Wind Blows Ball Into Hole After Player Addresses It

[boogielicious]

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golf-central-blog/feng-makes-par-when-wind-blows-ball-hole/

How come this never happens to me?

Quote

Golf Central Blog

Feng makes par when wind blows ball in hole

By

Randall Mell

April 24, 2016, 11:53 pm

Facebook

DALY CITY, Calif. – Shanshan Feng said she never made a stranger par than she did Sunday at the Swinging Skirts Classic.

Feng thought she missed an 8-foot putt for par at the 17th hole. Her putt curled around the back of the cup, stopping 3 or 4 inches behind the hole. She then walked around to the back of the hole, to tap in, but as she leaned over to hover her putter over the ball, the wind blew the it in the hole.

Feng was within the 10-second window that the rules allow, and so it counted as the oddest hole out she has ever made.

“It was funny,” Feng said. “It was a good two balls away from the cup when it stopped. It took a really strong gust of wind to blow it in the hole. I’ve never had that happen before.”

The wind helped Feng break 80 on a brutally windy day. She shot 79 to tie for 27th.

 

 

[Braivo]

Does the player in the video below incur a stroke for addressing the ball then having it blow into the hole?

 

[saevel25]

They changed that rule in 2012. It doesn't matter if you addressed the ball or not.

If all evidence points to you not causing the ball to move when it has come to rest (see decision 18-2/0.5). Since the wind is not considered an "outside agency" you play the ball as it lies once it comes to rest again.

Since she did not make a stroke, which is the forward movement of the club with the intent to hit the ball, then the ball is deemed to have been holed out on her previous putt. 

 

[bkuehn1952]

Somewhat the reverse of what Billy Horschel experienced.

[Braivo]

50 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

They changed that rule in 2012. It doesn't matter if you addressed the ball or not.

If all evidence points to you not causing the ball to move when it has come to rest (see decision 18-2/0.5). Since the wind is not considered an "outside agency" you play the ball as it lies once it comes to rest again.

Since she did not make a stroke, which is the forward movement of the club with the intent to hit the ball, then the ball is deemed to have been holed out on her previous putt. 

 

Seems like a solid rule change. 

40 minutes ago, bkuehn1952 said:

Somewhat the reverse of what Billy Horschel experienced.

It begs the question then, what if she had marked the ball? Is that still a continuation of that stroke? What if she had marked it, replaced it, then had it blow in? Does that count as a stroke?

[saevel25]

8 minutes ago, Braivo said:

It begs the question then, what if she had marked the ball? Is that still a continuation of that stroke? What if she had marked it, replaced it, then had it blow in? Does that count as a stroke?

If she marked it, replaced the ball, and the wind blew the ball into the hole it would have been considered holed out on the previous stroke. The ball would be considered put back into play. Since wind is an outside agency you play it where it comes to rest. 

 

[Missouri Swede]

12 minutes ago, Braivo said:

It begs the question then, what if she had marked the ball? Is that still a continuation of that stroke? What if she had marked it, replaced it, then had it blow in? Does that count as a stroke?

 

2 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

If she marked it, replaced the ball, and the wind blew the ball into the hole it would have been considered holed out on the previous stroke. The ball would be considered put back into play. Since wind is an outside agency you play it where it comes to rest. 

Here's the decision for this:

Quote

20-3d/1

 Placed Ball Rolls into Hole

Q.A replaces his ball on the putting green three feet from the hole. Without doing anything to cause the ball to move, it rolls into the hole. Should the ball be replaced or is A deemed to have holed out with his previous stroke?

A.The answer depends on whether the ball, when replaced, came to rest on the spot on which it was placed before it started rolling. If it did, A is deemed to have holed out with his previous stroke. If not, A is required to replace the ball (Rule 20-3d). However, if the ball had been overhanging the hole when it was lifted, the provisions of Rule 16-2 would override those of Rule 20-3d. (Revised)

 

[Fourputt]

One question on interpretation of this rule:  Can her placing of the putter behind the ball be considered as her having caused it to move, even though the wind provided the motive power.  It was her act that disturbed the wind currents and caused the ball to move.

