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

[woodzie264]

5 hours ago, Shooting29 said:

I think they made themselves look like fools. Did that make the championship better? 

I'll rephrase the question. If the rules official were to fail to give relief when it was warranted, and the committee later finds the official ruled in error, does the player get to replay that hole from the point the error was made? If not, why not? Wouldn't getting it right make for a better championship? 

Tacking on to my previous post, agreeing with Iacas, I don't have a problem with rule itself as it affords more grace to the player, but my problem is with that manner in which it was executed - which I believe is Shooting29's point. We all recognize that the ruling obviously affects subsequent play and course management strategy and so the officials ruling must stand as it's unrealistic for players to replay subsequent holes

[Asheville]

6 hours ago, Chilli Dipper said:

The committee has a duty to get it right, but it should also reach an unambiguous decision in a timely fashion.

In this particular case, I feel that the USGA made the right call in assessing a penalty stroke. However, they either lacked discretion in the way they handled the possible infraction with Dustin, the competitors, and the media, or they didn't have an adequate system in place to resolve the situation without putting the outcome of the tournament in jeopardy.

The committee wanted to withhold assessing a penalty until Dustin had a chance to see what they were seeing on the video; that's fine. If the only way for him to review the video was from the clubhouse at the end of his round, then they shouldn't have announced it to the world when he was leading the tournament with 6-7 holes to play. Or, the USGA could have sent a rules official with an iPad to meet Dustin once his pairing had a wait on the tee, and then come to a ruling right there (though there would have to be an established protocol in those circumstances; a qualifier on Thursday deserves the same opportunity to look at the video as the leader on Sunday).

Had the Committee not informed the player there would be an uproar from 50% of the population. The fact, however, that they did inform the player has caused angina for the other half.

In most cases I suspect that the player would want to know. (The "know" vs "not know" was merely a result of two former players running their mouths on TV before they had bothered to read the Rule.)

[boogielicious]

9 hours ago, iacas said:

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!rule-18

In light of Dustin Johnson's rules issue in winning the 116th U.S. Open, how would you change the rule to make it best?

Because currently, the rule says that you simply weigh the evidence and make the best possible decision. If it's really windy, and it's likely the wind moved the ball, there's no penalty. If you make a stroke in the proximity, and nothing else seems to have contributed, you are deemed to have caused the ball to move.

The old rule was basically "once you do something, almost anything that moves the ball is your responsibility." For example, if you addressed the ball and then a gust of wind moved the ball, you were penalized.

So the new rule is, IMO, better, but clearly not perfect. Where there was no grey area before, but players were penalized for actions that were NOT their own, now they aren't penalized but there's more of a grey area because people are asked to determine and make a judgment.

I think if they add a bit more clarification under, "caused the ball to move", it would help. Players must understand that they don't necessarily have to touch the ball or address the ball to have caused it to move. DJ seemed confused by this (me too until you explained it).

His action of his practice swing so close to the ball or tapping his putter down next to the ball before he moved the head behind the ball, may have been enough to start the ball moving on such fast greens. Because the ball was at rest, and there were no gusts of wind, that action must have been the cause.

I'm not sure if they could add it to this section or add it to the decisions, but the clarification would help.

[iacas]

38 minutes ago, Asheville said:

In most cases I suspect that the player would want to know. (The "know" vs "not know" was merely a result of two former players running their mouths on TV before they had bothered to read the Rule.)

It's interesting, if you think about it… will the USGA dictate to Fox how they screwed up and misrepresented the USGA? Would this have happened on NBC?

Off topic for this thread, though @Asheville I'd recommend you start a separate topic on this. Or, here, I will.

18 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

I think if they add a bit more clarification under, "caused the ball to move", it would help. Players must understand that they don't necessarily have to touch the ball or address the ball to have caused it to move. DJ seemed confused by this (me too until you explained it).

