Jump to content
IGNORED

Is This A Penalty ?


Jason Smith
Note: This thread is 2914 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Jason Smith said:

ball moved on address.

 

Quote

18-2/0.5

Weight of Evidence Standard for Determining Whether Player Caused His Ball to Move

When a player's ball at rest moves, the cause of the ball's movement has to be assessed. In many situations, the answer will be obvious: the player may have kicked the ball inadvertently, dropped his equipment on it, or otherwise clearly caused it to move; alternatively, the player may have taken no action near the ball and something else (such as a spectator or animal) clearly caused it to move.

In other situations, however, there may be some question as to why the ball moved - e.g., because it is less than certain that the player's actions near the ball caused it to move, or because multiple factors were present that potentially might have caused the ball to move. All relevant information must be considered and the weight of the evidence must be evaluated (Decision 34-3/9). Depending on the circumstances, the relevant considerations may include, but are not limited to:

The nature of any actions taken near the ball (e.g., movement of loose impediments, practice swings, grounding club, taking stance, etc.),

Time elapsed between such actions and the movement of the ball,

The lie of the ball before it moved (e.g., on a closely-mown area, perched on longer grass, on a surface imperfection, etc.),

The conditions of the ground near the ball (e.g., degree of slope, presence of surface irregularities, etc.), and

Wind, rain and other weather conditions.

If the weight of evidence indicates that it is more likely than not that the player caused the ball to move, even though that conclusion is not free from doubt, the player incurs a one-stroke penalty under Rule 18-2 and the ball must be replaced. Otherwise, the player incurs no penalty and the ball is played as it lies unless some other Rule applies (e.g., Rule 18-1).

 

  • Upvote 1

Matt Dougherty, P.E.
 fasdfa dfdsaf 

What's in My Bag
Driver; :pxg: 0311 Gen 5,  3-Wood: 
:titleist: 917h3 ,  Hybrid:  :titleist: 915 2-Hybrid,  Irons: Sub 70 TAIII Fordged
Wedges: :edel: (52, 56, 60),  Putter: :edel:,  Ball: :snell: MTB,  Shoe: :true_linkswear:,  Rangfinder: :leupold:
Bag: :ping:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

5 hours ago, Jason Smith said:

ball moved on address.

Prior to 1 January, if your ball moved after address, you were deemed to have moved it an penalised regardless. That rule has now been removed. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Administrator
5 hours ago, Rulesman said:

Prior to 1 January, if your ball moved after address, you were deemed to have moved it an penalised regardless.

Unless it had not yet been put into play, of course.

That part still remains: you can move your ball by bumping it off the tee with your driver, but you're still not penalized.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

On 5/5/2016 at 10:14 AM, iacas said:

Unless it had not yet been put into play, of course.

That part still remains: you can move your ball by bumping it off the tee with your driver, but you're still not penalized.

Not just that, but you can actually start the process of swinging, change your mind and try to hold up your swing, fail to do so (i.e. actually make contact with the ball), and still have the ability to re-tee without penalty. In my experience, it's one of the most misunderstood rules in golf, even among serious golfers.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

You can even pull up and whiff the ball as long as you don't make contact if there was no intent to hit the ball and call it a practice swing.... see Kevin Na's swing issues a few years ago.

Julia

:callaway:  :cobra:    :seemore:  :bushnell:  :clicgear:  :adidas:  :footjoy:

Spoiler

Driver: Callaway Big Bertha w/ Fubuki Z50 R 44.5"
FW: Cobra BiO CELL 14.5 degree; 
Hybrids: Cobra BiO CELL 22.5 degree Project X R-flex
Irons: Cobra BiO CELL 5 - GW Project X R-Flex
Wedges: Cobra BiO CELL SW, Fly-Z LW, 64* Callaway PM Grind.
Putter: 48" Odyssey Dart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

11 hours ago, Big C said:

Not just that, but you can actually start the process of swinging, change your mind and try to hold up your swing, fail to do so (i.e. actually make contact with the ball), and still have the ability to re-tee without penalty. In my experience, it's one of the most misunderstood rules in golf, even among serious golfers.

That is not correct.

14/1.5

 

Intent to Strike Ball Ceases During Downswing; Club Not Stopped But Path of Clubhead Altered to Avoid Striking Ball

Q.A player begins his downswing with the intention of striking the ball but decides during the downswing not to strike the ball. The player is unable to stop the club before it reaches the ball, but he is able to swing intentionally over the top of the ball. Is the player deemed to have made a stroke?

A.No. The player is considered to have checked his downswing voluntarily by altering the path of his downswing and missing the ball even though the swing carried the clubhead beyond the ball.

If the player had not successfully checked his downswing (i.e., he had struck the ball), he is considered to have made a stroke.

Any doubt regarding the player's intent must be resolved against the player.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, Martyn W said:

That is not correct.

14/1.5

 

Intent to Strike Ball Ceases During Downswing; Club Not Stopped But Path of Clubhead Altered to Avoid Striking Ball

Q.A player begins his downswing with the intention of striking the ball but decides during the downswing not to strike the ball. The player is unable to stop the club before it reaches the ball, but he is able to swing intentionally over the top of the ball. Is the player deemed to have made a stroke?

