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

[natureboy]

19 minutes ago, iacas said:

@bkuehn1952 by "stupid" I think @Phil McGleno meant he didn't know the rule. He clearly didn't. Still doesn't by his own admission.

Isn't DJ the embodiment of the 'Stupid Monkey' approach? I thought that was good?

[Phil McGleno]

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

Isn't DJ the embodiment of the 'Stupid Monkey' approach? I thought that was good?

Now you are the one looking stupid-Because a Stupid Monkey is just about the golf swing and not the same as not knowing the Rules.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

Isn't DJ the embodiment of the 'Stupid Monkey' approach? I thought that was good?

Uhhh, those are totally different things.

[Fourputt]

6 hours ago, iacas said:

 

Because they weren't the same set of parameters. They were similar parameters, but if we all think DJ causing his ball to move was 51-60% likely, that extra five seconds Wattel took might be all it takes to shift it into the < 50% range.

It may be a bit of that, but the same committee could easily rule that DJ's ball moving less than one second after he did something and Wattel's moving five or six seconds later swings one from > 50% and the other to < 50%.

Rich, as you know, two different referees are always going to vary on some things. Referees might disagree on what a reasonable stance is to get relief from a sprinkler head, or countless other little things.

It would have been easy for the USGA to just sweep this under the rug by not penalizing DJ, talk to the RO afterward for doing a lousy job, and not take the PR hit. Instead, they were compelled to make what they felt was the right call, so they clearly felt that the immediacy and the actions and the proximity meant he was > 50% likely to have caused the ball to move.

The rulings were technically correct, and they were equitable. Had DJ paused six seconds before the ball moved, and he been given a stroke while Wattel (even with the different green, ball location, time of day, etc. making things a tiny bit less "equitable,"), then we'd have something.

But I don't know why the two of you can't see that < 1 seconds with all other things being the same ~ 55% likely to have caused the ball to move while > 5 seconds with all other things being the same ~ 45% likely to have caused the ball to move.

Apply the rule, as written, and you get penalty and no penalty, in that order, if they felt they were 55% and 45%.

I don't see an issue. As I said, I'm sympathetic to those who do, and I kind of "get it" where they're coming from, but I don't see the harm in making sure players are careful around their balls. The Rules have recently eliminated the "once you address it you can't unaddress it" thing, and even 18-2 is now far more forgiving by letting the players off the hook with up to 49% cause… but the current rule is, IMO, fine because it applies everywhere and is relatively simple to apply.

The only knock against the current rule is that you will get an occasional judgment call that's borderline, but there are a few times in the rules that applies.

If DJ took a stroll and tapped his wedge or putter along the line of his intended chip shot or putt on a hole, we'd have discussions over whether that constituted testing the conditions of the putting green. Again, a judgment call. It just so happens that this particular one came up a few times.

---

 

Relief from a sprinkler has pretty much nothing to do with the topic at hand.  I look at Rule 18 like this:

  The ball moved 

If so then 1a) The player caused the ball to move,
or
1b) evidence exists that some other force or action moved the ball.
or
1c)  evidence exists that the player did nothing overtly to cause the ball to move on a ridiculously fast green.

I'm not opposed to DJ's penalty.  I not opposed to Wattel getting a walk for doing what was, as far as I'm concerned, the same thing.  What bothers me is that one way or another both should have been treated the same.

[natureboy]

3 hours ago, Phil McGleno said:

Now you are the one looking stupid-Because a Stupid Monkey is just about the golf swing and not the same as not knowing the Rules.

Darn. Oh well. Not the first time. 

3 hours ago, iacas said:

Uhhh, those are totally different things.

Maybe the one works synergistically with the other? Less ability to be distracted / lose focus. 

 

The thing with DJ is that all the questioning him about honor and not Wattel is kinda ridiculous. Why didn't Wattel call a penalty on himself? Do you think he was sitting there counting the seconds? There was no other cause for him to point to, right?

I'm not trying to bash the USGA. They have what's very often a thankless task / role. I've been a member for several years and likely to renew again despite my feelings about this rule having room for improvement. I like that it's an association of players. The qualifier tournaments are as important to their role as the US Open and they don't get enough credit for that role. I don't think their authority is weakened because they aren't pros.