They don't need more clarification there. Or, perhaps better stated, read 18-2/0.5:

 

Quote

 

18-2/0.5 Weight of Evidence Standard for Determining Whether Player Caused His Ball to Move

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

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

• The nature of any actions taken near the ball (e.g., movement of loose impediments, practice swings, grounding club, taking stance, etc.),
• Time elapsed between such actions and the movement of the ball,
• The lie of the ball before it moved (e.g., on a closely-mown area, perched on longer grass, on a surface imperfection, etc.),
• The conditions of the ground near the ball (e.g., degree of slope, presence of surface irregularities, etc.), and
• Wind, rain and other weather conditions.

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

With reference to the considerations above, examples of situations where the weight of the evidence would indicate that the player caused the ball to move are:

• A player's ball lies on a flat portion of the putting green on a day with light winds. The player addresses the ball and the ball immediately moves. Under these circumstances, it is more likely than not that the act of addressing the ball caused the ball to move.
• A player's ball lies on a tuft of grass in the rough. The player takes several practice swings near the ball, with the club coming into contact with grass in the process. Almost immediately, the ball then moves vertically down in the grass. Under these circumstances, it is more likely than not that the practice swings, in conjunction with the lie of the ball, caused the movement of the ball.

With reference to the considerations above, examples of situations where the weight of the evidence would indicate that the player did not cause the movement are:

• On a very windy day, a player addresses the ball on the putting green. A short time later the ball moves slightly in the direction the wind is blowing. The strength and direction of the wind and the delay in the movement of the ball after the club was grounded indicate that factors other than the player are more likely than not to have caused the movement.
• A player's ball lies on an upslope in a closely-mown area. He makes a practice swing, but does so some distance from the ball as he is concerned that the ball may move. He carefully takes his stance but does not ground his club. Prior to making his backswing for the stroke, the ball moves. As the ball did not move while the player made the practice swing or took his stance, it is more likely than not that other factors (i.e., the ball's lie on an upslope) caused the ball to move. (New)

 

I could bold and make red various parts of that, but it'd be more bold and red than plain black.

18 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

I'm not sure if they could add it to this section or add it to the decisions, but the clarification would help.

Did you look at the Decisions, like the one above, before you wrote that?

[boogielicious]

7 minutes ago, iacas said:

did you look at the decisions, like the one above, before you wrote that?

I missed that one! My bad. It is early ya know! 

[Pete]

9 hours ago, Hardspoon said:

Here's a thought: what if you allowed players to replace the ball on the green, without penalty, regardless of why it moves?  (maybe unless they INTENTIONALLY cause it to move)

They're already allowed to mark the ball and clean it, so it doesn't seem like they could use it to their advantage.  It would eliminate the gray area, without creating a loophole (other than permitting carelessness without penalty).

Personally, it seems a bit out of line with the Principles...but I'm just throwing it out there.

This is how I would change all rules. The whole point of the rules is to stop people cheating basically.

However, they were implemented in a way that does not allow for accidents or unlucky circumstances that, by the letter of the law (rules), count as breaking the rules.

It will never change because it requires golfers to be honest about what their intentions were, or to decide whether they gained an advantage or not.

Dustin Johnson gained no advantage in any way at all by the ball moving, so regardless of what caused it to move, it should not be a penalty.

Sadly, the rules don't work this way and I doubt they will ever change.

[Pete]

9 hours ago, iacas said:

In all situations?

So if the ball is on a slope, and it moves after it came to rest with the golfer nowhere nearby, you replace it? What if you aren't sure whether it was at rest? Or where it was originally?

I'd caution against branching out into too many tangents.

If you aren't sure if it was at rest then play it wherever you are sure it is at rest.

Replace it as near as possible to the original location.

I really like @Hardspoon's suggestion. It reflects reality better than the current rule.

In the grand scheme of things, in terms of determining who is the better golfer on a given day, how is the ball rolling due to an uneven or quick green, or the weight distribution of the golfer and the green's reaction to their footsteps or whatever, anything to do with how well someone plays golf?

