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

[Asheville]

7 minutes ago, boil3rmak3r said:

^This

It seems like DJ simply answered the question(s) asked of the RO.  The RO quickly deemed no penalty.  How the USGA could say the player gave misinformation and, therefore, rule 34-2 is not applicable is beyond me.  Should 34-2 simply be removed from the rule book?

In any case, I am fine with the current Ball at Rest Moved rule.

 

The question asked of the player seems to be, "Did you ground your club?"

The answer reportedly given was, "No."

We've all seen the replay. He did ground his club. He, however, did not address the ball.

The player, unwittingly, misled the referee. Unwittingly or not, his statement was false.

[DrvFrShow]

Does 18-1 apply? We've looked at the tail end from a distance. People have said DJ didn't give the official correct information. Here's the close up. It doesn't look like he grounded his club to me. So he gave the RO correct information. 

 

[rehmwa]

2 minutes ago, DrvFrShow said:

Does 18-1 apply? We've looked at the tail end from a distance. People have said DJ didn't give the official correct information. Here's the close up. It doesn't look like he grounded his club to me. So he gave the RO correct information. 

 

you need to read the thread - the rule isn't just about address any more.  It's about any action.  He did ground the club right next to the ball for a couple practice strokes.  After his last practice stroke, he touched the ground just prior to the video clip loop you attached.  That's the specific 'grounding' the discussion is mostly on about.

[Jeremie Boop]

3 minutes ago, DrvFrShow said:

Does 18-1 apply? We've looked at the tail end from a distance. People have said DJ didn't give the official correct information. Here's the close up. It doesn't look like he grounded his club to me. So he gave the RO correct information. 

 

It almost seems like when he moved his club behind the ball it caused a temporary vacuum/negative air pressure situation that caused the ball to roll. Possibly due to a change in the airflow from the wind. So even though he didn't ground the club, placing the club behind it was still the cause. The problem is, if that's the case there was no way for him to avoid having that happen.... It's such a crazy scenario that I can't imagine it happens very often at all. It's hard for me to say he should have gotten a penalty, but according to the rules he technically should have gotten one.

[DrvFrShow]

The rule is very poorly written. Seriously. How many seconds need to lapse between grounding the club on a practice swing and address before any ground vibration caused by grounding the club goes away. FFS, surface waves from the club to the ball travel instantaneous from that distance. The ball would have moved before his club arrived at the address position if his grounding before taking a practice swing caused it especially on that flat and firm of a surface. That's the most bogus argument I've heard. I have a degree in geology.

The ruling made no sense. That's what bothers me about it.

 

2 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

It almost seems like when he moved his club behind the ball it caused a temporary vacuum/negative air pressure situation that caused the ball to roll. Possibly due to a change in the airflow from the wind. So even though he didn't ground the club, placing the club behind it was still the cause. The problem is, if that's the case there was no way for him to avoid having that happen.... It's such a crazy scenario that I can't imagine it happens very often at all. It's hard for me to say he should have gotten a penalty, but according to the rules he technically should have gotten one.

Creating a vacuum behind the ball is not the fault of the player. That would be caused by air movement. Air is an outside agency.

[Jeremie Boop]

3 minutes ago, DrvFrShow said:

 

Creating a vacuum behind the ball is not the fault of the player. That would be caused by air movement. Air is an outside agency.

Actually, @iacas already mentioned that wind is not considered an outside agency.

17 hours ago, iacas said:

Also, wind is not an outside agency.

[rehmwa]

6 minutes ago, DrvFrShow said:

That's the most bogus argument I've heard. I have a degree in geology.

The ground is a living thing and water moves and grass blades react, etc etc etc could cause a delayed responsed to pressure/release on the ground.  That's why the practice stroke, even if it did cause the motion, is a bogus penalty (I agree with you).

I'd say on the green - change the rule to replace the ball and play on - no penalty.  But clearly there are other opinions.

My daughter is going to school for geology.

[Asheville]

13 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

The ground is a living thing and water moves and grass blades react, etc etc etc could cause a delayed responsed to pressure/release on the ground.  That's why the practice stroke, even if it did cause the motion, is a bogus penalty (I agree with you).

I'd say on the green - change the rule to replace the ball and play on - no penalty.  But clearly there are other opinions.

My daughter is going to school for geology.

Another opinion is that the 2016 version of the Rule is pretty good.

Players might do well to avoid messing about in such close proximity to a ball in play.

Edited June 21, 2016 by Asheville
punctuation

[iacas]

1 hour ago, turtleback said:

I blame the RO for basing his ruling on that without probing at all.

Very much so.

1 hour ago, turtleback said:

And I am not even sure it was misinformation. He didn't think he had moved the ball and he didn't ground his club, in the sense of behind the ball, which is what Dustin meant, in all likelihood, not the grounding when he was taking his practice swings.

