Saucer Chip Shot Method ruled Illegal

[Jim1]

I don't know whether anyone has addressed this, but why does he refer to it as a "saucer" chip shot? I don't see anything about it that resembles a saucer. Maybe that word means something different in Canada than it does in the United States. Nevertheless, it is a scrape instead of a stroke, which is illegal.

I wish all those things mentioned in Rule 14-1 were legal. I could have shot ten strokes lower (when I used to play) if they were.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Jim1

I don't know whether anyone has addressed this, but why does he refer to it as a "saucer" chip shot? I don't see anything about it that resembles a saucer. Maybe that word means something different in Canada than it does in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saucer_pass

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Jim1

I don't know whether anyone has addressed this, but why does he refer to it as a "saucer" chip shot? I don't see anything about it that resembles a saucer. Maybe that word means something different in Canada than it does in the United States. Nevertheless, it is a scrape instead of a stroke, which is illegal.

Erik's video above illustrates it pretty well ... saucer meaning 'flying saucer' rather than cup & saucer.  If old sci-fi movies are accurate - and I'm pretty sure they all are ;) - everybody knows that flying saucers spin around as they fly.  (And now that I see that word in this post six times, it doesn't look like a word anymore ;))

The big difference between his shot and the hockey shot is that he still just 'hits' the ball, whereas with the hockey shot, you allow the puck to stay on the stick and manipulate it with your wrists to create the 'frisbee' spin.  That difference was the basis for my original questioning of the ruling.  I was thinking 'scrape' would imply some sort of extended contact between ball and club - like the hockey shot, like the previous food-in-the-trash example, etc, however, I have since learned that it simply, in fact, means to scrape at the ground. :)

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim1

I don't know whether anyone has addressed this, but why does he refer to it as a "saucer" chip shot? I don't see anything about it that resembles a saucer. Maybe that word means something different in Canada than it does in the United States. Nevertheless, it is a scrape instead of a stroke, which is illegal.

Erik's video above illustrates it pretty well ... saucer meaning 'flying saucer' rather than cup & saucer.  If old sci-fi movies are accurate - and I'm pretty sure they all are ;) - everybody knows that flying saucers spin around as they fly.  (And now that I see that word in this post six times, it doesn't look like a word anymore ;))

The big difference between his shot and the hockey shot is that he still just 'hits' the ball, whereas with the hockey shot, you allow the puck to stay on the stick and manipulate it with your wrists to create the 'frisbee' spin.  That difference was the basis for my original questioning of the ruling.  I was thinking 'scrape' would imply some sort of extended contact between ball and club - like the hockey shot, like the previous food-in-the-trash example, etc, however, I have since learned that it simply, in fact, means to scrape at the ground. :)

That would come more under the ban for scooping or pushing.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

That would come more under the ban for scooping or pushing.

Right.  And it was that the language was all included in one sentence - that the BALL must not be scraped, pushed, or scooped - that had me questioning the definition in the first place.  Logically, to me, it would have made more sense if it was written something more like ... "the ball must not be pushed or scooped, and the ground must not be scraped etc. etc."

[Jim1]

Thanks.

I agree that saying that the ball must not be pushed or scooped and that the ground must not be scraped would be more accurate.

The fact that Rule 14-1 says that it is the ball (as opposed to the ground) that must not be scraped is probably why Canada considered the scraping of the ground to be legal.

The USGA says that Canada is wrong.

However, between the USGA and Canada, it is Canada that is being more accurate.

If the USGA wants it to mean that the ground (as opposed to the ball) must not be scraped, then the USGA should rewrite Rule 14-1 to explicitly state exactly that in the 2016 edition of the Rules.

However, based on history, the USGA will probably allow Rule 14-1 to remain as it is.

[Rulesman]

Originally Posted by Jim1

Thanks.

I agree that saying that the ball must not be pushed or scooped and that the ground must not be scraped would be more accurate.

The fact that Rule 14-1 says that it is the ball (as opposed to the ground) that must not be scraped is probably why Canada considered the scraping of the ground to be legal.

The USGA says that Canada is wrong.

However, between the USGA and Canada, it is Canada that is being more accurate.

If the USGA wants it to mean that the ground (as opposed to the ball) must not be scraped, then the USGA should rewrite Rule 14-1 to explicitly state exactly that in the 2016 edition of the Rules.

However, based on history, the USGA will probably allow Rule 14-1 to remain as it is.

In fact the R&A; ruled it illegal last year, well before the USGA got involved.

[luu5]

Originally Posted by Rulesman

In fact the R&A; ruled it illegal last year, well before the USGA got involved.

Anything on interweb about that one, please?

[Rulesman]

In response to a question to the R&A;, a poster on a UK site received and posted a ruling saying it was illegal. To the best of my recollection it was in November.