@iacas can you explain to me how someone would gain an advantage by the ball moving as a result of anything but an obvious stroke at the ball, if the result was replacing the ball?

You make a stroke at it = 1 stroke regardless of where the ball ends up. 

You don't and the ball moved anyway = put it back, no penalty, regardless of where the ball ends up. 

And I'm talking about anywhere on the golf course and by stroke I mean you intend to move the ball.

[Grinde6]

I would change it to be that after the ball is marked on the green, when the player replaces their ball to play it if it moves without the club touching the ball or a stroke at the ball, it is replaced with no penalty.  There are too many factors (wind, 14+ stimp green speeds, slope, etc) that can cause the ball to move without the player causing it to move. 

They could also go the another route where all the other pro sports have gone.  DJ called over a rules official and the official deemed it to be no penalty.  If the USGA is to overturn the rules official there has to be inconclusive evidence the other way to overturn the original ruling.

A little off topic, but how does someone explain Romain Wattel's no penalty when he actually grounded his putter behind the ball....???

[Pete]

15 minutes ago, Grinde6 said:

A little off topic, but how does someone explain Romain Wattel's no penalty when he actually grounded his putter behind the ball....???

Even if you ground the club, if it is clear that it didn't cause the move, i.e. it is windy AF and the ball moves in the direction of the wind, then no penalty.

 

I totally agree with your suggestion  BTW.

[iacas]

I think that some people are missing out on the idea or fact that you can cause a ball to move without touching it.

For example, you can press down on rough behind the ball, or step on a stick that is resting against your ball, and cause the ball to move without touching the ball. You could alter the wind to nudge your ball down a slope without touching the ball.

1 hour ago, Pete said:

This is how I would change all rules. The whole point of the rules is to stop people cheating basically.

It's too far OT to get into this here, but absolutely not. The rules exist to ensure the proper playing of the game. They benefit the player frequently. They are not there to "stop people cheating."

1 hour ago, Pete said:

However, they were implemented in a way that does not allow for accidents or unlucky circumstances that, by the letter of the law (rules), count as breaking the rules.

If Dustin caused the ball to move, that is not an unlucky circumstance, and you cannot allow "accidents" that violate fundamental principles of the game. For example, the rules draw no distinction here between what DJ did and a player accidentally (or even on purpose) kicking his ball toward the hole while walking around the putting green.

It's the same: "ball at rest moved by player." Accident or not… doesn't matter. Very few rules - for good reason - consider "intent."

1 hour ago, Pete said:

Dustin Johnson gained no advantage in any way at all by the ball moving, so regardless of what caused it to move, it should not be a penalty.

You cannot base very many rules on whether someone thinks an advantage is gained. As this DJ incident points out, the Rules of Golf generally seek to leave judgment out of things. That's why the former rule penalized players even if the wind clearly caused the ball to move if they'd done certain things.

The new rule is looser and less penalizing, but adds a little judgment. You cannot, however, add judgment to everything by asking "was an advantage gained?"

52 minutes ago, Pete said:

Replace it as near as possible to the original location.

Okay so a player hits the ball onto the green, beyond the flag, with a big tier. They wanted to use the tier as a backstop, but flew it an inch too far… or so it seems. After they put their club away a little puff of wind pushes the ball a dimple and it gains speed and moves down the slope and rolls into the hole.

The player is to replace the ball?

What if the ball is on the top tier and the ball rolls farther away from the hole?

Put it back, in both instances?

What if it won't stay there? What if players don't notice that it moved because it was blind to them? Have they then played from a wrong place?

The thing with the Rules are that they've been tweaked after hundreds of years of play. These types of situations have major ramifications that ripple throughout the rest of the Rules. The knee-jerk "well just make the rule say this" type of posts often fail to consider those ramifications.

