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

[saevel25]

1 hour ago, tdiii said:

A displacement of less than 2" shall not be deemed a movement.  If it occurs, whether by means of the player or outside agency, the ball shall be replaced and played. 

Nope, bad logic, bad suggestion, should not happen. What are you going to do, carry around a ruler? 

 

 

[tdiii]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Agreed. Plus 2" might mean getting to avoid a big spike mark or could greatly improve your lie in the rough, fairway, etc.

No.  You'd replace the ball. 

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, tdiii said:

No.  You'd replace the ball. 

I don't want to get all metaphysical, but if the ball didn't move, you can't really replace it. "That thing didn't move. Put it back!"

Never mind the already mentioned issues with trying to measure two inches. I think even people who don't like the current rule would vote against your suggested rules change.

[tdiii]

43 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Nope, bad logic, bad suggestion, should not happen. What are you going to do, carry around a ruler? 

 

 

Carrying around a ruler is no more stupid than what we saw yesterday.  Not that that should be the standard for rules.  It is objective, easily and quickly measured, and covers the random gopher-caused oscillation. 

[iacas]

1 minute ago, tdiii said:

Carrying around a ruler is no more stupid than what we saw yesterday.  Not that that should be the standard for rules.  It is objective, easily and quickly measured, and covers the random gopher-caused oscillation. 

It's not easily measured. You have to agree on where the original spot was. Good luck doing that in three dimensions. If your opponent says you caused it to move 2.3 inches and you think the wind moved it 1.8… then what? More confusion than we have now.

"Did the ball move at all?" is more easily applied. It's not perfect, but it's easier than whipping out a tiny ruler. Then the question of "why" is the only thing to be discussed.

Also, wind is not an outside agency.

[tdiii]

Just now, iacas said:

It's not easily measured. You have to agree on where the original spot was.

"Did the ball move" is more easily applied. Then it becomes a matter of what caused it to move.

Also, wind is not an outside agency.

We're constantly in golf having to find where a ball crossed a hazard.  This is a heck of a lot easier than that. 

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, tdiii said:

We're constantly in golf having to find where a ball crossed a hazard. This is a heck of a lot easier than that. 

I disagree, and I think most other people would too.

If you thought the ruling was a farce at the U.S. Open, wait until they start whipping out little rulers and replaying video in slow-motion with 3D rulers drawn on the screen and all that hooey. Plus, good luck determining whether a ball moved down in the rough 2.05 or 1.95 inches.

You think that determining whether DJ caused his ball to move was a joke? But you want to draw the line at 1.999 inches versus 2.000 inches? How many significant digits should we go out to for the measurement?

C'mon.

[tdiii]

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

I disagree, and I think most other people would too.

If you thought the ruling was a farce at the U.S. Open, wait until they start whipping out little rulers and replaying video in slow-motion with 3D rulers drawn on the screen and all that hooey. Plus, good luck determining whether a ball moved down in the rough 2.05 or 1.95 inches.

You think that determining whether DJ caused his ball to move was a joke? But you want to draw the line at 1.999 inches versus 2.000 inches? How many significant digits should we go out to for the measurement?

C'mon.

How often have you ever seen a ball displace by more than 1"?  Besides, with Shotlink, we already have the ability. 

Edited June 21, 2016 by tdiii

[saevel25]

1 minute ago, tdiii said:

We're constantly in golf having to find where a ball crossed a hazard.  This is a heck of a lot easier than that. 

You are saying 2 inches as a hard line rule. 

The rules for the Water Hazard do not required pin point accuracy. Your analogy does not work here. No one breaks out a ruler for a water hazard. 

 

[tdiii]

Just now, saevel25 said:

You are saying 2 inches as a hard line rule. 

The rules for the Water Hazard do not required pin point accuracy. Your analogy does not work here. No one breaks out a ruler for a water hazard. 

 

No.  A ruler is not broken out, but there are constantly debates about where the thing crossed. 

[rehmwa]

6 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.

