PGA Tour Players Not Marking Balls when In Position to Assist Another Player, #Backstopping

[rehmwa]

2 hours ago, boogielicious said:

I saw it. The announcers explained it exactly as you've stated. Finau would have had to wait a couple of minutes for the guy to get down to mark.

And frankly, the announcers were acting way too scandalized by this.  Even after they figured out the timeline showed it was appropriate.

No collusion, no issue.

[Golfingdad]

2 hours ago, DeadMan said:

If I'm a fellow competitor and I just missed out on $100,000 because of that, I'd be okay with waiting a minute for that ball to be marked. 

OK.  That still doesn't mean that this is an issue, and in fact, it's actually OT for this thread.  The player (whoever he was) didn't leave his ball there to assist Finau - because he still wasn't at the green yet when Finau played.  Entirely within the rules and, in fact, sort of against the rules for Finau to wait.  Right?  I mean, we're always on about pace of play and you're only allowed x amount of seconds to hit once it's your turn before you're warned, so why would Finau intentionally incur a bad time just to allow himself to be disadvantaged?  It makes no sense, and I'm guessing you'd be hard pressed to find a player, even Chesson Hadley, who would say differently.

[nevets88]

I don't watch as much golf anymore, but it feels to me as if it happens more often than Justin Thomas indicates?

Quote

In case you haven't been watching, this is the now-regular practice where golf balls are left down on a green unless it's in the path to the hole, with various motives and theories as to why this has become practice instead of players simply marking their ball to protect the field. Speed of play is cited as the reasoning.

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/randall-mell/backstopping-practice-needs-be-stopped/

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2017/10/8/today-in-backstopping-finau-saves-a-shot-thomas-says-its-his.html

 

 

[JxQx]

Seems like a non issue with how infrequent it happens.

[DeadMan]

22 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

OK.  That still doesn't mean that this is an issue, and in fact, it's actually OT for this thread.  The player (whoever he was) didn't leave his ball there to assist Finau - because he still wasn't at the green yet when Finau played.  Entirely within the rules and, in fact, sort of against the rules for Finau to wait.  Right?  I mean, we're always on about pace of play and you're only allowed x amount of seconds to hit once it's your turn before you're warned, so why would Finau intentionally incur a bad time just to allow himself to be disadvantaged?  It makes no sense, and I'm guessing you'd be hard pressed to find a player, even Chesson Hadley, who would say differently.

Kokrak's shot was 32 yards away from the hole. If he marked it, it would have added maybe 15 seconds. 32 yards isn't all that far away, either. That could be right around the green, depending on how big the green is and where the hole is. 15 seconds is nothing in a PGA Tour event. If he was 100 yards away or something like that, then I'd buy this argument.

Finau was well within his rights to play, sure. But that misses the point. It's up to Kokrak to mark his ball to protect the rest of the field.

To me, the standard should be: if you would mark it in match play, mark it in stroke play. The problem is that it's an unwritten/unspoken agreement on the PGA Tour to not mark balls when they could help. At best, that is a violation of the spirit of the rules. I'd argue they are actually violating the rules, which don't require an express agreement. And the reason it's against the rules is because of this exact situation. Kokrak took money out of the pocket of Phil and Chesson Hadley by not marking.

Sort of OT, but I wonder what Chesson Hadley thinks about this. He just got back on the PGA Tour from the Web.com Tour, and he will probably need every cent and rankings point to retain his card.

[DeadMan]

We have a thread about this in Tour Talk:

 

[misty_mountainhop]

No controversy as far as I can see. There's no requirement to mark a ball, at all, unless a playing partner/opponent asks you to. The chances of Finau hitting that were pretty small, so a bit of an extreme example maybe?

Could be wrong, but I think I remember Ballesteros (maybe in an RC match or something) actually stopping his opponent marking a ball that was near the hole and just outside the line of his putt. Don't think he hit it, but used it as an alignment aid for where to start his putt.

[Groucho Valentine]

19 minutes ago, JxQx said:

Seems like a non issue with how infrequent it happens.

Yeah, i agree. From the video, for example, Finau could take that shot 50 times from that lie and that may be the only time he would hit that other ball. You certainly cant plan that.. Players not marking their ball when on the green when its off line has never bothered me at all. I think it does speed up the game a bit. When in the odd chance that a ball not marked is an aid to you, then i guess thats just dumb luck. 

