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

[Piz]

I say there should be a rule for the putting surface and another rule for everywhere else.  The current rule makes sense tee to green but none whatsoever once you get there.  I live in northeast Georgia and a ball sitting on a bed of pine straw is not so much resting as waiting.  The green is a different story.  If you don't touch the ball, and it moves, you are not responsible.  A ball hanging in the parsley...you brush the leafy fronds...costs you a stroke; because that is the rule.  Why insist on applying the same rule to wildly different situations?  We already have a specific set of rules applicable only on the putting surface.  What's one more?

[Asheville]

31 minutes ago, Piz said:

I say there should be a rule for the putting surface and another rule for everywhere else.  The current rule makes sense tee to green but none whatsoever once you get there.  I live in northeast Georgia and a ball sitting on a bed of pine straw is not so much resting as waiting.  The green is a different story.  If you don't touch the ball, and it moves, you are not responsible.  A ball hanging in the parsley...you brush the leafy fronds...costs you a stroke; because that is the rule.  Why insist on applying the same rule to wildly different situations?  We already have a specific set of rules applicable only on the putting surface.  What's one more?

I think that 18-2 in its present form is just fine. (The last two changes have been very, very good.) Using your example of the ball on the pine straw, the Rules would suggest that the player be careful around the ball when he thinks it's in a precarious lie. Why should he be allowed to be less careful with a ball on the putting green?

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, Asheville said:

Why should he be allowed to be less careful with a ball on the putting green?

That's the question nobody wants to answer.

[Hardspoon]

 

10 minutes ago, Asheville said:

Why should he be allowed to be less careful with a ball on the putting green?

I don't think it's about being less careful; I think it's because the ball is more likely to move by itself on the green.

Reading this thread and the breathless articles crucifying this rule, I still think these are all solutions in search of a problem.

[Asheville]

34 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

 

I don't think it's about being less careful; I think it's because the ball is more likely to move by itself on the green.

Reading this thread and the breathless articles crucifying this rule, I still think these are all solutions in search of a problem.

Golf balls don't move by themselves, according to that old golfer Isaac Newton. 

[Piz]

When you approach a ball in the pine straw, or thick grass, you know it is a precarious situation and you proceed accordingly.  It is annoying should your approach cause the ball to move; but not unusual or unexpected.  The same could not be said when the ball is "resting" on the green.  

[natureboy]

3 hours ago, Asheville said:

Golf balls don't move by themselves, according to that old golfer Isaac Newton. 

That's true, but the putting green and most other parts of the course are not concrete or a tabletop.

The 'ground' / soil surface is relatively plastic and subject to deformation solely from the static (or dynamic) weight of a player which can move the vegetation (or bare soil surface) on which the ball is resting. Variations in the underlying geology (soil and substrate) and moisture coupled with micro variations in the surface and rooted vegetation will very likely cause very different effects with exactly the same inputs of player movement near / around the ball.

This is why I didn't like the Wattel ruling being different. IMO if DJ's movement / actions in proximity to the ball caused the ball to move so did Wattel's. The rule as written does allow treating Wattel's differently due to a difference in timing (~ 4-5 seconds as applied). But I think it's more likely than not (51%) Wattel's mere proximity to the ball (and grounding the putter) was the most likely cause. The rule as written and applied allowed a random exception based on a very subjective judgement call of how much time 'should matter'. The rules principles state that 'like situations shall be treated alike', and IMO the 5 seconds difference between the DJ & Wattel situations is an inconsequential gap when slow (but potentially contributory) deformations of the ground are in play.

Or if it was the odd blade of grass randomly releasing in both situations then it was the act of replacing the ball on that odd blade of grass that ultimately caused the movement. But that underlying cause of replacing could have been separated from the eventual ball movement by ~ 10-40 seconds. How would the timing consideration take this underlying primary cause into account? What if it was the combination (most likely IMO) of replacing the ball on an odd blade of grass or surface imperfection and the player's movement at / near address that caused the ball to move? Which action and timing is more important?

Or is the odd blade of grass in this scenario a potential 'surface imperfection' or 'surface irregularity' that could be pointed to as another cause of movement? How would a player or RO be able to tell on inspection of the conditions after the ball had moved?

1 hour ago, Piz said:

When you approach a ball in the pine straw, or thick grass, you know it is a precarious situation and you proceed accordingly.  It is annoying should your approach cause the ball to move; but not unusual or unexpected.  The same could not be said when the ball is "resting" on the green.  