[saevel25]

Just now, Fourputt said:

One question on interpretation of this rule:  Can her placing of the putter behind the ball be considered as her having caused it to move, even though the wind provided the motive power.  It was her act that disturbed the wind currents and caused the ball to move.

If the wind was pushing the ball towards the hole and being at that short of distance I would say the putter would have blocked the wind from pushing the ball. Think of lighting a fire when it is windy out. You put your hand behind the flame to block the wind. That does not cause a big influx of wind that blows out the flame. 

To say she caused a change in the wind to push the ball is BS in my opinion. The USGA would agree with me on this one. It's more likely that the high winds alone caused her ball to be pushed into the hole. 

Quote

With reference to the considerations above, examples of situations where the weight of the evidence would indicate that the player did not cause the movement are:

On a very windy day, a player addresses the ball on the putting green. A short time later the ball moves slightly in the direction the wind is blowing. The strength and direction of the wind and the delay in the movement of the ball after the club was grounded indicate that factors other than the player are more likely than not to have caused the movement.

Even if the putter somehow caused the wind to change that it deflected the ball. It was still the wind that pushed the ball in, not her. 

[Fourputt]

40 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

If the wind was pushing the ball towards the hole and being at that short of distance I would say the putter would have blocked the wind from pushing the ball. Think of lighting a fire when it is windy out. You put your hand behind the flame to block the wind. That does not cause a big influx of wind that blows out the flame. 

To say she caused a change in the wind to push the ball is BS in my opinion. The USGA would agree with me on this one. It's more likely that the high winds alone caused her ball to be pushed into the hole. 

Even if the putter somehow caused the wind to change that it deflected the ball. It was still the wind that pushed the ball in, not her. 

In the case in the video, there was no time lapse.  It's obvious that the act of placing the putter behind the ball directly caused the ball to move, even though she never touched the ball.  It was her action that ultimately caused the movement.

Look at a NASCAR race.  Coming up behind a car can cause a loss of traction because of the change in the flow of air over the vehicle.  This is no different.  The presence of the putter created turbulence which caused the ball move.

I'm not arguing for a penalty, so you don't need to be defensive about it, just noting that maybe some additional clarification is needed.  I think that they need to more precisely define what is meant by "caused the ball to move"?  Similar to the definition of "directly attributable" when the ball moves while marking or replacing.

[Braivo]

16 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

In the case in the video, there was no time lapse.  It's obvious that the act of placing the putter behind the ball directly caused the ball to move, even though she never touched the ball.  It was her action that ultimately caused the movement.

Look at a NASCAR race.  Coming up behind a car can cause a loss of traction because of the change in the flow of air over the vehicle.  This is no different.  The presence of the putter created turbulence which caused the ball move.

I'm not arguing for a penalty, so you don't need to be defensive about it, just noting that maybe some additional clarification is needed.  I think that they need to more precisely define what is meant by "caused the ball to move"?  Similar to the definition of "directly attributable" when the ball moves while marking or replacing.

I agree, any disturbance in the airflow could shift the forces on the ball enough to make it move again. Air flowing over the putter would then come down more forcefully onto a different portion of the ball. 

[saevel25]

4 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

In the case in the video, there was no time lapse.  It's obvious that the act of placing the putter behind the ball directly caused the ball to move, even though she never touched the ball.  It was her action that ultimately caused the movement.

Or it could be totally coincidental. 

6 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

Look at a NASCAR race.  Coming up behind a car can cause a loss of traction because of the change in the flow of air over the vehicle.  This is no different.  The presence of the putter created turbulence which caused the ball move.

Lets look at this logically here. 

You have two high speed vehicles one creating a pressure between the vehicles that forces the other vehicle to lose control. Yet there are a few things working against a NASCAR vehicle. 

1. They are lightweight for the speed they are traveling at. 
2. They require spoilers to create down forces to keep them on the road at those high speeds. So their ground traction is always at the edge of losing control. 
3. They are moving at high speeds so any sudden change in momentum will create a big effect in the direction their car will want to go.

If you suddenly shift a 150 mph vehicle a few degrees offline. At that speed it will travel a great distance in a direction the driver didn't want it to go. 

Guess what, a golf ball is not a NASCAR vehicle.

