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

[xcott]

15 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?

What about "after marking and replacing the ball"?

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, xcott said:

What about "after marking and replacing the ball"?

Read through the thread.

[xcott]

4 hours 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?

I see no problem with replacing the ball in this situation after it was marked. 

 

The issue of don't know where it was before it moved is the same as other rules such as another ball hitting yours. 

 

If you don't know that it moved then there is nothing to do same as it is today. The current ball moving rule only applies if you know it moved it doesn't apply if youd don't know that it moved.

4 hours ago, iacas said:

The current rule simply asks golfers to weigh those factors and determine the most likely cause of the ball's movement

Not quite. The curent rule asks golfer sto determine only if the golfer is the most likely cause. If a golfer were to believe that there was a 20% chance he moved it, a 20% chance the wind did, 20% that seismic activity did, 10% that a moving blade did, etc then the sum total of the other options is greater than 20% and thus more likely. That's how I read it, or is it the most likely compared to other options.

I think it could be simpler if any movement not done by the golfer with intent after marking was not a stroke. 

[iacas]

19 minutes ago, xcott said:

I see no problem with replacing the ball in this situation after it was marked. 

Read through the thread. Like, post #34. There are a number of issues with that type of rule.

19 minutes ago, xcott said:

That's how I read it, or is it the most likely compared to other options.

No, the current rule only asks the if the player caused the ball to move or the summation of all other factors caused the ball to move. It is irrelevant if "wind" is 30% and "nearby earthquake" is 40% and "player" is 30%. It just matters that "player" is < or > than 50%.

[xcott]

Just now, iacas said:

No, the current rule only asks the if the player caused the ball to move or the summation of all other factors caused the ball to move. It is irrelevant if "wind" is 30% and "nearby earthquake" is 40% and "player" is 30%. It just matters that "player" is < or > than 50%.

Yes, that's exactly how I read it. 

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

Read through the thread. Like, post #34. There are a number of issues with that type of rule.

24 minutes ago, xcott said:

I did and addressed them. I see no advantage to the player and no downside to allowing it.

[Shooting29]

What's the point of rules officials if their decisions mean nothing? Also the USGA goofed even worse because they cherry picked the rules application. They deemed DJ to be the reason the ball at rest moved but didn't make him move the ball back which became a wrong place violation which should be two strokes under rule 20-7. I would change the rule to make on course decisions made by officials final. Regardless of whether they are correct. 

[iacas]

36 minutes ago, xcott said:

I did and addressed them. I see no advantage to the player and no downside to allowing it.

I don't think you have.

The player should be penalized if they cause their ball to move. It shouldn't matter if they have marked it, only whether they cause the ball to move.

I believe @Hardspoon felt as you did and then this comment changed his mind.

2 hours ago, iacas said:

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."

Anyway.

28 minutes ago, Shooting29 said:

What's the point of rules officials if their decisions mean nothing?

This really isn't the thread for that. But, briefly, the RO had incomplete information.

The discussion about the events of the DJ thing are being discussed in the U.S. Open topic.

[xcott]

25 minutes ago, iacas said:

The player should be penalized if they cause their ball to move. It shouldn't matter if they have marked it, only whether they cause the ball to move.

This isn't the rule now. If you move the ball in the action of marking it there is no penalty.

25 minutes 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.

 

you can do this today without penalty. Since nobody does it I don't think this is a concern.

[Grinde6]

2 minutes ago, xcott said:

This isn't the rule now. If you move the ball in the action of marking it there is no penalty.

 

 

you can do this today without penalty. Since nobody does it I don't think this is a concern.

Did you even read through the thread as iacas has told you to do twice?  He isn't talking about moving the ball while marking it...read the thread...please

[xcott]

Just now, Grinde6 said:

Did you even read through the thread as iacas has told you to do twice?  He isn't talking about moving the ball while marking it...read the thread...please

I read the entire thread. The issue he brought up ie moving the ball and getting a read is something you can do today under a different rule, so I don't see why that should be a concern regarding this rule modification. 

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, xcott said:

This isn't the rule now. If you move the ball in the action of marking it there is no penalty.

That's a specific exclusion.

3 minutes ago, xcott said:

you can do this today without penalty. Since nobody does it I don't think this is a concern.

Incorrect. You'd be penalized, as DJ was.

You're not reading something properly… or something…?

[xcott]

Just now, iacas said:

Incorrect. You'd be penalized, as DJ was.

 

Not if it happened in the act of marking a ball. 

[iacas]

Just now, xcott said:

Not if it happened in the act of marking a ball. 

That is not what I said.

[xcott]

What is the big difference in if a player accidently moves the ball while marking or if it were from standing near it? I can't come up with a reason you shouldn't be able to treat them the same. 

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, xcott said:

What is the big difference in if a player accidently moves the ball while marking or if it were from standing near it? I can't come up with a reason you shouldn't be able to treat them the same. 

So players should just be able to move their ball whenever they want so long as they put it back? Without penalty?

I give up.

[xcott]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

So players should just be able to move their ball whenever they want so long as they put it back? Without penalty?

 

No, do you not understand the rule regarding moving the ball while marking it? 

[newtogolf]

32 minutes ago, iacas said:

This really isn't the thread for that. But, briefly, the RO had incomplete information.

The discussion about the events of the DJ thing are being discussed in the U.S. Open topic.

What was the deciding factor then, did they have video we didn't see?  If DJ wasn't leading and didn't have all the cameras on him that he did would they have stuck with the conclusion of the RO?  

[Baog]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

So players should just be able to move their ball whenever they want so long as they put it back? Without penalty?

I give up.

I think you missed the word "accidentally." Of course players should be penalized for moving the ball on purpose, but that situation is covered under a different rule anyway if they are trying to get some information about the break, for example.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Baog