• Announcements

    • iacas

      GAME GOLF Ryder Cup Contest   09/22/2016

      Join our GAME GOLF Ryder Cup Challenge to win an autographed GAME GOLF, a Pebble Steel watch, and many more great prizes!
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
bkuehn1952

Rotated Golf Ball

24 posts in this topic

A while back someone asked a question about a ball moving.  Before I get into the question, let's look at a definition.  The Rules defines the situation as follows:

Move or Moved:

A ball is deemed to have “ moved ’’ if it leaves its position and comes to rest in any other place.

Many of us have probably lightly touched a ball with our clubhead and had the ball rock a bit.  I believe the USGA uses the term "oscillate" to describing the slight wiggle.  As long as the ball does not move from its spot and merely oscillates, the ball is not considered to have been moved and there is no penalty (Decision 18/2).

So now the question.  A player finds his ball in some pine needles.  He attempts to pull a needle away from the ball.  The ball rotates as the pine needle is removed but remains in the original spot.  In removing the pine needle did the player move his ball, incur a one stroke penalty and now must replace it?  Or is he in the clear because the ball remained in the same spot, although rotated from its original orientation?

I asked the USGA about this and received a response.  I would like to see whether everyone's thinking follows the USGA's logic.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

Are you saying that the ball rotated about a vertical axis (i.e. the center of gravity of the golf ball did not change position)?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I don't have an answer, but I find it hard to believe that a loose impediment which is that firmly in contact with the ball would not cause some movement, even if that movement is straight down.  It seems to me that the player would have be absolutely certain that there was no other movement, and still it's getting into a shady area.  Even on the putting green, the player is not allowed to rotate the ball without marking it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I don't have an answer, but I find it hard to believe that a loose impediment which is that firmly in contact with the ball would not cause some movement, even if that movement is straight down.  It seems to me that the player would have be absolutely certain that there was no other movement, and still it's getting into a shady area.  Even on the putting green, the player is not allowed to rotate the ball without marking it.

Rotating the ball on the putting green without marking it is a different issue imo.  There is a penalty under 18-2a for that for purposely touching and/or moving the ball.

In the case of the original post, I agree with you that it's a "shady area" and that it's probable that the ball did move (as defined).  This may be a situation where doubt is resolved against the player, incurring a penalty stroke and must replace the ball.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by rogolf

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I don't have an answer, but I find it hard to believe that a loose impediment which is that firmly in contact with the ball would not cause some movement, even if that movement is straight down.  It seems to me that the player would have be absolutely certain that there was no other movement, and still it's getting into a shady area.  Even on the putting green, the player is not allowed to rotate the ball without marking it.

Rotating the ball on the putting green without marking it is a different issue imo.  There is a penalty under 18-2a for that for purposely touching and/or moving the ball.

In the case of the original post, I agree with you that it's a "shady area" and that it's probable that the ball did move (as defined).  This may be a situation where doubt is resolved against the player, incurring a penalty stroke and must replace the ball.

I know the touching prohibition, I was just using it as an example of how close to a breach the player's act was getting him.  I also agree that this is a case where that doubt must come into play.  If the ball moves even a millimeter, he incurs the penalty, and in order to replace the ball, he almost has to replace the loose impediment, since it almost had to provide some support to have rotated the ball as the LI was removed.

I'll put it this way, if I had taken such an action, I'd have been forced to call a penalty on myself.  However, I would never have taken such a  risk in the first place.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I know the touching prohibition, I was just using it as an example of how close to a breach the player's act was getting him.  I also agree that this is a case where that doubt must come into play.  If the ball moves even a millimeter, he incurs the penalty, and in order to replace the ball, he almost has to replace the loose impediment, since it almost had to provide some support to have rotated the ball as the LI was removed.

I'll put it this way, if I had taken such an action, I'd have been forced to call a penalty on myself.  However, I would never have taken such a  risk in the first place.

Since the loose impediment is not part of the lie, it doesn't have to be replaced.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by rogolf

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I know the touching prohibition, I was just using it as an example of how close to a breach the player's act was getting him.  I also agree that this is a case where that doubt must come into play.  If the ball moves even a millimeter, he incurs the penalty, and in order to replace the ball, he almost has to replace the loose impediment, since it almost had to provide some support to have rotated the ball as the LI was removed.