52 minutes ago, Pete said:

In the grand scheme of things, in terms of determining who is the better golfer on a given day, how is the ball rolling due to an uneven or quick green, or the weight distribution of the golfer and the green's reaction to their footsteps or whatever, anything to do with how well someone plays golf?

In the grand scheme of things, in terms of determining who is the better golfer on a given day, how is touching the sand in a bunker before you make your stroke got anything to do with how well someone plays golf?

In the grand scheme of things, in terms of determining who is the better golfer on a given day, how does practicing on the golf course before the round begins got anything to do with how well someone plays golf?

In the grand scheme of things, in terms of determining who is the better golfer on a given day, how does carrying 16 clubs even if the golfer only uses 12 of them got anything to do with how well someone plays golf?

Golf is a game played by a certain set of rules. If you throw away the rules, you're not playing "golf" anymore. You're just hitting a ball with sticks.

52 minutes ago, Pete said:

@iacas can you explain to me how someone would gain an advantage by the ball moving as a result of anything but an obvious stroke at the ball, if the result was replacing the ball?

You won't like the answer, but again, the Rules of Golf care very little about trying to determine whether an advantage was gained or not. Very few rules - and I sometimes wish there were fewer - look to make judgment calls about "intent" or the "advantage" possibly gained. The fewer rules that do that, the better IMO.

Consider that this rule recently added some judgment to it, and that's a big part of the reason why we're in this mess. 18-2b is gone now (ball moves after player addresses it), but even in 2000 (and before), the rule does not allow a player to cause his ball to move.

http://www.ruleshistory.com/rules2000.html#1802

See 18-2a. The Decision recently added clarifies what "causes his ball to move" means.

http://www.usga.org/articles/2015/11/the-latest--rules-changes-for-2016.html

 

Quote

 

Rule 18-2: Ball at Rest Moved By Player, Partner, Caddie or Equipment

The change that will likely have the biggest impact across all levels of the game involves Rule 18-2. The current Rule is split into two parts – Rule 18-2a places a responsibility on you to ensure that you do not cause your ball in play to move, whereas Rule 18-2b places a heavier burden on you to ensure that your ball does not move after address, even for a fault not your own.

Recall a situation when you addressed your ball and were ready to putt, only to watch your ball rotate away from its current position. If it was due to wind or an outside agency, you may have been in luck. Otherwise, you were “deemed to have moved the ball” and on the hook for a penalty.

Beginning in 2016, the current language in Rule 18-2a will stand alone in the new Rule 18-2 and Rule 18-2b will be withdrawn. Therefore, if your ball moves after you address it, the application of a penalty under Rule 18-2 will be based solely on whether you caused your ball to move. While you will still need to take care when you are near your ball, this change will allow you to focus on the challenge that lies ahead – your next stroke – not a potential breach for a situation over which you have little control.

As always, there will be times when it is difficult to determine why the ball moved in a given situation. New Decision 18-2/0.5 will confirm that relevant information must be considered and that the weight of the evidence must be evaluated to determine whether you are ultimately responsible for the movement. If it is more likely than not that you caused your ball to move, you incur a one-stroke penalty under Rule 18-2 and must replace the ball. In other words, there may be doubt about the cause, but if the weight of the evidence indicates you were most likely the cause of the ball's movement, you are in breach of Rule 18-2. Otherwise, you are held blameless and will not incur a penalty.

 

 

23 minutes ago, Grinde6 said:

I would change it to be that after the ball is marked on the green, when the player replaces their ball to play it if it moves without the club touching the ball or a stroke at the ball, it is replaced with no penalty.

So the ball on the top tier, you'd replace it even if wind and gravity moved the ball?

What if you don't know where the ball was before it moved? What if you don't know that the ball moved?

23 minutes ago, Grinde6 said:

There are too many factors (wind, 14+ stimp green speeds, slope, etc) that can cause the ball to move without the player causing it to move.

The current rule simply asks golfers to weigh those factors and determine the most likely cause of the ball's movement. If it was the wind, and not any action taken by the player or his side, then all's good. If the player caused the ball to move, that's a penalty, whether he physically touched the ball or not, and has been a penalty for quite some time.