That doesn't mean they are perfect. A circling the wagons mentality sometimes cuts off valuable outside perspectives.

As far as I'm concerned, DJ was quite likely telling the truth when he said he didn't cause it (i.e. it was related to other conditions). He's not the sharpest tool in the shed, but he has been a professional golfer (and a good one) for ~ 8 years. He's actually become a decent putter in terms of SG. With the 12,000 putts he's hit as a professional in competition alone in all sorts of green conditions / scenarios (including this year's Players' on Saturday) you don't think he's got a good sense of when he's at fault vs. unusual conditions?

Below is a quote by another 'rules ignorant' pro. Why not look him up on Twitter and insult him a little for being so stupid about his profession. He doesn't seem to get honor or the rules either and I don't think he's too bright to boot (went to kind of a 2nd tier college). 

Quote

I seriously do not understand the rules of golf...

Spoiler

@BillyHurley3

 

Edited June 27, 2016 by natureboy

[iacas]

7 hours ago, Fourputt said:

Relief from a sprinkler has pretty much nothing to do with the topic at hand.
…

I'm not opposed to DJ's penalty.  I not opposed to Wattel getting a walk for doing what was, as far as I'm concerned, the same thing.  What bothers me is that one way or another both should have been treated the same.

That's what made the sprinkler head comment relevant. They didn't have the same situations (they were similar, not identical) and had different judges.

7 hours ago, natureboy said:

The thing with DJ is that all the questioning him about honor and not Wattel is kinda ridiculous. 

There hasn't been much of it at all. I don't know what you're even talking about.

Below is a quote by another 'rules ignorant' pro. Why not look him up on Twitter and insult him a little for being so stupid about his profession.

That doesn't even merit a response. What's your deal? Jeez.

[natureboy]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

There hasn't been much of it at all. I don't know what you're even talking about.

That doesn't even merit a response. What's your deal? Jeez.

That comment was more for Phil's post quoted below and some others like it in other threads on this topic. "All the questioning" was probably too strong language for what was stated explicitly. My bad there. I guess you could say my deal is rules-ignorant. pea-shooter course playing, dufferitis. 

Quote

I get that Dustin was too stupid to know the rule and so he thought addressing the ball was the key thing-But does anyone think that if Bobby Jones or Jack Nicklaus or Lee Trevino-I am not going to list Gary Player for a reason-had seen their ball move they would have not even needed the official but would have simply called a penalty on themselves to begin with?
I have seen people argue that golf is a game of honesty-But what about DJs honesty?-Why did he not call the penalty on himself? He backed off right away

But IMO you've conveyed a tone or implied that anyone who doesn't think the rule is 'good' as is is rules ignorant or perhaps a bit 'slow'. I think Billy is a good counter-example of an honorable, smart player who doesn't 'get' what you think is so obviously cut and dried.

Edited June 27, 2016 by natureboy

[SG11118]

I posted in this thread on Friday that I thought at a minimum the rules of golf needed to be changed to change the definition of "moved" to make sure the movement is large enough that it can be seen visually by the golfer.  I provided reasons why I thought this needed to be added. 

I also posted Friday that since 13-2 allows "lightly grounding" the club behind the ball, that I have at least a bit of a problem with 18-2 penalizing the player for doing something that is allowed by 13-2, just because the ball happens to move while the player lightly grounds their club.  I stated that I'd either like the rules to either not allow a player to ground their club OR not penalize the player once they've lightly grounded their club (free replacement to spot).

Lots of posts since then, but I don't think that any of them are directed towards these two points.  I would appreciate some comments in agreement / disagreement and why. 

[Asheville]

1 hour ago, SG11118 said:

I posted in this thread on Friday that I thought at a minimum the rules of golf needed to be changed to change the definition of "moved" to make sure the movement is large enough that it can be seen visually by the golfer.  I provided reasons why I thought this needed to be added. 

I also posted Friday that since 13-2 allows "lightly grounding" the club behind the ball, that I have at least a bit of a problem with 18-2 penalizing the player for doing something that is allowed by 13-2, just because the ball happens to move while the player lightly grounds their club.  I stated that I'd either like the rules to either not allow a player to ground their club OR not penalize the player once they've lightly grounded their club (free replacement to spot).