[iacas]

On 10/9/2017 at 1:01 AM, Golfingdad said:

Entirely legit.

Let's look at that…

On 10/9/2017 at 10:00 AM, rehmwa said:

And frankly, the announcers were acting way too scandalized by this.  Even after they figured out the timeline showed it was appropriate.

No collusion, no issue.

I don't agree.

23 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

Entirely within the rules and, in fact, sort of against the rules for Finau to wait.

No.

If the fellow competitor wanted to mark the ball, he doesn't have to race against a clock if it's reasonable to want to mark it.

23 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

I mean, we're always on about pace of play and you're only allowed x amount of seconds to hit once it's your turn before you're warned, so why would Finau intentionally incur a bad time just to allow himself to be disadvantaged?

They weren't on the clock (so they weren't being timed), and it's not "your turn to play" if you're waiting for a fellow competitor to mark their ball. Both counts are wrong there.

23 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

It makes no sense, and I'm guessing you'd be hard pressed to find a player, even Chesson Hadley, who would say differently.

The announcers are former players, so there's a start.

---

Also note that the Rules of Golf are pretty damn clear on this (generally speaking, not necessarily related directly to Tony Finau):

Quote

22/7 Ball Assisting Fellow-Competitor on Putting Green; Procedure for Referee If Competitor Does Not Lift Ball

Q.In stroke play, a competitor's ball is in a position to assist the play of a fellow-competitor and the competitor is in a position to lift the ball under Rule 22-1 without delaying the fellow-competitor's play. However, the competitor does not take any action to invoke the Rule. Would a referee be justified in intervening and requesting the competitor to invoke the Rule to protect himself and the rest of the field?

A.Yes. If the competitor were to object, there would be strong evidence of an agreement not to lift the ball for the purpose of assisting the fellow-competitor in breach of Rule 22-1. The referee would be justified in so advising the competitors involved and warning that failure to lift the ball would result in disqualification under Rule 22-1.

A referee, in stroke play, can compel a player to mark. That's awfully strong evidence for how strongly the Rules of Golf treat this situation.

---

Here's the problem, generally speaking…

• If this was the Ryder Cup, you're damn certain the fellow competitor would have made clear that they were going to mark the ball before Final played.
• If the ball was short of the hole on Finau's line, he'd have probably had it marked, too (unless it was such a dangerous downhill shot that being short would still be helpful).

That's in response to someone posting the Final thing, and you have the player of the year saying "it's his right" to hit with a ball that assists him in his play.

That's incorrect, because if it were true then someone who said "I'm gonna mark that" before he plays would be denying him a right.

This is a growing issue on the PGA Tour, and who knows how many times we DON'T see it on television.

Nick Faldo and Paul Azinger would have marked. Greg Norman would have marked. Nick Price. Nicklaus, probably. Hogan.

PGA Tour players are not protecting the field. They're colluding.

A comment I just read:

Quote

I attended a USGA/PGA 4 day Rules school in 2010. One of my classmates was a PGA Tour player who was preparing to go into TV announcing. The class was discussing Rule 22 - ball that may interfere with or assist another player. This tour player said to the class that if a player made an effort to mark his ball on the green because he thought it might assist another player "nobody would speak to him again in the locker room."

That's pretty damning evidence.

Absent all the other evidence, @Golfingdad, sure this one could probably slip by. But it's yet another example in a pattern, and as such, supports the case.

---

On 10/9/2017 at 1:01 AM, Golfingdad said:

Once his partner hit that shot he was already ready to go and his partner was still 70-80 yards away from the green. 

That's a 40-second walk, and that's just at an average person's walking speed. The average person is shorter than a PGA Tour player and, you know, not at all in a hurry to do something like mark a ball.

Also, time to mark a ball doesn't count against a player. Players are allowed - required, even - to play within the Rules. That's why even if you're out of position and on the clock, you get five minutes to look for your golf ball.

I also doubt that Finau was settled into the bunker ready to play immediately after that shot was hit. And even if he had, if the fellow competitor said "I'm gonna mark that" he'd have to wait, within the Rules, for him to mark it. See 3-4/1.