23 minutes ago, Grinde6 said:

They could also go the another route where all the other pro sports have gone.  DJ called over a rules official and the official deemed it to be no penalty.  If the USGA is to overturn the rules official there has to be inconclusive evidence the other way to overturn the original ruling.

I think you meant conclusive, but either way… perhaps they would have felt similarly here. They concluded that DJ was more likely to have caused the ball to move. That's the way the current rule reads and must be applied: if DJ is more likely than not to have caused the ball to move, he's at fault.

The ball wasn't on a steep slope and the wind wasn't blowing when his ball moved.

23 minutes ago, Grinde6 said:

A little off topic, but how does someone explain Romain Wattel's no penalty when he actually grounded his putter behind the ball....???

They explained this already: six seconds (IIRC) had elapsed without him taking any actions, so they determined he most likely did not cause the ball to move. Plus, not that it matters as he stepped back and claimed such, but I don't see his ball move, while DJ's clearly did. I don't know if I saw Lowry's ball move either. Kudos to all three for stopping play and calling over an RO, knowing they may incur a penalty.

[Grinde6]

6 minutes ago, iacas said:

So the ball on the top tier, you'd replace it even if wind and gravity moved the ball?

What if you don't know where the ball was before it moved? What if you don't know that the ball moved?

The current rule simply asks golfers to weigh those factors and determine the most likely cause of the ball's movement. If it was the wind, and not any action taken by the player or his side, then all's good. If the player caused the ball to move, that's a penalty, whether he physically touched the ball or not, and has been a penalty for quite some time.

I think you meant conclusive, but either way… perhaps they would have felt similarly here. They concluded that DJ was more likely to have caused the ball to move. That's the way the current rule reads and must be applied: if DJ is more likely than not to have caused the ball to move, he's at fault.

The ball wasn't on a steep slope and the wind wasn't blowing when his ball moved.

They explained this already: six seconds (IIRC) had elapsed without him taking any actions, so they determined he most likely did not cause the ball to move. Plus, not that it matters as he stepped back and claimed such, but I don't see his ball move, while DJ's clearly did. I don't know if I saw Lowry's ball move either. Kudos to all three for stopping play and calling over an RO, knowing they may incur a penalty.

The ball on the top tier that the wind pushed and it rolled into the hole??  Yes, I would be fine with replacing it since I didn't make a stroke at it to cause it to go in the hole, same with if it moved further away from the hole.  What I was saying is all after you have marked your ball, looked over your line and placed your ball back in front of your mark and picked up your mark.  If the player doesn't touch the ball with their putter, or make a stroke at the ball, no matter if it goes closer or further it should be able to be put back with no penalty.

DJ did weigh the factors of whether or not he thought he made the ball move and came up with that he didn't make it move.  The rules official did not assess a penalty, but later the USGA looked it over and gave the penalty, so all wasn't good even when DJ said there was no way he made that ball move...

Yes, I meant conclusive, but one rules official said all was well, no penalty, and then later the USGA stepped in and gave him the penalty...2 conflicting sides, so that's where I meant there should have to be conclusive evidence that he made the ball move, not "more than likely" or as the one USGA guy said on TV, more than a 50% chance he made the ball move.

Its not cut and dry enough I don't think.  That's why it would be much easier if they just did the once you put your ball down and pick up your mark, if you don't touch the ball with your club, or make a stroke at the ball, put it back in its original position and game on...

I do agree kudos to all of them for calling an official over, but if the officials ruling is going to get overturned, whats the point of them making the call on the course?

[rehmwa]

12 hours ago, Asheville said:

The savvy player will not touch the grass or ground very close to the ball when taking practice swings. (Like some guy we all saw on TV this afternoon.) He'll be in no need of a "better" Rule. 