One typically expects to have generally uniform conditions on the putting surface, and it's usually the case. But there's nothing explicit in the rules stating it's a reasonable expectation (other than perhaps implied by allowing you to repair ball marks).

Practically, though a closely-mown area (or a cart path) will usually see the ball roll off any limiting slope and come to rest somewhere where it's unlikely to move anymore. I agree that is unlike a precarious lie perched on pine straw, twigs, steeply sloped sand, or above the surface of the ground on growing vegetation.

It seems under the rules golfers really should at all times move slowly and gingerly around a ball at rest, pause for long periods of time between actions that may  cause the ball to move, and also make sure they're not unintentionally channeling the wind or rain toward it if they wish to avoid this penalty as written.

[iacas]

2 hours ago, natureboy said:

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

You can repair ball marks on the green at any time, so no, it's not "a ball in play on the green." It's "the green" that's treated differently in that case, not the location of the ball.

As for cleaning a ball simply because it's on the putting green, you'll find there are a number of times you can clean the ball off the putting green. On the putting green, I forget the specific words, but I believe it's simply to allow the ball to roll on an area designed to allow the ball to roll.

That, and a few others like penalizing a player for hitting someone else's ball when he putts from on the putting green are about all the rules that differentiate a ball on the putting green. There aren't as many as you might think.

2 hours ago, natureboy said:

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: 

Did you keep reading? I believe you'll find the answer to why you can lift and clean your ball on the putting green but not elsewhere.

2 hours ago, natureboy said:

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.

Then you're creating yet another situation where two things happen:

• They make yet another distinction for another area of the golf course. Currently, "Ball at Rest Moved" is the rule. It doesn't differentiate between the putting green, the rough, the fairway, etc.
• You assume that there's no benefit to be gained by a ball that moves farther from the hole or sideways to the hole. What if the ball moves closer to the hole, but comes to rest farther away than it started? Why make a distinction that covers the ball moving in some directions but not other directions? So now there's yet another distinction on top of a distinction…

2 hours ago, natureboy said:

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.

You're also complicating things, and adding one or two layers of distinction. How about the player just behave carefully around his golf ball when he's playing on fast greens and/or steep slopes from which subtle movements could dislodge a ball from its resting place? (The same could be said of a ball on pine straw, or perched up in some rough…).

2 hours ago, natureboy said:

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.

Regarding the red, again, you're using your opinion as "proof" that the opinions of others were wrong. You say it with "IMO" but just… keep… talking… about… it…

We get it. You disagree. The RO on the scene did not.

As I've said, if you eat suspicious sushi for lunch on Tuesday, we can all agree that if you get sick on Friday it probably wasn't the sushi, but if you get sick Tuesday afternoon, it was likely the sushi. At some point (likely Tuesday night), people will switch from saying it was the sushi if you get sick.

The "timing" distinction is just that: you use your judgment to see if the timing and proximity and the actions and all that likely mean the player made the ball move. It's not difficult. People will disagree (as the USGA does with you on the Wattel case), but it's not difficult.

The rule is simple as it is written now:

• Did the ball move?
• If yes, was the player - considering all of the evidence, including the timing - the most likely cause of the ball's movement?

That second question includes weighing the timing. Proximity. The actions taken. Whether the wind gusted. Etc.

3 hours ago, natureboy said:

This is why I didn't like the Wattel ruling being different. IMO if DJ's movement / actions in proximity to the ball caused the ball to move so did Wattel's. The rule as written does allow treating Wattel's differently due to a difference in timing (~ 4-5 seconds as applied). But I think it's more likely than not (51%) Wattel's mere proximity to the ball (and grounding the putter) was the most likely cause.

My god, we get it. The USGA simply disagreed with you. They factored the timing in and concluded he was not most likely to have caused it to move, with the timing being a factor.

3 hours ago, natureboy said:

The rule as written and applied allowed a random exception based on a very subjective judgement call of how much time 'should matter'. The rules principles state that 'like situations shall be treated alike', and IMO the 5 seconds difference between the DJ & Wattel situations is an inconsequential gap when slow (but potentially contributory) deformations of the ground are in play.

a) It isn't random.
b) The key phrase in that bit above is again "IMO." The USGA disagrees. You see it as inconsequential. The rules official did not.

And ultimately, if polled and 60% of USGA officials would have penalized Wattel, well, that's the human element to officiating the rules. He got someone in the 40%.

