Ball at Rest Moved - How Would You Improve This Rule?

[DrvFrShow]

Yes, I read the case law 18-2/0.5 on the rule. The case law regarding the rules is over 600 pages. We don't have it committed to memory. No one here does. 

When you're playing you have to 1) know which rule; then 2) know where to look; and 3) sift through the decisions to figure out if you got it right if you want to play strict.

The subject here is how can we make the rule more understandable to the player on the course without having to sift through the 600+ pages of case law. And every attempt to make it more accessible gets shot down because it's in the other part that's in the decisions that you can look up on the internet using the app that everyone carries around on their cell phones that are so visible and easy to read on a bright sunny day.

[No Mulligans]

First, I agree with the application of the current rule in DJ's case.  However, I don't agree with the RO's judgement, I think that more likely than not he was not the cause of the ball moving. imo

What I don't like is he didn't do anything that any other reasonable player might do, yet it resulted in a penalty.  I'd add to the rule: if the ball is on the green and you act in a reasonable prudent manner and you don't touch the ball then you will not incur a penalty if the ball moves.

The reason I'd include the words 'reasonable prudent manner' is that I don't think someone should be able to jump up and down next to a ball or have a running footstep land near a ball... in those cases you would still be penalized if the ball moves.  Unfortunately this will leave a little room for judgement but those cases should be nearly nonexistent. 

[natureboy]

2 hours ago, No Mulligans said:

First, I agree with the application of the current rule in DJ's case.  However, I don't agree with the RO's judgement, I think that more likely than not he was not the cause of the ball moving. imo

What I don't like is he didn't do anything that any other reasonable player might do, yet it resulted in a penalty.  I'd add to the rule: if the ball is on the green and you act in a reasonable prudent manner and you don't touch the ball then you will not incur a penalty if the ball moves.

The reason I'd include the words 'reasonable prudent manner' is that I don't think someone should be able to jump up and down next to a ball or have a running footstep land near a ball... in those cases you would still be penalized if the ball moves.  Unfortunately this will leave a little room for judgement but those cases should be nearly nonexistent. 

Wouldn't the jumping up and down (etc.) already be covered by Rule 1-2 and the 'reasonable / prudent' test already embodied in its implicit judgement call?

Edited June 23, 2016 by natureboy

[DrvFrShow]

It wouldn't hurt to have it spelled out again. After all they devote an entire page to this in the decision.

[iacas]

4 hours ago, DrvFrShow said:

Yes, I read the case law 18-2/0.5 on the rule. The case law regarding the rules is over 600 pages. We don't have it committed to memory. No one here does.

You don't have to. You can look them up. The relatively few "0.5" Decisions are important enough that many rules officials DO have them committed to memory (not literally word for word, but what they say).

4 hours ago, DrvFrShow said:

When you're playing you have to 1) know which rule; then 2) know where to look; and 3) sift through the decisions to figure out if you got it right if you want to play strict.

Not really. I have given rulings in my capacity as a rules official without needing to pull out the rules book. The only times I've done so have been to show the player what I was talking about.

I haven't needed the rules book during my regular play in years.

And bear in mind… this is a professional player (it's his job) playing in a major championship. Sorry. He should know the rules of golf, at least more so than he does. 18-2 is not complex. Don't be cavalier around your golf ball. If it moves, you may be on the hook for it.

4 hours ago, DrvFrShow said:

The subject here is how can we make the rule more understandable to the player on the course without having to sift through the 600+ pages of case law.

Julia, c'mon.

"Ball at rest moved." You go right to rule 18. Then you see that 18-2 applies. It says this:

 

Quote

 

the player, his partner or either of their caddies: 

•

lifts or moves the ball, 

•

touches it purposely (except with a club in the act of addressing the ball), or 

•

causes the ball to move, or

 

 

If the player doesn't know what "causes the ball to move" then he can look it up. In most cases, it's pretty self explanatory. Let's stop with the sensationalistic stuff about having to "sift through 600+ pages…".

You see that it's 18-2. There are a few Decisions under "18-2/xx" but some of them have titles like "Player Who Misses Tee Shot Tees Ball Lower Before Making Next Stroke" which clearly don't apply (unless that's the situation). So c'mon, no dramatic posturing, please.