Lots of posts since then, but I don't think that any of them are directed towards these two points.  I would appreciate some comments in agreement / disagreement and why. 

I got on to the USGA and had them issue a Decision just for you, see Decision 18/4.

I asked them to revert to an earlier version of 18-2, but no joy.

[SG11118]

Decision 18/4 does provide clarity for my first suggested rule change.

[Asheville]

50 minutes ago, SG11118 said:

Decision 18/4 does provide clarity for my first suggested rule change.

Never mind.

[colin007]

I think there should be a different rule while a ball is on the green. If it moved, put it back where it was. There aren't really different lies when a ball is on the green, unlike when a ball moves when sitting in/on longer grass.

[iacas]

35 minutes ago, colin007 said:

I think there should be a different rule while a ball is on the green. If it moved, put it back where it was. There aren't really different lies when a ball is on the green, unlike when a ball moves when sitting in/on longer grass.

That won't work. The ball can move completely without player involvement. Suppose you hit the ball above a tier. It comes to rest. As you're walking onto the green it begins to roll down to the hole because of a little breeze. It goes in. You can't easily replace it. It keeps wanting to roll back down every time the breeze picks up.

[boogielicious]

8 hours ago, iacas said:

That won't work. The ball can move completely without player involvement. Suppose you hit the ball above a tier. It comes to rest. As you're walking onto the green it begins to roll down to the hole because of a little breeze. It goes in. You can't easily replace it. It keeps wanting to roll back down every time the breeze picks up.

Plus it went in! I'll take that! 

[iacas]

2 hours ago, boogielicious said:

Plus it went in! I'll take that! 

Some think (incorrectly, IMO) that Tiger's ball came to rest on 16 at Augusta in 2005. What if he had to replace it?

[SG11118]

 

14 hours ago, iacas said:

That won't work. The ball can move completely without player involvement. Suppose you hit the ball above a tier. It comes to rest. As you're walking onto the green it begins to roll down to the hole because of a little breeze. It goes in. You can't easily replace it. It keeps wanting to roll back down every time the breeze picks up.

What if the free replacement is limited to only after the golfer has legally lightly grounded their club as allowed by 13-2?  Under every other situation where the ball moves, the same rules could apply as they currently do.  To me if you are doing something that is allowed by 13-2 and the ball moves, a penalty stroke seems overly harsh.  The golfer is right there, so they can mark the spot where the ball was to somewhat accurately replace it.

I'd probably be fine with the same (lightly grounding exception to the movement penalty) applying for other places on a golf course besides just putting greens as long as the ball is sitting on / supported by grass.  If the ball is resting on naked ground, sticks, pine straw, etc, I don't think the golfer should be able to blindly ground their club without risk of penalty.

[iacas]

30 minutes ago, SG11118 said:

What if the free replacement is limited to only after the golfer has legally lightly grounded their club as allowed by 13-2?  Under every other situation where the ball moves, the same rules could apply as they currently do.  To me if you are doing something that is allowed by 13-2 and the ball moves, a penalty stroke seems overly harsh.  The golfer is right there, so they can mark the spot where the ball was to somewhat accurately replace it.

You might be doing something legally allowed under 13-2 but it's not legal under 18-2. You're suggesting just doing away with 18-2 except if a golfer physically touches the ball? No thanks. You can "lightly ground your club" in the rough and still cause the ball to move, for example.

30 minutes ago, SG11118 said:

I'd probably be fine with the same (lightly grounding exception to the movement penalty) applying for other places on a golf course besides just putting greens as long as the ball is sitting on / supported by grass.  If the ball is resting on naked ground, sticks, pine straw, etc, I don't think the golfer should be able to blindly ground their club without risk of penalty.

I don't like that idea at all. Now we're drawing distinctions between not only areas of the golf course like "through the green" or "the putting green" but also whether your ball is on sticks? How many sticks? What size? Embedded sticks?

Too much.

[newtogolf]

They are still discussing this ruling on XM PGA Tour Radio and it seems many are citing the high degree of slope (4*) the hole was placed on and that in any PGA Tour event the hole would have never been placed there.  I don't know how true that is, but if it is true, that should certainly be considered in determining what could cause the ball to move under 18-2.