This one - meh - sometimes the other guy putts first and I get a read.  Sometimes you get line of sight relief and get to hit out of the first cut.  This doesn't sell me - a new rule would have give and take just like any other.  If this example is just warning that someone would abuse it, then it's not a gentlemen's game of honor anyway

[Golfingdad]

3 minutes ago, tdiii said:

How often have you ever seen a ball displace by more than 1"?

Based on this comment, perhaps what you are really suggesting is not a hard and fast rule of 2" but rather something more along the lines of a vague but large distance that equates to something that would change the dynamic of the next shot.  Maybe instead of 2" you should be vague and say "significant?"

[Hardspoon]

You could go back-and-forth on the practicality of enforcement all night (the Shotlink point is actually interesting, for other reasons).

Another concern I have: no other Rule that I can think of depends on "degree" (ie, "how much").  It's never a matter of how far into the hazard a ball is, or how far out of bounds.  It's either in the hazard or not; out of bounds or not.

This would be the only RoG that depended on how much (how far the ball moved).

[tdiii]

Just now, Golfingdad said:

Based on this comment, perhaps what you are really suggesting is not a hard and fast rule of 2" but rather something more along the lines of a vague but large distance that equates to something that would change the dynamic of the next shot.  Maybe instead of 2" you should be vague and say "significant?"

Hard and fast rules are generally better because everyone knows what they are.  But "significant" or "material" make sense to me.  6" on a 60' putt is basically meaningless, but 6" on a 2 footer could be meaningful.  It's not a great rule, but the idea is to avoid penalizing the stupid little oscillations. 

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, tdiii said:

How often have you ever seen a ball displace by more than 1"? 

Beside the point. And if you insist on an answer, "often enough."

https://streamable.com/27tw?t=40.8

 

2 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Based on this comment, perhaps what you are really suggesting is not a hard and fast rule of 2" but rather something more along the lines of a vague but large distance that equates to something that would change the dynamic of the next shot.  Maybe instead of 2" you should be vague and say "significant?"

Which does nothing to simplify or remove judgment calls. "Did the ball move?" is a much easier question to answer. It's a binary state.

2 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

You could go back-and-forth on the practicality of enforcement all night (the Shotlink point is actually interesting, for other reasons).

Another concern I have: no other Rule that I could think of depends on "degree" (ie, "how much").  It's never a matter of how far into the hazard a ball is, or how far out of bounds.  It's either in the hazard or not; out of bounds or not.

This would be the only RoG that depended on how much (how far the ball moved).

Yep.

[Golfingdad]

7 minutes ago, iacas said:

Beside the point. And if you insist on an answer, "often enough."

https://streamable.com/27tw?t=40.8

Which does nothing to simplify or remove judgment calls. "Did the ball move?" is a much easier question to answer. It's a binary state.

Agreed, but when I read the comment that way, his intent makes more sense.  It's not practical at all, but I think at least I "get it."

[Fourputt]

3 hours ago, tdiii said:

Hard and fast rules are generally better because everyone knows what they are.  But "significant" or "material" make sense to me.  6" on a 60' putt is basically meaningless, but 6" on a 2 footer could be meaningful.  It's not a great rule, but the idea is to avoid penalizing the stupid little oscillations. 

If the ball oscillates, there is no penalty.  Oscillating is not moving under the Rules of Golf.

[iacas]

10 hours ago, tdiii said:

Hard and fast rules are generally better because everyone knows what they are.  But "significant" or "material" make sense to me.  6" on a 60' putt is basically meaningless, but 6" on a 2 footer could be meaningful.  It's not a great rule, but the idea is to avoid penalizing the stupid little oscillations. 

"significant" and "material" don't work as rules because people will disagree over what constitutes significant. The better rule is to say "did the ball move at all?" It's a binary state, not a sliding grey area of "a little" or "kinda."

And as @Fourputt said, an oscillation is not movement under the RoG. Dustin's ball did not oscillate.