A.No. The player is considered to have checked his downswing voluntarily by altering the path of his downswing and missing the ball even though the swing carried the clubhead beyond the ball.

If the player had not successfully checked his downswing (i.e., he had struck the ball), he is considered to have made a stroke.

Any doubt regarding the player's intent must be resolved against the player.

Right, that's different than bumping the ball off the tee unintentially.  Nice job!

:adams: / :tmade: / :edel: / :aimpoint: / :ecco: / :bushnell: / :gamegolf: / 

Eyad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

You're right. I was remembering a tournament ruling in favor of Paula Creamer in an identical situation to the one I described. I couldn't find anything online, other than a past thread on this site that seemed to indicate the rules official got the ruling wrong. 

Thanks for clarifying the actual rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • 2 weeks later...

It depends if you're on the putting green, the tee box in play in fairway or where the ball landed on the course. I'd say if you're on the green the rules would be different from the fairway or the tee box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


8 hours ago, jmitri said:

It depends if you're on the putting green, the tee box in play in fairway or where the ball landed on the course. I'd say if you're on the green the rules would be different from the fairway or the tee box.

If the ball is in play, it makes no difference where it is - the Rule (18-2) applies everywhere. 

btw when discussing Rules it is helpful to use proper terms. It is the' teeing ground', not tee box; 'through the green', not fairway (in this context). I know this sounds pedantic, but a lot of people want to look things up, which is frustrating when searching for terms that do not appear in the index or definitions (pin, cup, sandtrap etc.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Note: This thread is 2914 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

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


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-15%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope.
  • Popular Now

  • Posts

    • https://static1.squarespace.com/static/603d222df4a6a57df7ef3e29/t/663cdba5d89e3a1848dab8d1/1715264422455/US_DIS_ILND_1_24cv3749_d34676497e293_COMPLAINT_filed_by_SuperSpeed_Golf_LLC_Jury_Demand.pdf The full complaint is there, but  basically, SuperSpeed (SS*) is claiming the Stack System (SS*) Stack System’s [sic] produces inflated metrics later used to, [sic] mislead and deceive consumers. Stack System’s marketing materials inflate apparent swing speed and distance gains through selective presentment of data without qualification that purported gains are not the result, in whole or part, of its training protocol and products. * Yes, I'm joking about abbreviating both "SS." SuperSpeed wants: A judgment that the Stack System has disseminated false and/or misleading information in violation of federal and Illinois law. The deletion of all false advertising distributed and recall of all packaging containing false advertising and a requirement that Stack System issue notices (written or otherwise) to that effect to all current distributors and retailers of its products and all distributors with whom Stack System has done business in the past eighteen months. Written confirmation within 30 days of an injunction detailing the manner and form in which Stack System has complied. An order that Stack System disseminate corrective advertising informing consumers, the trade, and the public of Stack System’s unlawful conduct. 3X all profits received by Stack System as a result of its unlawful actions. 3X all damages sustained by SuperSpeed (as a result of Stack System’s actions) The cost of the action All reasonable attorney fees All other relief to which SuperSpeed are entitled and such other or additional relief as just and proper. Oy.
    • I'm not doing this for the hundred and twentieth time. Sorry in advance, but you get the massively abridged version. Those guys also benefited from the weaker/shallower fields. Also, Watson's career doesn't overlap with Jack's like many think it did. Tom is nearly a decade younger. Jack won only like four majors only after Tom won his first. And Tom won more British Opens than he did all three of the other majors combined, as it was his specialty (not Jack's). Arnie's career similarly doesn't overlap Jack's as much as many think.   Jack would also tell you Tiger was the better golfer.
    • Weaker depth of fields for sure. Some of the top level guys with Jack were pretty awesome. Tom Watson had the lead on the 72nd hole of the 2009 British Open, an event where Tiger missed the cut. Old Tom was almost 60 years old. Jack himself at age 58 finished Top 10 at The 1998 Masters and scored better than Tiger, who won The Masters by 12 shots just a year before that.   The success of both Tom & Jack in older age gives some hope that maybe Tiger can find the magic again at some point. He’s still trying to figure out how to build the stamina for 72 holes after the leg injury. I would love to see him jump on the leaderboard in the coming years. I know a lot of people have given up on him at this point, but that was also true from 2014 to 2017 with the back injuries. He had a hell of a resurgence in 2018 & 2019. Would be fun to see it again. 
    • Perceptive rules question by caddie unlocks Tour pro’s ‘dead zone’ relief A perceptive rules question by Xander Schauffele’s caddie, Austin Kaiser, unlocked “dead zone” relief during the Wells Fargo Championship.
    • I ran across an interesting new clip, Johnson Wagner went into that spot with the Referee who allowed the relief.  Apparently there was a perfectly reasonable shot to be made, as Johnson clearly demonstrated, so relief from the TIO was perfectly appropriate.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...