4 hours ago, DrvFrShow said:

And every attempt to make it more accessible gets shot down because it's in the other part that's in the decisions that you can look up on the internet using the app that everyone carries around on their cell phones that are so visible and easy to read on a bright sunny day.

You wanna know how you don't have to look it up? Don't cause your golf ball to move.

3 hours ago, No Mulligans said:

What I don't like is he didn't do anything that any other reasonable player might do, yet it resulted in a penalty.  I'd add to the rule: if the ball is on the green and you act in a reasonable prudent manner and you don't touch the ball then you will not incur a penalty if the ball moves.

Define "reasonable and prudent." Good luck. Because everyone's gonna have a different definition.

Is it "reasonable and prudent" to set my 7-iron down behind a ball sitting in the rough? After all, nearly everyone does it. Is it "reasonable and prudent" if my ball appears to be perched and is likely to fall for me to put my club 2" behind the ball? One inch? Half an inch?

Was it reasonable and prudent of DJ to ground his putter so close to the ball, twice, and take practice strokes half an inch from the ball? One inch? Two inches? Given the green speeds and slopes, what if I say no, it wasn't? That he should have been more careful?

3 hours ago, No Mulligans said:

The reason I'd include the words 'reasonable prudent manner' is that I don't think someone should be able to jump up and down next to a ball or have a running footstep land near a ball... in those cases you would still be penalized if the ball moves.  Unfortunately this will leave a little room for judgement but those cases should be nearly nonexistent. 

That's how you define "reasonable and prudent." What if I define what DJ did as not being reasonable or prudent? So much for non-existent, no?

5 hours ago, pumaAttack said:

If you have marked your ball and it moves afterwards, just replace it.  Whether you accidentally bumped it, the ground caused it, the wind caused, the rain caused it, etc. you just put the ball back to the original spot and play on.

I can't think of any other Rule of Golf where the past status of a golf ball matters. Off the top of my head, it violates the idea of equity. In two cases, a ball is in play and sitting on the putting green. Or the rough. Or the fairway. Or a bunker. Who cares that one was previously marked and the other was not? Two balls have the same current status.

Like situations are treated alike, and differentiating because, in the past, one ball in play was marked while the other was not is not how the Rules of Golf operate, nor how they should. They don't concern themselves with the past, just the current status of the ball.

If a player causes a ball to move other than via a stroke, he suffers a penalty. That's a simple rule.

5 hours ago, pumaAttack said:

No need to get penalized for a ball oscillating, that's ridiculous.

Players are not penalized for a ball oscillating.

[parman]

I don't believe DJ caused the ball move. To me that is not the issue. They had a rules official traveling with their group. If he was not qualified to make the call why was he even there? This is the real issue to me. He made a decision and that should have been the end, period. We have way to many Monday morning quarterbacks who all have an opinion after the fact. Discussing a bad situation does not solve anything. The "committee' whoever that is, should support their traveling official since he was right there to see it all in person. If the tournament was a tie or the decision took away the win from DJ there would be a much louder response. At 14 on the stint meter most anything could make that ball move 2 mm. JMHO

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, parman said:

I don't believe DJ caused the ball move. To me that is not the issue. They had a rules official traveling with their group. If he was not qualified to make the call why was he even there? This is the real issue to me. He made a decision and that should have been the end, period. We have way to many Monday morning quarterbacks who all have an opinion after the fact. Discussing a bad situation does not solve anything. The "committee' whoever that is, should support their traveling official since he was right there to see it all in person. If the tournament was a tie or the decision took away the win from DJ there would be a much louder response. At 14 on the stint meter most anything could make that ball move 2 mm. JMHO

This has been discussed repeatedly in the U.S. Open thread.

The topic of this thread is writing a better rule. Thus far nobody seems to have done so with even a majority agreement.

[No Mulligans]

16 hours ago, iacas said:

Define "reasonable and prudent." Good luck. Because everyone's gonna have a different definition.

Is it "reasonable and prudent" to set my 7-iron down behind a ball sitting in the rough? After all, nearly everyone does it. Is it "reasonable and prudent" if my ball appears to be perched and is likely to fall for me to put my club 2" behind the ball? One inch? Half an inch?