27 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

Kokrak's shot was 32 yards away from the hole.

34 yards, but certainly not the 70 or 80 that @Golfingdad says the announcers said. Does that change your opinion, Drew?

27 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

Finau was well within his rights to play, sure. But that misses the point. It's up to Kokrak to mark his ball to protect the rest of the field.

Yet he would be shunned in the locker room if he did that, because the ongoing and increasing levels of entitlement and "we play by OUR rules" sentiment on the PGA Tour is doing that… increasing.

27 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

To me, the standard should be: if you would mark it in match play, mark it in stroke play. The problem is that it's an unwritten/unspoken agreement on the PGA Tour to not mark balls when they could help. At best, that is a violation of the spirit of the rules. I'd argue they are actually violating the rules, which don't require an express agreement. And the reason it's against the rules is because of this exact situation. Kokrak took money out of the pocket of Phil and Chesson Hadley by not marking.

Agreed.

---

This is an ongoing thing that I hope the USGA/R&A are looking into, because it's growing worse and worse, and more and more players are seeing it as a "right."

Edit to Add:

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/randall-mell/backstopping-practice-needs-be-stopped/

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2017/10/9/mell-backstopping-must-stop-pga-tour-must-intervene.html

[Fourputt]

Some people just need controversy to justify their existence.  This is a non issue.

[DeadMan]

22 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

---

This is an ongoing thing that I hope the USGA/R&A are looking into, because it's growing worse and worse, and more and more players are seeing it as a "right."

Do they need to look into this, though? To me, it seems like a problem that could be fixed by the PGA Tour's Rules Committee without the USGA or R&A doing anything.

Quote

In stroke play, if the Committee determines that competitors have agreed not to lift a ball that might assist any competitor, they are disqualified.

All the committee would have to do is determine that such an agreement exists. It doesn't say that it has to be a verbal agreement or anything like that.

I suppose the USGA and R&A could issue a decision that expands what an agreement could be. But it seems simpler to just have the PGA Tour enforce the rules as written. That would require a backbone, though, so...

Edited October 10, 2017 by DeadMan

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

Do they need to look into this, though? To me, it seems like a problem that could be fixed by the PGA Tour's Rules Committee without the USGA or R&A doing anything.

They shouldn't need to, but ultimately the PGA Tour is a player-run organization, so they probably aren't going to bring it up.

The USGA could cite some examples and put tremendous pressure on the PGA Tour and shame some payers if they wanted to. But they won't.

2 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

All the committee would have to do is determine that such an agreement exists. It doesn't say that it has to be a verbal agreement or anything like that.

The PGA Tour could also just fine players who do this, and make clear that a second act in a calendar year will result in a DQ… but again, they won't, because it's a player-run organization.

Do they sometimes do things against the wishes of the majority of the players? Probably, because the players do trust the higher ups to make business calls (maybe wearing shorts is one such issue), but this isn't likely a big "business" issue. The only way it might be a business issue is if the player's integrity starts to be questioned more often, because player integrity is one of the hallmarks of the PGA Tour, and one of the things companies that align with the PGA Tour like.

2 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

I suppose the USGA and R&A could issue a decision that expands what an agreement could be. But it seems simpler to just have the PGA Tour enforce the rules as written. That would require a backbone, though, so...

I think the "agreement" is just the culture here. Like I said above, nobody would speak to a guy. That's culture. That's the PGA Tour players making up rules for themselves, not playing by the Rules of Golf.

[rehmwa]

12 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

But it seems simpler to just have the PGA Tour enforce the rules as written.

It's not a rules violation unless the PGA somehow decides to adjust how they interpret the meaning of 'collusion' .  So that's out.

It's more of an expectation of how the players choose to act voluntarily in these situations.

In the end, it was on Kokrak, not Finau for this situation.  All K had to do was voice out "Hey, Tony, hang on a second and I'll mark my ball for you".  He didn't

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

The USGA could cite some examples and put tremendous pressure on the PGA Tour and shame some payers if they wanted to.

.

I think the "agreement" is just the culture here. Like I said above, nobody would speak to a guy. That's culture.

yes

 

I have a question about this.  What if the players are on a long par 3 and the first guy puts his tee shot tight.  Even if it sounds silly, under the rules, does he have the option to tell the others to wait for him to mark it?