3 hours ago, natureboy said:

Or if it was the odd blade of grass randomly releasing in both situations then it was the act of replacing the ball on that odd blade of grass that ultimately caused the movement. But that underlying cause of replacing could have been separated from the eventual ball movement by ~ 10-40 seconds. How would the timing consideration take this underlying primary cause into account? What if it was the combination (most likely IMO) of replacing the ball on an odd blade of grass or surface imperfection and the player's movement at / near address that caused the ball to move? Which action and timing is more important?

You keep wanting to turn this into a question of fact, but that's your mistake. I realize that with your condition that you might not be able to let things like this go, but you should: it's not a question ofd fact. It's a question of judgment based on available facts, one of which is the timing involved.

---

I'm sympathetic to people who think it's "right" that a player who "doesn't touch the ball" and "doesn't gain an advantage" think this rule should be changed. I'm sympathetic to thinking it will help things to just differentiate based on whether a ball is on the putting green. (This dividing line makes more sense to me than "was the ball marked and replaced" - that line of thinking holds no water IMO.)

But while I'm sympathetic, I can't find a re-written rule without problems, and IMO, greater problems than the current rule. The current rule is pretty simple, and doesn't differentiate by ball position (on the green/in the rough) or past history (was it marked previously).

Players should take care when their ball is in a precarious spot. Just as you likely should take care when your ball is perched up in the rough, you take care when your ball is on a fast green with some slope.

What's so bad about players taking care not to cause their ball to move?

Because that's what's the issue here. If the ball moves and the player is deemed not to have caused it to move, there's no penalty. If a gust of wind had caused DJ's ball to move, even roll into the hole, there's no penalty even with a tremendous "advantage" gained.

To that point… people who say "replace it" are ignoring the times when a ball moves not caused by the player. In those cases, you play it as it lies. So if your ball is on the green, and you're nowhere nearby, and it rolls down a tier, it could be good or bad luck, but you play it as it lies anew. Most of the proposed rules in this thread eliminate, but why? Why should your ball be allowed to move down a slope in the fairway or due to a gust of wind (perhaps even out of a tree?), but not on the putting green?

The only fault of the new rule is that it relies on the judgment, based on the best available evidence, of the cause of the ball's movement. The proposed rules in this thread, IMO of course, have bigger problems yet.

[natureboy]

7 hours ago, iacas said:

You can repair ball marks on the green at any time, so no, it's not "a ball in play on the green." It's "the green" that's treated differently in that case, not the location of the ball.

As for cleaning a ball simply because it's on the putting green, you'll find there are a number of times you can clean the ball off the putting green.

Repairing ball marks on the line of play and cleaning the ball on the putting green wasn't the case before about ~ the mid 50's. Cleaning off the green occurs when the ball has been lifted under another rule providing relief from a condition or for identification.

The old (& closer to original) rules also included measurements like 6" between balls and 20' from the flagstick which I agree are practically undesirable yet they were part of the game for a considerable time. The point was the rules evolve.

7 hours ago, iacas said:

Then you're creating yet another situation where two things happen:

• They make yet another distinction for another area of the golf course. Currently, "Ball at Rest Moved" is the rule. It doesn't differentiate between the putting green, the rough, the fairway, etc.
• You assume that there's no benefit to be gained by a ball that moves farther from the hole or sideways to the hole. What if the ball moves closer to the hole, but comes to rest farther away than it started? Why make a distinction that covers the ball moving in some directions but not other directions? So now there's yet another distinction on top of a distinction…

That sort of distinction occurs for indicating line of play and ball in motion deflected or stopped rules too.

I assume that moving farther from the hole makes the putt more difficult. Any information gained does not pertain to the original lie and area between it and the hole.

Any putt that moves toward the hole or ends nearer the hole has moved toward the hole. Simple.

This wouldn't work through the green or in a hazard because the lies are far less uniform than on the putting green.

7 hours ago, iacas said:

You're also complicating things, and adding one or two layers of distinction. How about the player just behave carefully around his golf ball when he's playing on fast greens and/or steep slopes from which subtle movements could dislodge a ball from its resting place? (The same could be said of a ball on pine straw, or perched up in some rough…).

If it's reasonable sure. But if you are on the hook for unintentionally redirecting air currents as you often cite as an example it adds a certain level of unreasonable / paranoid caution that I don't think is necessary or essential to the game of golf. It's hard enough without a 'make no sudden movements' mindset.

