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

[iacas]

16 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

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?

No. The standard is "reasonably possible."

Except when a ball is in motion, if a player considers that a ball might assist any other player, he may:

16 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

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?

Straw man and hyperbole all in one. The rule is pretty darn simple and straightforward, and every player has an obligation to protect the field.

Your made-up "wouldn't bother marking for a Ryder Cup opponent" guy is likely failing in his obligation, and your 100 yard guy is not using the "reasonable possibility" language properly.

So they're both operating outside of what the Rules say.

16 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

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.

It kinda is, particularly when Justin Thomas suggests that it's his RIGHT to do so.

I think Kokrak had an obligation to mark that ball.

16 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

How do you know this?

I don't. Perhaps that was a bad way of pointing out that this was not an issue years ago. It's a recent thing, players basically making up their own rules with a frat house mentality.

16 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

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?

Kokrak should have marked the ball. It was clearly in a position to assist Finau in his play. Do you deny that?

16 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

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.

I disagree.

Do you deny that the ball was in a position to assist Finau?

It's not like Finau hit an otherwise unpredictable shot, maybe shanking it and hitting a ball way out of the expected path, and benefited from it.

He hit the ball near the hole, where Kokrak's ball lay, as you'd expect of a PGA Tour player.

Kokrak's ball was in a position to assist. He should have marked it.

That's not adapting the rules to suit a special case. That's exactly the case the rule specifies.

16 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

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.

There's no evidence it doesn't, either, Drew.

The "collusion" I'm talking about is the un-stated (publicly) mentality that if a PGA Tour player marks his ball in these situations, "nobody would speak to him again in the locker room."

Finau didn't have to give Kokrak a look or anything. The collusion occurs from the mentality on the PGA Tour that you don't mark a ball if you think it can help another player.

16 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

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.

I don't agree.

I agree it would have been less of a thing, but if Finau's ball had missed by a foot and zipped 25 or 30' by, it still would have served as an example of the collusion, IMO.

[CCC]

Maybe not 'collusion'.

Kind of reminds me of a football team's offense, hurriedly, trying to get the next play started, before the rules officials have a chance to see the replay.

He should have waited for Kokrak to mark his ball.

Every time I see this happen, just makes me wonder.....

Protect the Field!!!

 

 

Edited October 11, 2017 by CCC

[iacas]

23 minutes ago, CCC said:

He should have waited for Kokrak to mark his ball.

I have much less of a problem with Tony.

I have a bigger problem here with Jason Kokrak.

[CCC]

Yeah, I just don't 'get it'.

[misty_mountainhop]

8 minutes ago, iacas said:

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.

Ta for the clarification. I wasn't aware of the 'obligation to protect the field', but that makes perfect sense.

[DeadMan]

13 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

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.

Huh? That "standard" not from the rules or anything. That's just the mentality that I think players should use when deciding whether to mark. As @iacas has said, the actual standard is directly in the rules. I was just making the point that there's no way Kokrak would leave that ball where he did if it were match play.

[Golfingdad]

1 hour ago, DeadMan said:

Huh? That "standard" not from the rules or anything. That's just the mentality that I think players should use when deciding whether to mark. As @iacas has said, the actual standard is directly in the rules. I was just making the point that there's no way Kokrak would leave that ball where he did if it were match play.

That's fine.  I think what it comes down to is that we all agree on there being a line, we just don't really agree with where it is.  For you, it's more 32 yards.  For me, it's when it's far enough away that there's no awkward pausing or dilly-dallying on the part of the guy who's ball is on the green.  If he's standing and waiting then he could be marking.  In this case, Finau is hitting while he's still walking up so that's why I don't have an issue here. 

Out of curiosity, could you estimate for me where your line falls?  Is it 33 yards?  50 yards? 

[rehmwa]

OMG,  I just got sucked into reading comments on this topic on the Golfchannel website. 

Must avoid these at all costs

(so MANY people think he chose to hit the other ball on purpose rather than just play a 'slightly' better setup for the odds - I can't even imagine the mental world they live in)

[iacas]

23 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

That's fine.  I think what it comes down to is that we all agree on there being a line, we just don't really agree with where it is.  For you, it's more 32 yards.  For me, it's when it's far enough away that there's no awkward pausing or dilly-dallying on the part of the guy who's ball is on the green.  If he's standing and waiting then he could be marking.  In this case, Finau is hitting while he's still walking up so that's why I don't have an issue here.

The Rules don't really care about the time. The first precedent is the likelihood (the "reasonable possibility-ness") of the ball aiding a fellow competitor.

Given Finau's proximity to the green, and the ball's position, it's HIS position that's more germane. Kokrak should have said "hey, wait up ten seconds" and jogged ahead to mark the ball.

It's not Kokrak's proximity that really matters. It's Finau's.

Had Kokrak had to go back to the tee on a 200-yard par three and put his ball there, a fellow competitor could have seen Kokrak's ball in a position to assist Finau and Finau would have had to wait if that fellow competitor had made the claim. The FC would have been doing the right thing in making that claim, too.

Were Finau hitting from 100 yards away, yeah, that's probably not likely ("reasonably possible") the ball would assist.

The ball would have likely been marked if it was in Finau's way, or if it was match play. Thus, it should have been marked here.

Is this case more borderline than the others, where the guy's just standing around? Sure, because maybe from 32 yards away Kokrak couldn't tell that his ball was going to assist (though that's a weak argument IMO). But I still feel that it's on the side of the line that offers more support for the silent collusion to leave balls down when they're in a position to assist on the PGA Tour.

18 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

OMG,  I just got sucked into reading comments on this topic on the Golfchannel website. 