I'll put it this way, if I had taken such an action, I'd have been forced to call a penalty on myself.  However, I would never have taken such a  risk in the first place.

Since the loose impediment is not part of the lie, it doesn't have to be replaced.

How can the ball be replaced if the impediment was part of its support?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

To respond to the question from iacas, yes, the ball appeared to maintain the same the same position while rotating around a horizontal axis (like a wheel spinning on ice).

I am impressed by the discussion and analysis since it follows closely with what the USGA stated.  They told me that the presumption would be that the ball moved downward even if the loose impediment was not removed and the downward movement was not visible to the naked eye (I am paraphrasing and expanding a bit).  Even if it looks like the ball just rotated, one should take a 1 stroke penalty for moving the ball.

Frankly, I am not sure how one would best go about replacing the ball when it looks like it did not move.  Where would one move it to?  If the pine needle were removed, replacing the pine needle might be appropriate but realistically, in performing that process one is probably changing the lie even more.  Probably the best course is to leave the ball alone to begin with and avoid the penalty and all the scenarios that might follow.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by bkuehn1952

... So now the question.  A player finds his ball in some pine needles.  He attempts to pull a needle away from the ball.  The ball rotates as the pine needle is removed but remains in the original spot.  In removing the pine needle did the player move his ball, incur a one stroke penalty and now must replace it?  Or is he in the clear because the ball remained in the same spot, although rotated from its original orientation? ...

Not to dodge the question, but I played off a lot of pine needle beds down in Oklahoma. My learned response was, don't touch anything, the ball may roll noticeably. Just hit the ball and see what happens.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by bkuehn1952

Frankly, I am not sure how one would best go about replacing the ball when it looks like it did not move.  Where would one move it to?  If the pine needle were removed, replacing the pine needle might be appropriate but realistically, in performing that process one is probably changing the lie even more.  Probably the best course is to leave the ball alone to begin with and avoid the penalty and all the scenarios that might follow.

I think your last sentence is the best advice.  I think the definition of a ball moving is written the way it is so a ball may oscillate without penalty.  Taking the definition literally, I think you would be hard pressed to move a ball by some outside force and prove it moved back to the exact same spot.  (three dimensionally).  If a loose impediment rotated a ball, I would agree it probably was offering some type of support.

This decision may be of some interest.

20-3d/3

Ball in Rough Moves Downward When Addressed; Ball Will Not Remain at Rest When Replaced

Q. A player's ball is sitting up in the rough about three inches above the ground. He addresses the ball. It moves downward about two inches and comes to rest at Point X. The player attempts to replace the ball as required by Rule 18-2b , but the ball falls downward to Point X. Under Rule 20-3d , he again attempts to replace the ball, with the same result. The player must now place the ball at the nearest spot not nearer the hole where it can be placed at rest - Rule 20-3d .

If the nearest spot where the ball will remain at rest is Point X, must the player place the ball there, even though that point is vertically below the original lie?

A. Yes.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

first of all no-one should take that risk as i feel it just isnt worth the penalty!! also if u see ANY movement in the ball then it has moved - its been seen and its a penalty for sure - something like that if i didnt call a penalty on myself itd play on my mind the rest of the round and ruin my mood/day etc.... but then again id never move something so close to the ball in the first place!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by billatthebar

first of all no-one should take that risk as i feel it just isnt worth the penalty!! also if u see ANY movement in the ball then it has moved - its been seen and its a penalty for sure - something like that if i didnt call a penalty on myself itd play on my mind the rest of the round and ruin my mood/day etc.... but then again id never move something so close to the ball in the first place!

Ball is allowed to oscillate, though.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by luu5

Quote:

Originally Posted by billatthebar

first of all no-one should take that risk as i feel it just isnt worth the penalty!! also if u see ANY movement in the ball then it has moved - its been seen and its a penalty for sure - something like that if i didnt call a penalty on myself itd play on my mind the rest of the round and ruin my mood/day etc.... but then again id never move something so close to the ball in the first place!

Ball is allowed to oscillate, though.