All three players we know of reporting ball movement at Oakmont were exercising reasonable care / caution IMO considering the position of the ball. As you say, there were no extreme slopes involved. The only likely cause was their presence near the ball which is necessary in order to play.

7 hours ago, iacas said:

As I've said, if you eat suspicious sushi for lunch on Tuesday, we can all agree that if you get sick on Friday it probably wasn't the sushi, but if you get sick Tuesday afternoon, it was likely the sushi. At some point (likely Tuesday night), people will switch from saying it was the sushi if you get sick.

You've used this analogy frequently, but I'm not sure we can all agree. It appears to depend on what specific type of vector is involved.

Just like differing subsurface green conditions will respond differently in magnitude and time to the player's proximity and movement, different bugs have different incubation periods before onset of symptoms:

• http://www.foodsafe.ca/resources/Foodborne_Illness_Chart.pdf
• http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/top-10-food-poisoning-risks/?_r=0 
• http://www.emedicinehealth.com/wilderness_scombroid_poisoning/article_em.htm)

 

 

Edited June 26, 2016 by natureboy

[Fourputt]

I think he' more using his opinion to show that opinions can be very different, and I tend to agree on this one.  There needs to be better definition on that.  Again I didn't see Wattel's incident, but assuming that the environmental conditions were pretty similar as far as wind and green speed is concerned, I just don't see how they can rule so differently using the same set of parameters.  The few seconds difference when neither player touched the ball just doesn't strike me as meeting the quality of equity that the rules are so proud of doing.  I have to chalk it up to a difference of opinion between the two referees, and to the apparent lack of (at least timely) review by the committee in Wattel's case.

I just don't like the idea that one committee has the option of ruling a penalty on 4 seconds while the next one can see no penalty, as the rule now stands this is a potential scenario.  Or two different referees can have the same dichotomy.  If they had come up with a guilty agency of some sort in DJ's case, I wouldn't have an issue with it, but as far as I can see, they have nothing but the referee's opinion and a marginal claim of 4 seconds less delay.

[natureboy]

14 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

I think he' more using his opinion to show that opinions can be very different, and I tend to agree on this one.  There needs to be better definition on that.  Again I didn't see Wattel's incident, but assuming that the environmental conditions were pretty similar as far as wind and green speed is concerned, I just don't see how they can rule so differently using the same set of parameters.  The few seconds difference when neither player touched the ball just doesn't strike me as meeting the quality of equity that the rules are so proud of doing.  I have to chalk it up to a difference of opinion between the two referees, and to the apparent lack of (at least timely) review by the committee in Wattel's case.

I just don't like the idea that one committee has the option of ruling a penalty on 4 seconds while the next one can see no penalty, as the rule now stands this is a potential scenario.  Or two different referees can have the same dichotomy.  If they had come up with a guilty agency of some sort in DJ's case, I wouldn't have an issue with it, but as far as I can see, they have nothing but the referee's opinion and a marginal claim of 4 seconds less delay.

Well said. The issue for me as to whether the rule might be tweaked is more about the equitability of the outcomes as applied while I feel Erik seems focused on if the rulings were technically correct under the rule as written, which I actually agree with. But to me that dichotomy indicates a potential issue.

 

Edited June 26, 2016 by natureboy

[iacas]

2 hours ago, natureboy said:

Repairing ball marks on the line of play and cleaning the ball on the putting green wasn't the case before about ~ the mid 50's.

Cool. Irrelevant, though, because you're not treating the ball any differently. You can repair ball marks if your ball is on the green, in a bunker, in your pocket, etc.

2 hours ago, natureboy said:

The old (& closer to original) rules also included measurements like 6" between balls and 20' from the flagstick which I agree are practically undesirable yet they were part of the game for a considerable time. The point was the rules evolve.

You were not making the point that "rules evolve."

2 hours ago, natureboy said:

That sort of distinction occurs for indicating line of play and ball in motion deflected or stopped rules too.

That's why I said "and a few others."

2 hours ago, natureboy said:

I assume that moving farther from the hole makes the putt more difficult. Any information gained does not pertain to the original lie and area between it and the hole.

Sometimes moving the ball farther from the hole makes a shot easier. The Rules of Golf should not be concerned with any advantage gained, only the "potential" advantage gained. And the distinction there is that the "advantage" is on a per-case basis, while the "potential advantage" is as a whole: if a ball moves could the person ever gain an advantage? And I could create situations where moving a ball farther from the hole - or sideways - does create an advantage.

