.  I should have made that more clear.

[WalkTheCourse]

@fourputt

You are aware that rules in other sports are changed all the time, right? Whether or not it's an individual or team sport is immaterial.

Half a dozen rules change in the NFL every YEAR. Remember when there was the "force out" rule that no longer exists now? The instant replay on all scoring plays and turnovers, the new overtime rules? This is just a handful of recent changes within the last five years. In NHL hockey, a rule against faceguarding goaltenders had to be instantaneously implemented in 2008, because Sean Avery started doing it in the playoffs. Everyone - owners, fans, coaches, players - agreed that what he was doing was not in the spirit of the game .

Tennis, which you yourself mentioned, has recently implemented video replay rules for non-clay courts, and is considering rules against excessive grunting [god willing that happens].

It happens all the time in every sport... new rules that close loopholes, and prevent unfair advantages.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by WalkTheCourse

@fourputt

You are aware that rules in other sports are changed all the time, right? Whether or not it's an individual or team sport is immaterial.

Half a dozen rules change in the NFL every YEAR. Remember when there was the "force out" rule that no longer exists now? The instant replay on all scoring plays and turnovers, the new overtime rules? This is just a handful of recent changes within the last five years. In NHL hockey, a rule against faceguarding goaltenders had to be instantaneously implemented in 2008, because Sean Avery started doing it in the playoffs. Everyone - owners, fans, coaches, players - agreed that what he was doing was not in the spirit of the game.

Tennis, which you yourself mentioned, has recently implemented video replay rules for non-clay courts, and is considering rules against excessive grunting [god willing that happens].

It happens all the time in every sport... new rules that close loopholes, and prevent unfair advantages.

Where are you going with this?  I'm not sure what you are replying to or why this came up.  We aren't talking about any new rules. It doesn't seem have anything to do with topic or the previous discussion as far as I can tell.  I don't deny that rules change and evolve.  Golf would be unplayable by the rules as codified in 1744.  Part of the reason is that golf is played on widely varying terrain under all sorts of weather.  There is no standard to define the playing field for golf.  The rules need to be rigid enough to narrowly define the game, while maintaining enough flexibility to accommodate that variability.

Golf is based on the principle that you play your ball from tee to green without touching it until you lift it from the hole.  You play your ball by a series of strokes .  The rules incorporate the flexibility to allow adherence to that principle while still allowing the player relief from situations where continued play would be impossible if that basic philosophy was unbreakable.  But what the rules do is ensure that even when taking relief, with or without penalty, the ball is never advanced by any means except by making a stroke. To make a stroke requires that the  player strikes the ball fairly, meaning smartly or sharply.  The rules say that the ball is not fairly struck if it is scraped, and thus such a stroke is directly contrary to the fundamental principles of the game.  The player has not advanced the ball with a proper stroke.

I'm not opposed to changes in the rules when such changes are needed to keep the game tied to the fundamental principles.  In this case it isn't change, it is simply enforcing an existing rule.