But that's misinformation… because of an unclearly worded question. Lee (I think, too lazy to watch the video again) said "he didn't address it" which is the old 18-2b. I think the players think that "grounding your club" only means behind or in front of the ball, like the old "addressing the ball" stuff. It doesn't. He grounded his club before and after taking the practice strokes.

1 hour ago, turtleback said:

And IAC there wasn't enough information at all to apply the Decision.  And I don't care what the guy's chops are, he choked big time on the the biggest stage and caused the USGA an enormous amount of embarrassment.

100% agree. He screwed up big time.

Had he made a ruling with all of the facts, I think there would have been debate about it either way (probably less so if the crowd favorite wasn't penalized), but I feel that it would have settled things. Instead, he botched it horribly and the USGA, because they're rules geeks, cared more about "getting it right" (which honestly I commend them for, but many do not), than trying to save face at that point. Their integrity mattered more to them than the egg on their face/PR hit.

Newell fucked up. Big time.

1 hour ago, turtleback said:

"Show me exactly what you did" would have resulted in a correct ruling and no (or at least a heck of a lot less) controversy.

Precisely.

As soon as Newell heard "my ball moved" he should have been very careful to ascertain the facts.

1 hour ago, turtleback said:

A Rules Official's blunder should not be the impetus for changing a rule.  If he had done his job properly we wouldn't even be having this thread.

Right.

41 minutes ago, Pete F said:

Why would you penalize someone for something that they received no advantage from.

As has already been said, you can't penalize someone based on the judgment call of whether an advantage is gained. There are a few places where judgment matters, but the less prevalent it is, the better, generally speaking. Who is to say what constitutes an "advantage" or "enough of an advantage"?

And, the rules don't always penalize only. What if the wind blows the ball to a spot that's advantageous? Or disadvantageous? What if the ball moves in the rough and you can't re-create the lie? The list goes on.

The binary "did the ball move?" with the follow-up "what made it move?" is the cleanest version of the rule, IMO, that you can have.

9 minutes ago, DrvFrShow said:

The rule is very poorly written. Seriously.

I disagree.

9 minutes ago, DrvFrShow said:

How many seconds need to lapse between grounding the club on a practice swing and address before any ground vibration caused by grounding the club goes away.

There's no one answer to that. In this case, it was less than a second and there was nothing else likely to have caused it to move. There was no gust of wind, no fly landed on the ball, nothing happened other than Dustin Johnson moving around very very close to the ball very very close to the time it moved.

9 minutes ago, DrvFrShow said:

The ruling made no sense. That's what bothers me about it.

I think the ruling makes sense. Again, it's simply two steps:

• Did the ball move? Binary. Yes or no.
• If yes, what caused it to move? That's not binary, but if the weight of the evidence favors "the player did something to make it move," it's a penalty. If there's any other plausible reason, it's given tremendous weight, and the player isn't penalized.

9 minutes ago, DrvFrShow said:

Air is an outside agency.

Wind is not an outside agency.

Just now, Asheville said:

Players might do well to avoid messing about in such close proximity to a ball in play.

Right. You're not supposed to be casual around your golf ball. You're not even allowed to accidentally drop your ball marker (coin) on the golf ball and have it move a dimple - that's a penalty, too.

The rule is two questions, and if the answer is "no" to the first one, you don't even worry about the second. 99.999% of the time, you don't even have to answer "yes" to the first question.

I think the rule is pretty well written, and I'm glad that 18-2b is gone, and that 18-2/0.5 is there to allow room to blame something other than the player.

But there are times, whether you like it or not, that a player is most likely to have caused the ball to move even if they don't touch the ball.

[DrvFrShow]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

 

I think the ruling makes sense. Again, it's simply two steps:

• Did the ball move? Binary. Yes or no.
• If yes, what caused it to move? That's not binary, but if the weight of the evidence favors "the player did something to make it move," it's a penalty. If there's any other plausible reason, it's given tremendous weight, and the player isn't penalized.

Wind is not an outside agency.

 

I get the ruling was based on this: 

• 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.

Apparently in this case the awesomeness of that TaylorMade putter attracted the ball toward it. More than likely it had to do with the green being stimped at 15 and a slight uphill slope along with the grain creating the perfect storm for the event. 

What I get the way it went down:

DJ: My ball moved.

RO on site: Did you cause it to move?

DJ: No.

RO: Putt the ball. No penalty.

Later RO: Back on the 5th hole, did you cause your ball to move? 

DJ: No.

Later in the round RO: Back on the 5th hole, what caused your ball to move?

DJ: I don't know.

RO: +1 stroke penalty.

What if he'd answered - "The green being stimped at 15."