That had already been mentioned.  Just be sure that it really is just oscillating.   Once again, any doubt must be resolved against the player.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

This type of rule should be enforced based upon the players' determination with the human eye at the time it happens. If the player sees it and thinks the ball did not move and a competitor has no objection, then that is what should be the final decision. If players are not sure what happened, then they could ask the committee to review it.

Perfect example is the penalty to Corey Pavin in last year's Sr. Open. He new he touched the ball, he was lookig directly at it, but thought that it had come to rest in the same spot, so that was his determination.

Later through the review of video, it was determined that the ball had actually moved to a new location, even though it was imperceptible to the human eye at the time it happened. This penalty in my mind was absurd.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by szaino

This type of rule should be enforced based upon the players' determination with the human eye at the time it happens. If the player sees it and thinks the ball did not move and a competitor has no objection, then that is what should be the final decision. If players are not sure what happened, then they could ask the committee to review it.

Perfect example is the penalty to Corey Pavin in last year's Sr. Open. He new he touched the ball, he was lookig directly at it, but thought that it had come to rest in the same spot, so that was his determination.

Later through the review of video, it was determined that the ball had actually moved to a new location, even though it was imperceptible to the human eye at the time it happened. This penalty in my mind was absurd.

So where would you draw the line?  It's okay if it moves 1/8" but it's a penalty if it moves 1/4"?  1/2"?  The rule is worded exactly as it has to be to be workable.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by Fourputt

So where would you draw the line?  It's okay if it moves 1/8" but it's a penalty if it moves 1/4"?  1/2"?  The rule is worded exactly as it has to be to be workable.


I would enforce the rule exactly as it is supposed to be. If Corey Pavin thought the ball did not move based on looking at it from a few feet away, then that would be the final determination. If he thought it moved 1/8" or a 1/16", then the determination would be that it moved.

What I am saying is, if with your own eyes, on the course, at the time of it happening you can not perceive the movement, then that should be how it is determined.

I am against using high speed video cameras, zoomed in, played in slow motion, and as in Pavin's case, the ball may have moved literally +- a dimple, which the human eye couldn't even pick up, and then assessing a penalty based upon that.

We shouldn't be employing technology after the fact for such minute things which have no effect on any outcome.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well where do we draw the line?? if u notice even the slightest wobble then the chances of the ball being TO THE ATOM , EXACTLY  where it was previously then it has moved! so if we can use slow motion cameras for this should we be able to use electron microscopy to be absolutely sure??? lol i know this is ludicrous and that is exactly my point....if you see it move then it moved

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by szaino

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

So where would you draw the line?  It's okay if it moves 1/8" but it's a penalty if it moves 1/4"?  1/2"?  The rule is worded exactly as it has to be to be workable.

I would enforce the rule exactly as it is supposed to be. If Corey Pavin thought the ball did not move based on looking at it from a few feet away, then that would be the final determination. If he thought it moved 1/8" or a 1/16", then the determination would be that it moved.

What I am saying is, if with your own eyes, on the course, at the time of it happening you can not perceive the movement, then that should be how it is determined.

I am against using high speed video cameras, zoomed in, played in slow motion, and as in Pavin's case, the ball may have moved literally +- a dimple, which the human eye couldn't even pick up, and then assessing a penalty based upon that.

We shouldn't be employing technology after the fact for such minute things which have no effect on any outcome.

That is covered too.  Any doubt is necessarily resolved against the player.   No way for every ruling to suit everyone's opinion of right and wrong.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Lowest Score Wins
  • Posts