Not good enough.  Essentially, you take the penalty unless you observe specifically something other than you that caused the move.  So if you did nothing to make it move and it still moves, you get the penalty.  You have to identify the outside element.

for me, little moves like this after the initial marking don't provide any advantage/disadvantage - delete the penalty and just require replacement and it doesn't matter if you can prove or not if the player or something else moved it.

[Golfingdad]

13 hours ago, iacas said:

In light of Dustin Johnson's rules issue in winning the 116th U.S. Open, how would you change the rule to make it best?

 

13 hours ago, iacas said:

But a bunch of people are having heartache tonight about it, so I wanted to hear how they'd improve it.

But not about the rule itself, just about the way it was handled.  I don't think the rule needs to change.  But just for fun, I guess if you forced me to change it, I'd vote for something along these lines"

 

12 hours ago, Hardspoon said:

Here's a thought: what if you allowed players to replace the ball on the green, without penalty, regardless of why it moves?

But you bring up good points ...

 

12 hours ago, iacas said:

In all situations?

So if the ball is on a slope, and it moves after it came to rest with the golfer nowhere nearby, you replace it? What if you aren't sure whether it was at rest? Or where it was originally?

I'd caution against branching out into too many tangents.

So what if you did this:  Leave the rule as it is to determine whether or not the player caused it to move, but just take out the penalty part.  It would also allow them to make the burden even lower than "more likely than not."

"Is there any reason AT ALL for you to believe that you caused that ball to move?"  

"Well, I did take a practice swing next to it."

"OK, then put it back and play on."

And make this rule specific to the green.  No "whoops, I accidentally nudged my ball that is nestled down in that deep rough, I better get my hands on it and put it back where it was" garbage.

Again, my real opinion is that they don't really need to change anything, so this is just for the fun of the exercise and to see why that wouldn't work. ;)

[Hardspoon]

20 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Again, my real opinion is that they don't really need to change anything, so this is just for the fun of the exercise and to see why that wouldn't work. ;)

Yeah, my feelings exactly.

You'd also have to make it apply only after the ball is marked and replaced (to avoid the "was it at rest" question).

[turtleback]

14 hours ago, iacas said:

I agree.

But a bunch of people are having heartache tonight about it, so I wanted to hear how they'd improve it.

All you have to do is make sure the rules official READS it.  He didn't do anything the Decision said to do.  As far as I can tell he based his decision on Dustin's assertions that he didn't ground his putter and he didn't move the ball.  Very nice but NOT what the Decision says a ruling should be based on.  He didn't ask about Dustin's actions near the ball in either time or space  he didn't ask Dustin if there was anything else that could have moved it.  He did none of the things anticipated by that Decision. 

IMO there is angst about this because a) the official blew it, and b) angsting people do not know the rule.

5 hours ago, boogielicious said:

I missed that one! My bad. It is early ya know! 

Don;t feel bad.  The RO on the ground missed that one as well.

[iacas]

5 hours ago, Grinde6 said:

DJ did weigh the factors of whether or not he thought he made the ball move and came up with that he didn't make it move.

No, he didn't. I'm not certain of much, but I'm certain DJ didn't "weigh the factors." He doesn't understand the rule.

5 hours ago, Grinde6 said:

The rules official did not assess a penalty, but later the USGA looked it over and gave the penalty, so all wasn't good even when DJ said there was no way he made that ball move...

The penalty was applied properly. The original RO Newell didn't do his job properly, but also, DJ misinformed him of the facts.

5 hours ago, Grinde6 said:

Yes, I meant conclusive, but one rules official said all was well, no penalty, and then later the USGA stepped in and gave him the penalty...2 conflicting sides, so that's where I meant there should have to be conclusive evidence that he made the ball move, not "more than likely" or as the one USGA guy said on TV, more than a 50% chance he made the ball move.

The rules say "more likely than not" basically. It doesn't have to be conclusive. This isn't a "virtually certain" situation. It's a "most likely" situation.