Edited October 10, 2017 by rehmwa

[iacas]

1 hour ago, JxQx said:

Seems like a non issue with how infrequent it happens.

It happens more frequently than people catch.

And for me, happening once is one too many times.

43 minutes ago, misty_mountainhop said:

No controversy as far as I can see. There's no requirement to mark a ball, at all, unless a playing partner/opponent asks you to. The chances of Finau hitting that were pretty small, so a bit of an extreme example maybe?

There can be a requirement to mark a ball. If a player indicates that they're going to mark, the fellow competitor has to let them. A referee can require a ball to be marked. A fellow competitor walking by on an adjacent hole can even require the ball to be marked.

The chances are largely irrelevant. The ball was reasonably in a position to assist, and players are under an obligation to protect the field.

43 minutes ago, misty_mountainhop said:

Could be wrong, but I think I remember Ballesteros (maybe in an RC match or something) actually stopping his opponent marking a ball that was near the hole and just outside the line of his putt. Don't think he hit it, but used it as an alignment aid for where to start his putt.

That would have been a breach of the Rules, so no, you probably remember incorrectly.

42 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

From the video, for example, Finau could take that shot 50 times from that lie and that may be the only time he would hit that other ball.

The ball was reasonably in a position to assist Finau. That's the language and thus the Rule.

42 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

Players not marking their ball when on the green when its off line has never bothered me at all.

The Rules are not written based around what "bothers" you, nor do players get to interpret them through the lens of what "bothers" them or not.

42 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

When in the odd chance that a ball not marked is an aid to you, then i guess thats just dumb luck. 

It's not just dumb luck, it's possibly a breach of the Rules.

22 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

Some people just need controversy to justify their existence.  This is a non issue.

Surprised to hear you say that. Have you read this topic? Have you read 22/7 and the other Decisions?

This is an example, the latest in a line of many, of the silent collusion on the PGA Tour.

7 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

It's not a rules violation unless the PGA somehow decides to adjust how they interpret the meaning of 'collusion' .  So that's out.

It could be.

7 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

It's more of an expectation of how the players choose to act voluntarily in these situations.

The Rules of Golf expect that when it's "reasonably possible" for a ball to assist, that the players are obligated to protect the field and mark the ball. You don't get to voluntarily fail to protect the field.

7 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

In the end, it was on Kokrak, not Finau for this situation.  All K had to do was voice out "Hey, Tony, hang on a second and I'll mark my ball for you".  He didn't

I agree that the bulk of the blame is with Kokrak.

But Justin Thomas said stupid things afterward, and Finau knew he was "getting away with" something.

But yes, the bulk of the blame, in this case, is with Kokrak.

7 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

I have a question about this.  What if the players are on a long par 3 and the first guy puts his tee shot tight.  Even if it sounds silly, under the rules, does he have the option to tell the others to wait for him to mark it?

He can if it's reasonably possible. Say the hole is cut in a bowl that funnels a lot of tee shots to the hole.

A fellow competitor could request that his ball be marked, too. Or a fellow player could request it if it's in the way (i.e. short of the hole) and thus interfering with his shot.

That would have to be a pretty rare situation, though, likely with a known "hole in one" type hole location on a green. The vast majority of the time this rule is applied for greenside shots where it's "reasonably possible" the ball will assist/interfere.

[Fourputt]

If the ruling bodies were that concerned about it, then they would have at some point added some additional mandatory language into the rules.  As it is, the only time it becomes mandatory to lift a ball is if a player asks for it, and the only real penalty if not asked is when there is collusion, something that is quite difficult to prove.  I don't really see an issue here if the USGA and R&A don't. 

To me, this isn't much different from having to play from a divot hole.  It's a rare enough circumstance that it doesn't seem to be worth all of the chatter.  

[DaveP043]

1 hour ago, misty_mountainhop said:

 

Could be wrong, but I think I remember Ballesteros (maybe in an RC match or something) actually stopping his opponent marking a ball that was near the hole and just outside the line of his putt. Don't think he hit it, but used it as an alignment aid for where to start his putt.