    • Willett's brother tried to be funny, but he was way offline. Bad effort in dry humor.. He should've not written anything like that. It's just going to make things harder for his brother and I'm sure Danny W. is gonna hear it from the crowds.
    • Willett's brother is not a part of the Ryder cup team. Willett made appologies: http://m.bbc.com/sport/golf/37500790
    • I like it. Especially compared to nearly all past US Ryder Cup kits. Actually before I dish out too much praise, do they have a huge Stars and Stripes flag emblazoned on the back?
    • I would say it depends on what club you're talking about. For drivers I would say that the best performing drivers of all time have been made within the last five years. Aerodynamics, material science, and the proliferation of launch monitors and data driven design have resulted in improvements across the board in distance and forgiveness as of late. I know that I personally saw a decent improvement on my G10 when I switched to a G30, in that I gained between 10 and 15 yards without sacrificing accuracy. This is on the high end of what aerodynamics can provide though, simply because higher swing speeds receive a greater benefit from decreased drag. Depending on the individual you may not see much difference so long as the driver itself was made within the last ten years or so. For irons I would be inclined to say that the main difference in the irons of yesteryear and the irons of today is forgiveness. The irons made today are much easier to hit than previous irons, simply because they aren't as drastically punishing on mis-hits as the old blades. The PING Eye2 irons seemed to be the first "widespread" GI iron that sparked the trend towards irons that were easier for the layman to hit. That being said, I found my s55 irons (their "blade" from several years ago) to be more forgiving than the Eye2's. Based on that and observations from other clubs I have hit I would say the average golfer would be best suited by irons made within the last 10 to 15 years that are in good condition with sharp grooves. If you play muscleback irons though, there's pretty much zero difference between modern "true" musclebacks and those of yore, though the current muscle-cavity irons (like the iBlade and MP-15) will likely be at least a bit easier to hit than the older blades while maintaining a similar style.  Wedges are the only thing that I would argue the "latest and greatest" provides a tangible benefit for. The reasoning for this is entirely different however, in that it's based solely off the condition of the grooves in older wedges. As wedges grow old, and get used, the grooves wear to the point that there becomes a noticeable performance difference - especially when playing out of the rough. For this reason alone do I say that the average golfer (assuming they golf at least once a week during the golfing season) is best suited by wedges no older than two or three years old.  Putters are the odd man out here. I don't think it matters in the slightest when your putter was manufactured, so long as you keep a reasonable grip on it so that it doesn't slip out of your hands. I personally am a fan of the newer milled putters for the feel they provide, but it doesn't mean I couldn't probably putt nearly as well with an original Anser putter in the same style. I think the average golfer is best suited by whatever putter style and features allow them to consistently roll the ball along their target line, with no age requirement. In summary, considering the advancement of technology, I would feel comfortable putting these "maximum age caps" on equipment for the average weekend golfer to get the most out of his/her game: Drivers: ~10 years old or newer Irons: ~15 years old or newer Wedges: ~3 years old or newer Putter: Whatever works best for you That being said, you may still enjoy the game with any kind of equipment out there. I just think that equipment that follows these guidelines will let the average weekend golfer get about as much as they can out of their game without necessarily breaking the bank. Like @iacas said, you may find incremental improvements by purchasing the R1 over an old G5 but the question then becomes whether or not this improvement is worth the price difference. This question can only be answered by the person buying the club. It can't be denied, however, that a driver from the 1960's will be severely outclassed by the G5 and the R1, making either of them a much better choice than the 1960's driver. Interestingly enough, I have had the desire to go the opposite way for a while now. I bought the s55's my last go around, and I'm thinking that my next set of irons will be a more "traditional" muscleback iron (since the s55 is mostly a CB), along the likes of the MP-4 irons by Mizuno. I hit the ball consistently enough that I don't care about the lack of forgiveness, and I believe that the wonderful look and feel of those irons, along with the little bit of extra vertical control (can thin it slightly to make punch shots even easier) would offset whatever I lose in forgiveness. I know that I would most certainly never go to an iron like the AP2, the G, or the M2. The chunky look of the club (along with the offset) gets into my head nowadays and makes me feel uncomfortable standing over the ball in a manner similar to how I used to be intimidated by the look of blades at address. I would gain forgiveness, but at the price of distance and trajectory control - an unacceptable trade for me considering I value distance and trajectory control much more highly than forgiveness.
    • My newest clubs are pretty old. Maybe 2006? I don't really remember. The other day, just for the heck of it,  I played using my old Bazooka Iron Woods. (2i-LW) Shot my normal score. Those Ironwoods are probably 15-16 years old. I don't think at this stage of my life, that a new set would make that much difference. 
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. mahariji_slice
      mahariji_slice
      (35 years old)
  • Blog Entries