[Aflighter]

To fix this issue is pretty easy.Should apply everywhere not just on green.In order to be counted a stroke, the player must make a stroke.Definition of stroke meaning an attempt to hit ball.Its a freakin joke that Kevin Na can swing right over a tee ball just cause hes a mental case and it not count against him.

[saevel25]

4 minutes ago, Aflighter said:

To fix this issue is pretty easy.Should apply everywhere not just on green.In order to be counted a stroke, the player must make a stroke.Definition of stroke meaning an attempt to hit ball.Its a freakin joke that Kevin Na can swing right over a tee ball just cause hes a mental case and it not count against him.

Note, DJ wasn't penalized for taking a stroke. He was given a penalty for moving the ball. This doesn't fix anything. 

Also, a stroke requires intent to strike the ball. Na is well with in his right to step out of the downswing even though his club swings over the ball. 

[iacas]

11 minutes ago, DrvFrShow said:

Apparently in this case the awesomeness of that TaylorMade putter attracted the ball toward it. More than likely it had to do with the green being stimped at 15 and a slight uphill slope along with the grain creating the perfect storm for the event.

The greens were not 15. And they could be 20, and a ball not on a steep enough part of the green isn't going to start rolling. I put a ball on the table here, typed this message a foot away from it, and the ball hasn't moved. The table top here stimps at least 20.

3 minutes ago, Aflighter said:

To fix this issue is pretty easy.Should apply everywhere not just on green.In order to be counted a stroke, the player must make a stroke.Definition of stroke meaning an attempt to hit ball.Its a freakin joke that Kevin Na can swing right over a tee ball just cause hes a mental case and it not count against him.

I don't know what you're saying here.

1. 18-2 does apply everywhere.
2. Kevin Na didn't make a stroke (look at the definitions and decisions) when he intentionally swings over the ball.
3. You're okay with players moving the ball so long as they don't make a stroke to do it??? Huh?

[Aflighter]

1 minute ago, saevel25 said:

Note, DJ wasn't penalized for taking a stroke. He was given a penalty for moving the ball. This doesn't fix anything. 

Also, a stroke requires intent to strike the ball. Na is well with in his right to step out of the downswing even though his club swings over the ball. 

Your missing the point.In order to get rid of this issue I was saying a stroke should be attempted to be defined as stroke.He made no attempt to hit ball.It just moved and a ball that moves by accident or act of elements should not be penalty because theres no advantage to be gained.

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

The greens were not 15. And they could be 20, and a ball not on a steep enough part of the green isn't going to start rolling. I put a ball on the table here, typed this message a foot away from it, and the ball hasn't moved. The table top here stimps at least 20.

I don't know what you're saying here.

1. 18-2 does apply everywhere.
2. Kevin Na didn't make a stroke (look at the definitions and decisions) when he intentionally swings over the ball.
3. You're okay with players moving the ball so long as they don't make a stroke to do it??? Huh?

Yes aslong as its moved back.The Na thing is how can you prove he swung and missed ball intentionally although of course he did.Say im on tee.I swing and miss ball.How can you prove I didnt just miss the ball.Seen guys whiff shots before.

[saevel25]

4 minutes ago, Aflighter said:

Your missing the point.In order to get rid of this issue I was saying a stroke should be attempted to be defined as stroke.He made no attempt to hit ball.It just moved and a ball that moves by accident or act of elements should not be penalty because theres no advantage to be gained.

Sure it can

[Aflighter]

Im just saying, let a players play determine outcome and not something stupid as a ball moved a qtr inch without intent of player to move it causing problem.Thread says how to improve rule.I agree he shouldve been penalized as rule is because the ball moved I feel because he was practicing stroke right beside ball and did ground putter on grass beside ball and that more than likely affected the ground causing ball to unsettle.

[saevel25]

1 minute ago, Aflighter said:

Im just saying, let a players play determine outcome and not something stupid as a ball moved a qtr inch without intent of player to move it causing problem.

Then that defeats the purpose of having rules to begin with. 

[newtogolf]

47 minutes ago, iacas said:

The greens were not 15. And they could be 20, and a ball not on a steep enough part of the green isn't going to start rolling. I put a ball on the table here, typed this message a foot away from it, and the ball hasn't moved. The table top here stimps at least 20.

I don't know what you're saying here.

1. 18-2 does apply everywhere.
2. Kevin Na didn't make a stroke (look at the definitions and decisions) when he intentionally swings over the ball.
3. You're okay with players moving the ball so long as they don't make a stroke to do it??? Huh?

You said they weren't a 15 but during the broadcast that is what they kept telling us.  

As for the rule, if a RO is asked to make a ruling and he does his job es expected that should be the final ruling under 18-2.  If they want to penalize him for misrepresenting his actions and they can prove it then that's a different penalty (34-2).