You have Feng's putter moving not directly toward the ball like it would if she took a stroke, but the putter is moving at a very slow speed downward towards the ground more than towards the ball. The putter is not creating a pressure behind the ball.  

I am not buying your theory here. 

33 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

I'm not arguing for a penalty, so you don't need to be defensive about it, just noting that maybe some additional clarification is needed.  I think that they need to more precisely define what is meant by "caused the ball to move"?  Similar to the definition of "directly attributable" when the ball moves while marking or replacing.

I'm not defensive about the penalty issue. I just don't buy your weak use of logic that she somehow influenced the wind to create a pressure that would have caused the ball to move 5-6 inches. 

 

[Avalanche]

Okay, another question:  Let's say she was unsure of the rule, and the rules official on the spot didn't know the answer either.  (After all, this is sort of an unusual situation.)  Rather than holding up play while they called in other rules officials, could she then mark the spot of the ball, as near as she could guess, and go on to make a "provisional" putt?  And then let the rules officials sort it out once they'd done a bit of research? 

[Dormie1360]

2 hours ago, saevel25 said:

If she marked it, replaced the ball, and the wind blew the ball into the hole it would have been considered holed out on the previous stroke. The ball would be considered put back into play. Since wind is an outside agency you play it where it comes to rest. 

 

The above ruling is correct, however  a minor correction. 

Outside Agency

In match play, an "outside agency" is any agency other than either the player's or opponent's side, anycaddie of either side, any ball played by either side at the hole being played or any equipment of eitherside.

In stroke play, an outside agency is any agency other than the competitor's side, any caddie of the side, any ball played by the side at the hole being played or any equipment of the side.

An outside agency includes a referee, a marker, an observer and a forecaddie. Neither wind nor water is an outside agency.

 

 

[Braivo]

22 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Or it could be totally coincidental. 

Lets look at this logically here. 

You have two high speed vehicles one creating a pressure between the vehicles that forces the other vehicle to lose control. Yet there are a few things working against a NASCAR vehicle. 

1. They are lightweight for the speed they are traveling at. 
2. They require spoilers to create down forces to keep them on the road at those high speeds. So their ground traction is always at the edge of losing control. 
3. They are moving at high speeds so any sudden change in momentum will create a big effect in the direction their car will want to go.

If you suddenly shift a 150 mph vehicle a few degrees offline. At that speed it will travel a great distance in a direction the driver didn't want it to go. 

Guess what, a golf ball is not a NASCAR vehicle.

You have Feng's putter moving not directly toward the ball like it would if she took a stroke, but the putter is moving at a very slow speed downward towards the ground more than towards the ball. The putter is not creating a pressure behind the ball.  

I am not buying your theory here. 

I'm not defensive about the penalty issue. I just don't buy your weak use of logic that she somehow influenced the wind to create a pressure that would have caused the ball to move 5-6 inches. 

 

Have ever been in the city and noticed wind blowing harder as it comes over or between buildings? This is the displacement of the air creating greater intensity. Her putter become one of those buildings, presumably displacing air upward over her putter, where is will naturally force itself back down after to gets past it, creating greater intensity in a specific location, perhaps to nudge an already unstable ball into motion. 

See the pic below for an example of what I am talking about. Notice the air coming off the back of the car doesn't stay in a straight line? It dips downward to occupy the previously vacant space. Physics. This would change the angle of the wind blowing on her ball. Perhaps enough to cause it to move. 

[Fourputt]

4 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Or it could be totally coincidental. 

Lets look at this logically here. 

You have two high speed vehicles one creating a pressure between the vehicles that forces the other vehicle to lose control. Yet there are a few things working against a NASCAR vehicle. 

1. They are lightweight for the speed they are traveling at. 
2. They require spoilers to create down forces to keep them on the road at those high speeds. So their ground traction is always at the edge of losing control. 
3. They are moving at high speeds so any sudden change in momentum will create a big effect in the direction their car will want to go.

If you suddenly shift a 150 mph vehicle a few degrees offline. At that speed it will travel a great distance in a direction the driver didn't want it to go. 

Guess what, a golf ball is not a NASCAR vehicle.