Was it reasonable and prudent of DJ to ground his putter so close to the ball, twice, and take practice strokes half an inch from the ball? One inch? Two inches? Given the green speeds and slopes, what if I say no, it wasn't? That he should have been more careful?

That's how you define "reasonable and prudent." What if I define what DJ did as not being reasonable or prudent? So much for non-existent, no?

Regarding the 7-iron grounded behind a ball sitting in the rough:  I did consider that and that is why I wrote "on the green".  I thought "on the green" is understood as being the putting green, perhaps I wasn't precise enough.  So let me add the word putting and my suggestion becomes:

If the ball is on the putting green and you act in a reasonable prudent manner and you don't touch the ball then you will not incur a penalty if the ball moves.

Regarding the words reasonable prudent manner, if you don't interpret that as I do then I see it being a problem.  

Certainly you see my intent which is I don't want to penalize someone who is on the green and didn't touch the ball and didn't do something crazy like stomping around the ball to get it to move (which I tried this morning and still couldn't get a ball to move on a putting green slope).  And, I don't want to see players having to move their pre-shot putting routine to 5 feet from the ball and then tip toe up to the ball and not ground the putter all because the greens are really fast and their ball stopped on a slope.  Granted, no ones going to do that under current conditions, but you do end up with penalties like DJ and others got at the recent U.S. Open.

Maybe you or some other forum member could come up with a 'word smith' suggestion that would be better than 'reasonable prudent'.  Or perhaps you just don't agree with what my 'How would you improve this rule' is trying to accomplish.

 

[DrvFrShow]

2 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

Regarding the 7-iron grounded behind a ball sitting in the rough:  I did consider that and that is why I wrote "on the green".  I thought "on the green" is understood as being the putting green, perhaps I wasn't precise enough.  So let me add the word putting and my suggestion becomes:

If the ball is on the putting green and you act in a reasonable prudent manner and you don't touch the ball then you will not incur a penalty if the ball moves.

Regarding the words reasonable prudent manner, if you don't interpret that as I do then I see it being a problem.  

Certainly you see my intent which is I don't want to penalize someone who is on the green and didn't touch the ball and didn't do something crazy like stomping around the ball to get it to move (which I tried this morning and still couldn't get a ball to move on a putting green slope).  And, I don't want to see players having to move their pre-shot putting routine to 5 feet from the ball and then tip toe up to the ball and not ground the putter all because the greens are really fast and their ball stopped on a slope.  Granted, no ones going to do that under current conditions, but you do end up with penalties like DJ and others got at the recent U.S. Open.

Maybe you or some other forum member could come up with a 'word smith' suggestion that would be better than 'reasonable prudent'.  Or perhaps you just don't agree with what my 'How would you improve this rule' is trying to accomplish.

 

If the ball is on the putting green and you act in a reasonable prudent manner and you don't touch the ball then you will not incur a penalty if the ball moves.

You should use passive voice that is used when writing these things. Active voice is discouraged because it is more easily understood.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, No Mulligans said:

Maybe you or some other forum member could come up with a 'word smith' suggestion that would be better than 'reasonable prudent'.  Or perhaps you just don't agree with what my 'How would you improve this rule' is trying to accomplish.

You're right; I don't agree with what your rule is trying to accomplish.

Generally, things should be treated as alike when possible. Yes, we have rules that apply to the putting green only, but generally speaking, the rules try to treat areas of the golf course as similarly as possible. Hence "ball at rest moved" applies in most (I'm hesitant to say "all" but it may be all) places after the ball's been put into play.

I also generally don't like the idea of saying "reasonably prudent" as you can paint a picture of a guy quietly addressing his ball at one end, and a guy doing the mamba on the other end… but the truth is most actions occur in the middle. Is a guy waving a fly off his ball with a towel "reasonably prudent" if the ball moves? You and I might disagree on the response. There's no real definition for "reasonably prudent" that would result in 99% of people or more agreeing on certain actions in that grey area between "mamba" and "quietly addressing."

Players should take care near their golf ball. If they cause it to move - almost anywhere - they can expect to be penalized.