2 hours ago, natureboy said:

This wouldn't work through the green or in a hazard because the lies are far less uniform than on the putting green.

Then that alone is a reason that I'd reject such a rules change. When possible, I prefer that rules work in as many places at once.

2 hours ago, natureboy said:

If it's reasonable sure.

Again, I don't share your definition of "reasonable" nor does anyone else. People are, to varying degrees, going to disagree on certain cases about what's "reasonable." No two people have the same exact definition of "reasonable." Nor are we, IMO, can we define it in such a way as to be close enough (I would argue that if you understand the definition of "virtual certainty" we're all close enough to apply that standard.)

2 hours ago, natureboy said:

But if you are on the hook for unintentionally redirecting air currents as you often cite as an example it adds a certain level of unreasonable / paranoid caution that I don't think is necessary or essential to the game of golf. It's hard enough without a 'make no sudden movements' mindset.

I disagree that I "often" cite it, but appreciate the attempt to sort of put words into my mouth. Truth is it's really difficult to have enough wind that you can "redirect air currents" to move a ball. Plus wind speeds within 3" of the ground are often not terribly high, and if your ball is wobbling or oscillating due to high winds, yeah, you should be really careful.

I disagree with the rest of what you've said. I think there's nothing wrong with taking care near your ball so as not to cause it to move.

2 hours ago, natureboy said:

All three players we know of reporting ball movement at Oakmont were exercising reasonable care / caution IMO considering the position of the ball.

They were not as two most likely caused the ball to move. You can stop stating opinions as if they're facts any time now Kevin.

2 hours ago, natureboy said:

You've used this analogy frequently, but I'm not sure we can all agree. It appears to depend on what specific type of vector is involved.

It simply illustrates how highly linked time is to cause in people's minds. Yes, some diseases can take a little time from ingestion to manifestation. But as time goes on the likelihood - the probability or likeliness - that the sushi caused the problem decreases substantially. Players causing the ball to move tends to occur quickly, not after six seconds, and even less likely after 12 seconds, and even LESS likely after 18. So time is considered one of the factors.

2 hours ago, Fourputt said:

I think he' more using his opinion to show that opinions can be very different, and I tend to agree on this one.  There needs to be better definition on that.  Again I didn't see Wattel's incident, but assuming that the environmental conditions were pretty similar as far as wind and green speed is concerned, I just don't see how they can rule so differently using the same set of parameters.

Because they weren't the same set of parameters. They were similar parameters, but if we all think DJ causing his ball to move was 51-60% likely, that extra five seconds Wattel took might be all it takes to shift it into the < 50% range.

2 hours ago, Fourputt said:

I have to chalk it up to a difference of opinion between the two referees, and to the apparent lack of (at least timely) review by the committee in Wattel's case.

It may be a bit of that, but the same committee could easily rule that DJ's ball moving less than one second after he did something and Wattel's moving five or six seconds later swings one from > 50% and the other to < 50%.

2 hours ago, Fourputt said:

I just don't like the idea that one committee has the option of ruling a penalty on 4 seconds while the next one can see no penalty, as the rule now stands this is a potential scenario. Or two different referees can have the same dichotomy.  If they had come up with a guilty agency of some sort in DJ's case, I wouldn't have an issue with it, but as far as I can see, they have nothing but the referee's opinion and a marginal claim of 4 seconds less delay.

Rich, as you know, two different referees are always going to vary on some things. Referees might disagree on what a reasonable stance is to get relief from a sprinkler head, or countless other little things.

It would have been easy for the USGA to just sweep this under the rug by not penalizing DJ, talk to the RO afterward for doing a lousy job, and not take the PR hit. Instead, they were compelled to make what they felt was the right call, so they clearly felt that the immediacy and the actions and the proximity meant he was > 50% likely to have caused the ball to move.

2 hours ago, natureboy said:

Well said. The issue for me as to whether the rule might be tweaked is more about the equitability of the outcomes as applied while I feel Erik seems focused on if the rulings were technically correct under the rule as written, which I actually agree with. But to me that dichotomy indicates a potential issue.

The rulings were technically correct, and they were equitable. Had DJ paused six seconds before the ball moved, and he been given a stroke while Wattel (even with the different green, ball location, time of day, etc. making things a tiny bit less "equitable,"), then we'd have something.

