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

[natureboy]

3 hours ago, turtleback said:

"Meaningful strokes?  Are we just making things up now?  There are no rules on the teeing ground about meaningful strokes and you want to extend that to everything.  OK.

In my rule book a stroke is a stroke, anywhere on the course.

I think you know what he meant even if that terminology isn't in the rules. The ball isn't in play so you are allowed to drop it kick it etc. accidentally, swing over the top of it intentionally, even tap it off the tee by mistake in the course of addressing it.

3 hours ago, Groucho Valentine said:

Yes there is. Maybe you should check up on it before you bark off like that. 

Is the comment above what you were getting at?

[iacas]

5 hours ago, natureboy said:

It relates to your oft-cited scenario of a player causing a ball to move due to altering air currents.

No, that's rule 18.

5 hours ago, natureboy said:

You were arguing that the rules penalize you for moving the ball with your marker. That only applies during the initial marking and lifting, not the act of replacing IIRC.

No, I wasn't. I know the rules, and you seem to have completely misread that section.

4 hours ago, Fourputt said:

It applies either way.  The stipulation is that it must be during the direct act, not 2 inches away from and dropping one or the other.

Yup. Pretty simple.

4 hours ago, Aflighter said:

Is it that hard to understand what im saying? I said we all know he didnt whiff but it should be black and white.If you swing and miss then its a stroke no  matter what because  i was in a bunker with ball well below feet and yes i whiffed.I took  stroke but whats to say I couldn't say hey  intentionally missed?

Your integrity?

A stroke is the intentional forward movement of the club with the intent to strike the ball.

3 hours ago, Fourputt said:

My understanding was that the official asked him if he had grounded his club, and he said "No".  I don't think that DJ understood that grounding his club can be somewhere other than behind the ball, and he certainly did ground his club beside the ball during his pre-shot routine.  Had the official delved a bit deeper and asked him to demonstrate his pre-shot routine, the matter might well have ended right there with the penalty assessed, the ball replaced, and the game goes on.

This is what I've been saying. Newell screwed up.

4 minutes ago, natureboy said:

I think you know what he meant even if that terminology isn't in the rules. The ball isn't in play so you are allowed to drop it kick it etc. accidentally, swing over the top of it intentionally, even tap it off the tee by mistake in the course of addressing it.

Is the comment above what you were getting at?

The ball is in play as soon as it's replaced on the green (even if you leave your ball marker there). The ball is not in play on the tee until a stroke is made at it. They're different.

[natureboy]

5 hours ago, turtleback said:

why is grounding the club next to the ball prior to a practice swing LESS likely to move the ball than grounding it behind the ball.  In each case you have the club, in close proximity to the ball, touching the ground.  Which is, in fact, what Dustin did.

I agree and why I think Wattel deserved the same penalty. I think the timing part is purely arbitrary and capricious judgement gray area when there is no other cause to attribute to the ball movement other than the player's proximity and actions near the ball (as the rule is written).

[iacas]

Just now, natureboy said:

I agree and why I think Wattel deserved the same penalty. I think the timing part is purely arbitrary and capricious judgement gray area when there is no other cause to attribute to the ball movement other than the player's proximity and actions near the ball (as the rule is written).

The rule also considers time.

Quote

• Time elapsed between such actions and the movement of the ball,

You seem to completely ignore this point, though it's been said a few times.

Nobody's arguing that it's not a judgment. But so is "was the player the most likely cause of the ball moving?"

[DrvFrShow]

Then I think we've come to the problem. The definition of where the club is grounded and the time between grounding the club and the movement of the ball. If DJ can assume the rule meant "grounded behind the ball" then anyone can. So the rule now has to clearly define a minimum distance from the ball the club head needs to be when grounded and number of seconds that lapse between grounding and ball movement in order for you to be immune to receiving a penalty stroke if the ball moves. It should also make one immune from causing ball movement if one hovers their club behind the ball and does not make contact should said conditions regarding grounding be met.

Had these been in place the controversy would not have occurred.

So the question now is what standard do you want to set?

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, DrvFrShow said:

Then I think we've come to the problem. The definition of where the club is grounded and the time between grounding the club and the movement of the ball. If DJ can assume the rule meant "grounded behind the ball" then anyone can.

And they'd be wrong, just as DJ was.

4 minutes ago, DrvFrShow said:

So the rule now has to clearly define a minimum distance from the ball the club head needs to be when grounded and number of seconds that lapse between grounding and ball movement in order for you to be immune to receiving a penalty stroke if the ball moves.

No, it doesn't. It's a bit of a judgment call, and nobody is going to get out a stopwatch or a ruler, particularly since those things can't be measured during the actual event anyway.