We've seen very few instances of this on the PGA Tour. This entire thing, like many rules change suggestions, feels overblown. It's an over-reaction, perhaps, to a rule that has existed for quite some time. Here it is in 1980 when it was rule 27-1d: http://ruleshistory.com/rules1980.html#2701 .

[jgreen85]

On 6/23/2016 at 9:08 AM, turtleback said:

Players do not get to base calling penalties on themselves on wrong rules.  It was clear Dustin didn't know the rule.  Unless you really believe that when Dustin was saying that he was going through that Decision in his mind and making a carefully nuanced judgement.

Did you miss the part where I said "explain the rule to the player"? All of the golfers in the field that these USGA officials are supposedly protecting said no penalty, so......Nah, let's go with random nobody on thesandtrap who insists it's a penalty.

[SG11118]

Has any organization ever put a super sensitive sensor inside a golf ball to track it's movement during a round?  There probably isn't such a thing that would behave exactly like a golf ball, but maybe there is something that would behave similar to a golf ball at least.

This may seem ticky-tack, but I've got an engineering background, so I can't help but think about things like this: my gut tells me we are kidding ourselves to think the golf ball is really ever "at rest" while it is in play.  With the possible exception of when it is teed up, my gut tells me that the ball is likely always moving some very tiny amount due to it's interaction with the ground, grass, moisture, golfers, grounded golf clubs, practice swings, animals, wind, etc.  My gut tells me that a person is probably unable to ground their club within 2 feet of the ball without the dead weight of the club at least causing some tiny unperceived movement to the ball.  It is probably implied that the rules of golf definition of "moved" requires visual confirmation of the movement, but as far as I know, nowhere in the rules is any minimal (visual) distance of movement listed.  In the rules of golf, a nanometer of movement is the same as a meter of movement.  It could be conceivable that every golfer at the U.S. Open violated this ball at rest moved rule, thereby signing incorrect scorecards / disqualification.

At the bare minimum I would like the rules of golf to clarify that the definition of "moved" include the requirement that the movement needs to be visually perceived by the golfer (unless golfer is visually impaired).  

Preferably, the rules are also changed to clarify when a golfer can and cannot ground their club. Rule 13-2 provides an exception to allow a golfer to ground the club lightly when addressing the ball.  However, if grounding the club lightly likely causes the ball to move, the golfer is still in violation of 18-2.  If lightly grounding the club is legal, my opinion is the golfer should be free from the risk of a penalty stroke in doing it.  If we want 18-2 to stand for this situation, then my opinion is the USGA/R&A should re-think whether lightly grounding the club should be legal.

[iacas]

35 minutes ago, jgreen85 said:

Did you miss the part where I said "explain the rule to the player"? All of the golfers in the field that these USGA officials are supposedly protecting said no penalty, so......Nah, let's go with random nobody on thesandtrap who insists it's a penalty.

First, of course all of the golfers didn't say "no penalty." Shane Lowry was penalized for the same thing. So there's at least one guy who might say it was a penalty, since he was dinged for the same.

Plus, who cares about the opinions of a bunch of golfers who don't know the rules very well?

[Hardspoon]

36 minutes ago, jgreen85 said:

All of the golfers in the field that these USGA officials are supposedly protecting said no penalty

"All of the golfers"? Umm, no, not even close. 

37 minutes ago, jgreen85 said:

Nah, let's go with random nobody on thesandtrap who insists it's a penalty.

A "random nobody"...and the USGA. 

[No Mulligans]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

 

We've seen very few instances of this on the PGA Tour. This entire thing, like many rules change suggestions, feels overblown. It's an over-reaction, perhaps, to a rule that has existed for quite some time. Here it is in 1980 when it was rule 27-1d: http://ruleshistory.com/rules1980.html#2701 .

Thanks for that, the rule has become more lenient over time.

I don't have a bone to pick as I don't think whether this rule is changed or not makes much difference.  

But, you asked "Ball at Rest Moved - How Would You Improve This Rule?", and I answered the call.  Just a fun exercise to me is all.  As such, not overblown or an over-reaction.