But I don't know why the two of you can't see that < 1 seconds with all other things being the same ~ 55% likely to have caused the ball to move while > 5 seconds with all other things being the same ~ 45% likely to have caused the ball to move.

Apply the rule, as written, and you get penalty and no penalty, in that order, if they felt they were 55% and 45%.

I don't see an issue. As I said, I'm sympathetic to those who do, and I kind of "get it" where they're coming from, but I don't see the harm in making sure players are careful around their balls. The Rules have recently eliminated the "once you address it you can't unaddress it" thing, and even 18-2 is now far more forgiving by letting the players off the hook with up to 49% cause… but the current rule is, IMO, fine because it applies everywhere and is relatively simple to apply.

The only knock against the current rule is that you will get an occasional judgment call that's borderline, but there are a few times in the rules that applies.

If DJ took a stroll and tapped his wedge or putter along the line of his intended chip shot or putt on a hole, we'd have discussions over whether that constituted testing the conditions of the putting green. Again, a judgment call. It just so happens that this particular one came up a few times.

---

I've yet to see a better rule than the one we have now.

And yeah, that's just my opinion. But we all - including me - get to share those here.

Now, I'm off to trim some bushes.

[Phil McGleno]

I get that Dustin was too stupid to know the rule and so he thought addressing the ball was the key thing-But does anyone think that if Bobby Jones or Jack Nicklaus or Lee Trevino-I am not going to list Gary Player for a reason-had seen their ball move they would have not even needed the official but would have simply called a penalty on themselves to begin with?

I have seen people argue that golf is a game of honesty-But what about DJs honesty?-Why did he not call the penalty on himself? He backed off right away, but Bobby Jones penalized himself once when nobody saw it and lost a U.S. Open I think by one.

And then he said “You might as well praise a man for not robbing a bank.”

[bkuehn1952]

14 minutes ago, Phil McGleno said:

I get that Dustin was too stupid to know the rule and so he thought addressing the ball was the key thing-But does anyone think that if Bobby Jones or Jack Nicklaus or Lee Trevino-I am not going to list Gary Player for a reason-had seen their ball move they would have not even needed the official but would have simply called a penalty on themselves to begin with?

I have seen people argue that golf is a game of honesty-But what about DJs honesty?-Why did he not call the penalty on himself? He backed off right away, but Bobby Jones penalized himself once when nobody saw it and lost a U.S. Open I think by one.

And then he said “You might as well praise a man for not robbing a bank.”

The two situations, Johnson and Jones, are not the same.  Bobby Jones was certain that his club caused a ball at rest in the rough to move during the first round of the U. S. Open (1925).  Almost 100 years later that would still be a penalty and most people playing golf and familiar with the Rules would know to add a penalty stroke.  Johnson was certain that he had not touched the ball on the green and that he had not grounded the putter behind the ball.  Since the Rule related to a ball moving had changed, and he was uncertain he understood the Rule, he asked for assistance.  I don't see Johnson's actions or thought process as either dishonest or stupid.

Any discussion of Gary Player would be off topic, I think. 

 

[Asheville]

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2016/6/26/slugger-usga-made-right-the-calls-rule-needs-to-change.html

This is worth a read. 

Edited June 26, 2016 by Asheville
format

[iacas]

@bkuehn1952 by "stupid" I think @Phil McGleno meant he didn't know the rule. He clearly didn't. Still doesn't by his own admission.

[Asheville]

40 minutes ago, bkuehn1952 said:

The two situations, Johnson and Jones, are not the same.  Bobby Jones was certain that his club caused a ball at rest in the rough to move during the first round of the U. S. Open (1925).  Almost 100 years later that would still be a penalty and most people playing golf and familiar with the Rules would know to add a penalty stroke.  Johnson was certain that he had not touched the ball on the green and that he had not grounded the putter behind the ball.  Since the Rule related to a ball moving had changed, and he was uncertain he understood the Rule, he asked for assistance.  I don't see Johnson's actions or thought process as either dishonest or stupid.

Any discussion of Gary Player would be off topic, I think. 

 

I know it's hard to fathom, but the referee knew the Rule and the player didn't. 

[freshmanUTA]

There's not much you can do without video replay and such. For the PGA pros, they have everything recorded so it's almost always the right penalty stroke call. But for the people who don't have everything televised the whole weight the evidence thing works, and personally I think it helps really well.

 

Edit: I realized I didn't say what/if I would change anything: I wouldn't. I like how it is now.

Edited June 26, 2016 by freshmanUTA