Again, this rule is not difficult:

• Did the ball move? If yes, ask the next question. If no, end here.
• Was the player (his actions, etc.) the most likely cause of the movement? If yes, penalty and replace the ball. If no, play it as it lies without penalty.

Easy.

Easier than trying to guess whether a putter was within 1.68 inches of the ball within 1.62 seconds of the ball moving…

[natureboy]

48 minutes ago, iacas said:

The rule also considers time.

Relatively arbitrarily and not well as I saw it applied.

[DrvFrShow]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

And they'd be wrong, just as DJ was.

No, it doesn't. It's a bit of a judgment call, and nobody is going to get out a stopwatch or a ruler, particularly since those things can't be measured during the actual event anyway.

Again, this rule is not difficult:

• Did the ball move? If yes, ask the next question. If no, end here.
• Was the player (his actions, etc.) the most likely cause of the movement? If yes, penalty and replace the ball. If no, play it as it lies without penalty.

Easy.

Yes, they'd be wrong as was made clear in the discussion but it isn't clear just by reading the rule.

But it's not easy. The rule is written vague. Say I took out my putter and had been taking practice strokes a foot away from the ball and grounded the club. Then the exact situation happened that happened to DJ. I hover the putter behind the ball and it moves. My opponent says "your ball moved add a stroke." I didn't touch it. I didn't ground my club behind it or what I consider near enough to the ball to cause it to move. I didn't cause it to move. Yet, I'm guilty until proven innocent. It moved because... reasons. I say I didn't cause it to move. Maybe a blade of poa decided to grow and along with gravity caused the ball to move? I don't know. Game of honor?

And nowhere in the rule does it say anything about time. Yes, I'm nitpicking the language, but it's a rule. How do they expect people to have a uniform understanding of them unless a person spends money on a rules seminar if they don't spell them out in the rules book?

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, DrvFrShow said:

Yes, they'd be wrong as was made clear in the discussion but it isn't clear just by reading the rule.

I disagree. I think it's pretty clear.

Quote

The nature of any actions taken near the ball (e.g., movement of loose impediments, practice swings, grounding club, taking stance, etc.),

That's not clear?

Yeah, it's in the Decision, but they're part of the Rules too.

12 minutes ago, DrvFrShow said:

But it's not easy. The rule is written vague.

It's not vague. It just requires a judgment call.

12 minutes ago, DrvFrShow said:

Yet, I'm guilty until proven innocent.

No, you're not. You're guilty if it seems most likely you caused it to move.

12 minutes ago, DrvFrShow said:

Game of honor?

Honor has nothing to do with this. You can honorably say you didn't touch the ball. But the rest is just judgment.

12 minutes ago, DrvFrShow said:

And nowhere in the rule does it say anything about time. Yes, I'm nitpicking the language, but it's a rule. How do they expect people to have a uniform understanding of them unless a person spends money on a rules seminar if they don't spell them out in the rules book?

Yes, it does. Again, consider the Decisions, too:

Quote

• 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.

And…

Quote

 

Rule or Rules

The term "Rule" includes: 

a.

The Rules of Golf and their interpretations as contained in "Decisions on the Rules of Golf"; 

b.

Any Conditions of Competition established by the Committee under Rule 33-1 and Appendix I; 

c.

Any Local Rules established by the Committee under Rule 33-8a and Appendix I; and 

d.

The specifications on: 

(i)

clubs and the ball in Appendices II and III and their interpretations as contained in "A Guide to the Rules on Clubs and Balls"; and 

(ii)

devices and other equipment in Appendix IV.

 

 

[Asheville]

1 hour ago, DrvFrShow said:

Yes, they'd be wrong as was made clear in the discussion but it isn't clear just by reading the rule.

But it's not easy. The rule is written vague. Say I took out my putter and had been taking practice strokes a foot away from the ball and grounded the club. Then the exact situation happened that happened to DJ. I hover the putter behind the ball and it moves. My opponent says "your ball moved add a stroke." I didn't touch it. I didn't ground my club behind it or what I consider near enough to the ball to cause it to move. I didn't cause it to move. Yet, I'm guilty until proven innocent. It moved because... reasons. I say I didn't cause it to move. Maybe a blade of poa decided to grow and along with gravity caused the ball to move? I don't know. Game of honor?

And nowhere in the rule does it say anything about time. Yes, I'm nitpicking the language, but it's a rule. How do they expect people to have a uniform understanding of them unless a person spends money on a rules seminar if they don't spell them out in the rules book?

You do seem to grab the wrong end of the stick much too often. 

[DrvFrShow]

And this is why we play a game that sort of resembles golf in our weekly foursomes. Just saying. No one is going to take the time to take out their phone and look up this stuff during a round unless there is big money on the line.