[parman]

The simple answer is to just put the ball back where it was. It's similar to this rule:

Rule 18-5

Ball at Rest Moved by Another Ball

Q.Steve`s ball was at rest on the putting green. Cindy plays from just off the green and her ball hits Steve`s ball. What must Steve do?

A.Under Rule 18-5, Steve must replace his ball back to its original position. (See related FAQ under Rule 19) Cindy must play her ball as it lies. There is no penalty to either player in either match play or stroke play. In stroke play only, if Cindy's ball lay on the putting green prior to the stroke, she would incur a penalty of two strokes.

[iacas]

3 hours ago, No Mulligans said:

But, you asked "Ball at Rest Moved - How Would You Improve This Rule?", and I answered the call.  Just a fun exercise to me is all.  As such, not overblown or an over-reaction.

You didn't overreact. Few here have. The golf world in general was the subject of that in my post 

[natureboy]

On 6/24/2016 at 2:15 PM, No Mulligans said:

Regarding the 7-iron grounded behind a ball sitting in the rough:  I did consider that and that is why I wrote "on the green".  I thought "on the green" is understood as being the putting green, perhaps I wasn't precise enough.  So let me add the word putting and my suggestion becomes:

If the ball is on the putting green

My read of the principles of golf vs the written rules does seem to indicate that treating a ball in play on the green differently is already accepted under the rules. Under current rules the player is already allowed to both repair ball marks on the line of play and lift and clean a ball currently in play just by dint of the ball being on the putting surface and no other form of relief from a special condition is being granted. Yet not adjusting anything integral to the course over the line of play and not lifting the ball are considered core principles of the game of golf per this definition in the principles book: 

Quote

...a fine definition of the game of golf. You put your ball in play at the start of the hole, you play the course as you find it, you play only your own ball, and you do not touch it until you lift it from the hole.

 

On 6/24/2016 at 2:15 PM, No Mulligans said:

Certainly you see my intent which is I don't want to penalize someone who is on the green and didn't touch the ball and didn't do something crazy like stomping around the ball to get it to move (which I tried this morning and still couldn't get a ball to move on a putting green slope).  And, I don't want to see players having to move their pre-shot putting routine to 5 feet from the ball and then tip toe up to the ball and not ground the putter all because the greens are really fast and their ball stopped on a slope.

Per the principles book,

Quote

The penalty must not be less than the advantage that the player could derive from the particular Rule violation.

I suppose the maximum potential benefit of a ball at rest moving by an action of the player is that it may end up in the cup. If the ball started very far away the potential benefit could be up to two strokes, though a ball trickling in from that distance would seem to be a situation of the rules 'attempting to cope with the exceptional'.

Along that continuum from zero advantage is that a player may learn something about the break or speed of the putt if it moves nearer the hole so replacing the ball without penalty in that case could give the player an advantage somewhere between zero and a full stroke. If the rule allowed replacement after a ball moved closer to the hole, that might encourage a player to attempt to move the ball intentionally (this would violate 1-2 IMO, but the principles discourage rules formulations that might encourage players to seek advantage.

 

So with these caveats, I think that it's possible under the principles to add a qualification to the current 'ball at rest moved' rule that both treats balls on the putting surface differently and applies a binary evaluation that also respects the 'no nearer the hole' principle:

If the ball is on the putting surface and a player causes a ball at rest to move closer to the hole then the ball must be replaced under penalty of one stroke, if the player causes the ball to move no closer to or away from the hole the ball is played as it lies with no penalty.

In the case of both DJ and Wattel at Oakmont (possibly Lowry - I haven't seen the video of how his ball moved) at least two 'small potatoes' type rules calls would have been eliminated.

If the ball is on a slope that is angled toward the pin, they will still likely have to tiptoe, move in slow motion, not ground the putter, and avoid taking practice strokes near the ball on very fast greens. But some silliness may possibly be avoided.

-----

My preference would also be to clean up the language on the 'timing' judgement in the current rule. Not sure yet how, but I don't think it was really meant to apply to the Wattel scenario as IMO the player's presence near the ball and act of addressing it was the most likely cause of the ball moving. But if Wattel had been near the ball a minute earlier then walked away and was not in proximity to the ball when it moved then I would think the 'timing' judgement / distinction would have been more properly applied.

Edited June 25, 2016 by natureboy