Must avoid these at all costs

(so MANY people think he chose to hit the other ball on purpose rather than just play a 'slightly' better setup for the odds - I can't even imagine the mental world they live in)

Yeah, that's what I tweeted about:

Yeah, so many comments said "if he could hit a golf ball, why wouldn't he just aim at the hole." Totally missing the point, folks.

[rehmwa]

28 minutes ago, iacas said:

Yeah, so many comments said "if he could hit a golf ball, why wouldn't he just aim at the hole." Totally missing the point, folks.

as for, specifically, the comments on hitting the ball, It's not even poor understanding of 'the Rules'.  It's just.......well.....it's just......ability to think.  In any case, the general tone of the GC commenting pool of people is plain toxic.  The worst it ever gets here is when someone thinks they are being misunderstood or disrespected a little and that's usually simply misundertanding and a bit of obstinance.  Over there, they are jerks on purpose and not too bright (deadly combination).  makes one appreciate our little group here better.

Edited October 11, 2017 by rehmwa

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

as for, specifically, the comments on hitting the ball, It's not even poor understanding of 'the Rules'.  It's just.......well.....it's just......ability to think.  In any case, the general tone of the GC commenting pool of people is plain toxic.  The worst it ever gets here is when someone thinks they are being misunderstood or disrespected a little and that's usually simply misundertanding and a bit of obstinance.  Over there, they are jerks on purpose and not too bright (deadly combination).  makes one appreciate our little group here better.

Yeah, good point. Off topic, but good point.

[JxQx]

On 10/10/2017 at 12:04 PM, iacas said:

It happens more frequently than people catch.

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

I'm not a fan of it just like Tiger having a crowd of people move a boulder as a loose impediment, not sure if the frequency of either requires a rule modification/addition. I see this just adding more time to rounds that are already too long.

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, JxQx said:

I'm not a fan of it just like Tiger having a crowd of people move a boulder as a loose impediment, not sure if the frequency of either requires a rule modification/addition. I see this just adding more time to rounds that are already too long.

That's really got nothing to do with this.

And the Tiger thing was - and still is - completely within the rules. Nobody would have a problem with two or three people moving a big log. Same thing.

Back to the topic though…

This doesn't require a rule modification. The rule is already in place. It's being ignored on the PGA Tour.

And the "pace of play" argument is a bogus one. PGA Tour players play in four hours or so on the weekends, and if they ever have to wait ten seconds again in the future, they're just using up that ten seconds in waiting for a guy to make the ball.

[Fourputt]

6 hours ago, iacas said:

This doesn't require a rule modification. The rule is already in place. It's being ignored on the PGA Tour.

And the "pace of play" argument is a bogus one. PGA Tour players play in four hours or so on the weekends, and if they ever have to wait ten seconds again in the future, they're just using up that ten seconds in waiting for a guy to make the ball.

As long as the rule uses the term "may" instead of "must", there is no issue.  I've seen no evidence of collusion, only speculation and supposition, based on vague suspicion.  Just because it appears that not doing so has become common doesn't qualify as evidence of an agreement.

A player "may" be asked to mark and lift, and he is then required required to mark and lift.  He "may" request another player to mark and lift his ball, and that player is then required to do so. 

I'm playing with Sam and Joe.   Sam is chipping from off the green.  Joe's ball is in position to backstop Sam's ball if he hits it too hard.  Joe can require Sam to wait until Joe marks his ball.  I can require Joe to mark before Sam plays.  Sam can require Joe to mark and lift before he plays.  But if none of those things happen and Sam's ball hits Joe's, there is no breach of rule 22 unless at least two of us made some sort of an agreement, and there would have to be compelling evidence of such collusion.  I don't see any such evidence.

Erik should know that I have usually argued on the side for stiffer enforcement in most rules discussions, but that is because I usually believe that those who wrote the rules used exactly the terminology that they wanted to convey the result that they envisioned.  I don't see this case any different.  As long as the word used is "may", I feel that the players are given the option, and that bequest should be respected.

Edited October 12, 2017 by Fourputt

[iacas]

@Fourputt, this entire topic is evidence. It’s happening more frequently. And that’s just what’s broadcast.

Players have stood by letting others play while they had plenty of time to mark.

The Decision makes it clear that collusion/agreement need not be spoken.

[Fourputt]

25 minutes ago, iacas said:

@Fourputt, this entire topic is evidence. It’s happening more frequently. And that’s just what’s broadcast.

Players have stood by letting others play while they had plenty of time to mark.

The Decision makes it clear that collusion/agreement need not be spoken.

I would disagree that anything I've read would hold water as evidence.  In any event, it still must be proven, and it obviously has not been, or action would have been taken.  Unless someone blows the whistle, it's just a conspiracy theory.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Fourputt said:

I would disagree that anything I've read would hold water as evidence.  In any event, it still must be proven, and it obviously has not been, or action would have been taken.  Unless someone blows the whistle, it's just a conspiracy theory.

Okay Rick. Yeah, the videos of guys standing around not marking balls right by the hole is not evidence of anything at all…

Just keep plugging your ears and humming a tune.

[JxQx]

On 10/11/2017 at 2:12 PM, iacas said:

And the "pace of play" argument is a bogus one. PGA Tour players play in four hours or so on the weekends, and if they ever have to wait ten seconds again in the future, they're just using up that ten seconds in waiting for a guy to make the ball.

It would not have a big impact on pace of play at the pro level right now as they do not walk ahead a bit towards their ball like amateurs, but If i have to wait for a player to walk 40 yards or so to mark their ball while I'm waiting in a bunker that's added time for something that does not happen a whole lot.

Edited October 13, 2017 by JxQx