Prior to 1984, you could require your match play opponent to leave his ball in place, and there was no penalty for hitting his ball with your putt.  It's quite possible that you remember this correctly. Now, your opponent can decide, you cant require him to leave the ball on place. There is still no penalty for hitting your opponent's ball with your putt in match play.

[iacas]

11 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

If the ruling bodies were that concerned about it, then they would have at some point added some additional mandatory language into the rules.

As you know, there is some mandatory language in these rules.

11 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

As it is, the only time it becomes mandatory to lift a ball is if a player asks for it, and the only real penalty if not asked is when there is collusion, something that is quite difficult to prove.

Or a referee.

And the whole point of this topic is that there is more and more evidence FOR the silent collusion among PGA Tour players.

11 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

To me, this isn't much different from having to play from a divot hole.  It's a rare enough circumstance that it doesn't seem to be worth all of the chatter.  

Rare enough for you or other 18 handicappers, maybe… But PGA Tour players are around the hole a lot more frequently.

Thus, it's quite often that it's "reasonably possible" their ball may be in a position to interfere/assist a player.

Just like why the better a player is, the more likely they are to hit the flagstick when left in the hole playing a shot from just off the green.

3 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Prior to 1984, you could require your match play opponent to leave his ball in place, and there was no penalty for hitting his ball with your putt.  It's quite possible that you remember this correctly. Now, your opponent can decide, you cant require him to leave the ball on place. There is still no penalty for hitting your opponent's ball with your putt in match play.

The history of the Rules prior to about that time is definitely not my area of knowledge, so if that's what you're talking about @misty_mountainhop, I may have been wrong about the Seve instance, but obviously this particular event with Finau/Kokrak didn't occur in 1983 and the rules have been different for a long time now.

[Golfingdad]

9 hours ago, DeadMan said:

To me, the standard should be: if you would mark it in match play, mark it in stroke play. The problem is that it's an unwritten/unspoken agreement on the PGA Tour to not mark balls when they could help. At best, that is a violation of the spirit of the rules. I'd argue they are actually violating the rules, which don't require an express agreement. And the reason it's against the rules is because of this exact situation. Kokrak took money out of the pocket of Phil and Chesson Hadley by not marking.

Sort of OT, but I wonder what Chesson Hadley thinks about this. He just got back on the PGA Tour from the Web.com Tour, and he will probably need every cent and rankings point to retain his card.

But that is sort of a random standard, is it not?  You think that the distance that each player thinks qualifies as far enough away to justify marking for his opponent is going to be close to the same?  And doesn't that also make it even LESS equitable than it is now?  If I'm playing with a laid back player who wouldn't bother marking for a Ryder Cup opponent from 40 yards, but you're playing with a guy who deals in gamesmanship in the Ryder Cup and are pulled out of your rhythm because every time he's within 10' of the pin and you're within 100 yards, he's going to want to mark, is that equitable?  The issue is with the unspoken agreement, and on that we agree.  When a guy hits a pitch from just off the green and is handed his putter then starts twiddling his thumbs waiting for his buddy to play, I'm all for them doing something to curb that, but this isn't that.

9 hours ago, iacas said:

Nick Faldo and Paul Azinger would have marked. Greg Norman would have marked. Nick Price. Nicklaus, probably. Hogan.

How do you know this?

 

9 hours ago, iacas said:

PGA Tour players are not protecting the field. They're colluding.

And this?  There is CERTAINLY an unspoken agreement that applies to some of the situations we've seen in this thread, but what evidence is there that this one qualifies?

I'm reminded of one particular argument that you'd make to me and others when we argue the DJ ruling in the US Open, or the Anna Nordqvist ruling in the women's open or any number of little rules issues where we make mountains out of molehills.  You'd tell us that we're trying to change the rules to fit one outlier situation whereas they exist as they are for all of the other situations we're not considering.  This strikes me as similar.

This is being lumped in with the "collusion" examples when there is no evidence that it qualifies as such, and more importantly, its only being made an issue because of the fact it actually HIT the other ball.

That's another point worth making:  the other examples qualify on their own even though their balls weren't hit.  This wouldn't have been a blip on the radar if Finau didn't get super lucky and some random tweeter didn't decide to take issue with it.