[Fourputt]

34 minutes ago, DrvFrShow said:

And this is why we play a game that sort of resembles golf in our weekly foursomes. Just saying. No one is going to take the time to take out their phone and look up this stuff during a round unless there is big money on the line.

If you have been playing for as long as you seem to have been, I would think that you would know everything you actually need to know on the course.  I play by the rules, yet I haven't taken out a rule book while playing in many, many years.

[Asheville]

42 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

If you have been playing for as long as you seem to have been, I would think that you would know everything you actually need to know on the course.  I play by the rules, yet I haven't taken out a rule book while playing in many, many years.

I refer to my Rule book often. Once in awhile to check on a penalty statement, otherwise to confirm my notion of the correct ruling. I would be somewhat uncomfortable if I knew my Rule book was not handy.  

[Fourputt]

4 hours ago, Asheville said:

I refer to my Rule book often. Once in awhile to check on a penalty statement, otherwise to confirm my notion of the correct ruling. I would be somewhat uncomfortable if I knew my Rule book was not handy.  

I have the book in my bag and on my phone, but I simply don't need it when playing.  It was different when I was officiating, but I don't get myself into situations where I can't sort it out from simply knowing correct on course procedures.  I have never gotten myself into a rules test type of situation on the course.

[Asheville]

4 hours ago, Fourputt said:

I have the book in my bag and on my phone, but I simply don't need it when playing.  It was different when I was officiating, but I don't get myself into situations where I can't sort it out from simply knowing correct on course procedures.  I have never gotten myself into a rules test type of situation on the course.

Good enough. I don't carry a phone on the course and I'm not smart enough to always know whether it's 1 or 2 penalty strokes. 

[turtleback]

22 hours ago, Groucho Valentine said:

Yes there is. Maybe you should check up on it before you bark off like that. 

Cite it.  

Because I'd bet almost anything you're basing your remark on yet another misunderstanding of the rules.

I  hope you are not talking about knocking the ball off the tee as not a meaningful stroke, because it isn't a stroke at all, a) there was no intent to hit the ball, and b) the penalty that ordinarily applies to touching a ball and moving it does not apply because the ball is not in play until AFTER a stroke is made at it, and that penalty only applies to a ball in play.

So what ARE you talking about??

22 hours ago, DrvFrShow said:

I think they asked Johnson if he thought he caused the ball to move, and Johnson said "no" and the RO told him to putt the ball from its current position. Then later they assessed the penalty.

And THAT was the problem, because the RO is supposed to do a lot more than that, and if he had the penalty would have been assessed immediately.

22 hours ago, jgreen85 said:

That's my point. The last sentence should not have happened. DJ said no, that's the end of it. It's up to the player to call penalties on themselves; rules officials are there for advice/guidance. 

Players do not get to base calling penalties on themselves on wrong rules.  It was clear Dustin didn't know the rule.  Unless you really believe that when Dustin was saying that he was going through that Decision in his mind and making a carefully nuanced judgement.

[turtleback]

17 hours ago, DrvFrShow said:

Then I think we've come to the problem. The definition of where the club is grounded and the time between grounding the club and the movement of the ball. If DJ can assume the rule meant "grounded behind the ball" then anyone can. So the rule now has to clearly define a minimum distance from the ball the club head needs to be when grounded and number of seconds that lapse between grounding and ball movement in order for you to be immune to receiving a penalty stroke if the ball moves. It should also make one immune from causing ball movement if one hovers their club behind the ball and does not make contact should said conditions regarding grounding be met.

Had these been in place the controversy would not have occurred.

So the question now is what standard do you want to set?

DJ's ignorance is no excuse for ours.  We haven't "come to the problem" because there isn't any problem other than a Rules official choking on a big stage.  I utterly reject this approach to rules where we will have to be carrying around rulers and stopwatches.  They tried that once with the the 25 foot distance within which it was a penalty to hit the pin with a shot, and it was an utter failure.

17 hours ago, DrvFrShow said:

And nowhere in the rule does it say anything about time. Yes, I'm nitpicking the language, but it's a rule. How do they expect people to have a uniform understanding of them unless a person spends money on a rules seminar if they don't spell them out in the rules book?

Have you read the decision we have been discussing?  Because it most definitely DOES mention time as a factor.

 

[pumaAttack]

Its pretty simple really...

If you have marked your ball and it moves afterwards, just replace it.  Whether you accidentally bumped it, the ground caused it, the wind caused, the rain caused it, etc. you just put the ball back to the original spot and play on.

No need to get penalized for a ball oscillating, that's ridiculous.  If you accidentally bump the ball returning the putter after a practice stroke, there should be no penalty as no advantage was given.

If the player clearly didn't make an attempted stroke on the ball, just replace it and carry on.