You have Feng's putter moving not directly toward the ball like it would if she took a stroke, but the putter is moving at a very slow speed downward towards the ground more than towards the ball. The putter is not creating a pressure behind the ball.  

I am not buying your theory here. 

I'm not defensive about the penalty issue. I just don't buy your weak use of logic that she somehow influenced the wind to create a pressure that would have caused the ball to move 5-6 inches. 

 

You can't possibly make such a statement as if it was fact.  You have no evidence that such an effect did not occur.  In fact there is actually more evidence to support my contention than there is for yours - i.e, the wind was blowing and she moved the putter into a position behind the ball.  The sole of the putter could have funneled the air under it as it neared the ball, actually increasing the pressure.  Difficult to tell without wind tunnel testing.

[saevel25]

56 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

You can't possibly make such a statement as if it was fact.  You have no evidence that such an effect did not occur.

Your the one saying it did. The burden on proof is with you to prove it.

56 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

In fact there is actually more evidence to support my contention than there is for yours 

There isn't though. 

Your analogy with NASCAR, which is the foundation for your whole argument, only stands because they are NASCAR vehicles. Yet a golf ball at rest on the green is not even close to being the same situation. The dynamics of the situation are completely different. 

56 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

The sole of the putter could have funneled the air under it as it neared the ball, actually increasing the pressure. 

It wouldn't because you are not changing the pressure of the air under the putter. This isn't similar to a person shutting their window and getting a higher rate of air inflow due to the change in flux of the window. The reason behind that is because the walls around the window act in funneling air. The putter has no such benefit. It's in an open space.

This is an airplane wing with the measurement of winds before and after the wing.

http://www.langleyflyingschool.com/Pages/CPGS+4+Aerodynamics+and+Theory+of+Flight+Part+1.html

In an ideal situation the friction caused by the airflow along the wing is negligible. If that is true than the air speed before and after the wing are the same. If it isn't then the speed at the tail end would be slower do to friction. 

I could easily state that the wind speed off her putter is more likely to be slower due to it blocking the wind, putters are not aerodynamic, and also the wind flying across the sole and top of the putter being slowed down by friction. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_gradient

Quote

Simple explanation
Surface friction forces the surface wind to slow and turn near the surface of the Earth, blowing directly towards the low pressure, when compared to the winds in the nearly frictionless flow well above the Earth's surface.[7] This layer, where surface friction slows the wind and changes the wind direction, is known as the planetary boundary layer.

Any sort of friction caused by the surface of the earth and the putter will slow the wind down. 

There are more facts supporting she was blocking the wind than she was assisting the wind in blowing that ball. 

1 hour ago, Braivo said:

Have ever been in the city and noticed wind blowing harder as it comes over or between buildings? This is the displacement of the air creating greater intensity. Her putter become one of those buildings, presumably displacing air upward over her putter, where is will naturally force itself back down after to gets past it, creating greater intensity in a specific location, perhaps to nudge an already unstable ball into motion. 

See the pic below for an example of what I am talking about. Notice the air coming off the back of the car doesn't stay in a straight line? It dips downward to occupy the previously vacant space. Physics. This would change the angle of the wind blowing on her ball. Perhaps enough to cause it to move. 

That only happens because you have so many buildings it creates a wind tunnel. We are talking about one putter here. Not a line of multiple buildings. 

A putter would not dramatically change the direction of the wind.

Also, look at that video. Look at the leaf in the top center of the video. It blows in the direction of her short putt. She did not redirect the wind.

[Asheville]

2 hours ago, Avalanche said:

Okay, another question:  Let's say she was unsure of the rule, and the rules official on the spot didn't know the answer either.  (After all, this is sort of an unusual situation.)  Rather than holding up play while they called in other rules officials, could she then mark the spot of the ball, as near as she could guess, and go on to make a "provisional" putt?  And then let the rules officials sort it out once they'd done a bit of research? 

While it's true that the Rules cannot think of everything, they have it covered in your case. Assuming stroke play, Rule 3-3, Doubt as to Procedure, enables the player to play a second ball and then let the Committee sort it out later. (For match play, Rule 2-5 spells out a different remedy.)