5 hours ago, Grinde6 said:

Its not cut and dry enough I don't think.  That's why it would be much easier if they just did the once you put your ball down and pick up your mark, if you don't touch the ball with your club, or make a stroke at the ball, put it back in its original position and game on...

The rule is "Ball at Rest Moved." It's not often you get to mark your ball - only really on the putting green. The rule applies to all balls at rest that move.

Let's assume for a second that your rule is the one that applies. If you don't make a stroke at the ball, you can replace it if you've previously marked it.

Okay, so my ball is on the top of a tier. Without touching the ball directly with my club and after marking and replacing it, I cause the ball to move in such a way that it rolls down the slope and near the hole. I thus gain information about how the putt will break, how far it will roll out, etc. But since I didn't make a stroke and because I marked my ball, I just get to replace it, without penalty.

I'm sure I or you could come up with other scenarios that would break apart your proposed rule, but that right there is enough for me to say "no way, can't change the rule the way you suggest."

5 hours ago, Grinde6 said:

I do agree kudos to all of them for calling an official over, but if the officials ruling is going to get overturned, whats the point of them making the call on the course?

The RO screwed up. So did DJ in improperly explaining the facts.

5 hours ago, rehmwa said:

Not good enough.  Essentially, you take the penalty unless you observe specifically something other than you that caused the move.  So if you did nothing to make it move and it still moves, you get the penalty.  You have to identify the outside element.

for me, little moves like this after the initial marking don't provide any advantage/disadvantage - delete the penalty and just require replacement and it doesn't matter if you can prove or not if the player or something else moved it.

You can't keep making rules based on whether you gain an advantage or not. Do I gain an advantage watching my ball roll toward the hole in the example above? Yes. How little must a "move" be before we consider whether the subjective "advantage" occurred?

4 hours ago, Hardspoon said:

You'd also have to make it apply only after the ball is marked and replaced (to avoid the "was it at rest" question).

What about the situation above? I'm sure you too could come up with other scenarios where a ball could be moved by the player that aren't "right" and should require more of a penalty than simply replacing the ball.

3 hours ago, turtleback said:

All you have to do is make sure the rules official READS it.  He didn't do anything the Decision said to do.  As far as I can tell he based his decision on Dustin's assertions that he didn't ground his putter and he didn't move the ball.  Very nice but NOT what the Decision says a ruling should be based on.  He didn't ask about Dustin's actions near the ball in either time or space  he didn't ask Dustin if there was anything else that could have moved it.  He did none of the things anticipated by that Decision.

Yep. He goofed, badly.

3 hours ago, turtleback said:

IMO there is angst about this because a) the official blew it, and b) angsting people do not know the rule.

And… people are ignoring that DJ gave misinformation. That didn't help the RO. But he has to be better. Look at his page: http://www.usga.org/about/mark-e-newell-2147496271.html.

Quote

In 2016, Newell will chair the Rules of Golf Committee and will also serve on the Handicap and Joint Rules of Golf Committees. 

 

[Hardspoon]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

Okay, so my ball is on the top of a tier. Without touching the ball directly with my club and after marking and replacing it, I cause the ball to move in such a way that it rolls down the slope and near the hole. I thus gain information about how the putt will break, how far it will roll out, etc. But since I didn't make a stroke and because I marked my ball, I just get to replace it, without penalty.

Yeah, duh.  Didn't think of that.  You'd have to penalize them "in equity" or something, which is a complete s--tshow.

As I said above, I'm firmly in the camp that thinks the current rule is:

1. Better than the previous version
2. Probably as good as they are going to get

[iacas]

8 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

Yeah, duh.  Didn't think of that.  You'd have to penalize them "in equity" or something, which is a complete s--tshow.

As I said above, I'm firmly in the camp that thinks the current rule is:

1. Better than the previous version
2. Probably as good as they are going to get

I think it is too, but you never know… maybe someone comes up with a better rule than the one we have now.

Removal of 18-2b was a good thing.