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

[SG11118]

17 minutes ago, iacas said:

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.

Are there any other cases in the rules of golf where something that is spelled out as permissible still violates another rule?

[iacas]

25 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

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. 

4° slope would be 7% slope, so no, the hole was not cut on a 7% slope. Not even close. The ball would not even come to rest on such a slope.

So no, not true.

23 minutes ago, SG11118 said:

Are there any other cases in the rules of golf where something that is spelled out as permissible still violates another rule?

That's not what is happening here. The rules don't say "it's permissible to cause your ball to move" in one place and then differ with that in the other.

You're allowed to ground your club… so long as:

• You're not in a hazard.
• You don't cause your ball to move.
• Doing so won't improve your lie.
• Etc.

That stuff in totality governs what you can or can't do.

[SG11118]

OK - Last Tuesday I was golfing in windy conditions in a flat spot on the flattest green on my course.  The wind was blowing very hard on the line from the ball towards the hole.  As I lowered my putter behind the ball, the ball started oscillating.  I pulled my putter away and waited for it to stop oscillating.  The wind was blowing constantly, so I couldn't really wait for a lull.  I put my putter behind the ball a second time and lightly grounded it this time in preparation for my putt.  As I was about to make my putting stroke, the ball rolled a revolution towards the hole. 

What is the ruling per the current Rules of Golf?  Wind is obviously what caused the ball to move, but it was also pretty obvious to me that the aerodynamics of having my putter behind the ball boosted the wind pressure at the ball to the point where it was able to move the ball.  Without my putter being behind the ball, I honestly don't believe the ball would've moved.  Did I cause the ball to move?  

I replaced my ball and didn't take a penalty saying the wind caused the ball to move, but I'm not positive it is the correct ruling. 

Again on Sunday, I was playing in a tournament on a slightly less windy day, on a different green.  As I started lowering the putter behind the ball, yet again the ball started to oscillate.  I repeated pulling the club away, waited for the wind to calm down and was able to take my putt without the ball moving. 

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, SG11118 said:

I replaced my ball and didn't take a penalty saying the wind caused the ball to move, but I'm not positive it is the correct ruling.

If you determined that the wind was the most likely cause of the ball moving and not you, you shouldn't have put the ball back. You played from a wrong place and incur the penalty of two strokes under 20-7.

The topic here isn't any single specific case. It's "how would you improve the rule?" For your particular case, if you feel your movements, actions, etc. ultimately caused the ball to move, then you're in violation of 18-2. And I've played in 40 MPH winds at Turnberry that shut down most of the other courses in the area and I didn't see the ball oscillating there.

[SG11118]

I figured it was likely I had violated a rule.  I was involved in a friendly match when it happened, so right or wrong, replacing the ball was a way to keep us moving.

I only brought up a single specific case to better understand where and how the current rules need to be improved.  I am also under the impression that this scenario is not in the rules or decisions, so while it may be one unique situation, including a decision on this scenario would improve the rule.  Regardless of your experiences at Turnberry, the situation I posted is exactly what happened:  

1.The wind was completely the force that moved the ball, 2. My putter exerted zero force on the ball or the ground near the ball in the direction of movement, 3. The wind wasn't powerful enough to move the ball unless my putter was in the path causing some sort of aerodynamic pressure jump / speed up at the ball

[iacas]

@SG11118, you determine whether you most likely caused the ball to move or not and proceed accordingly.

Either way you incurred a penalty. You either caused it to move or you should have played it from the new position.

[Golfingdad]

1 hour ago, SG11118 said:

1.The wind was completely the force that moved the ball, 2. My putter exerted zero force on the ball or the ground near the ball in the direction of movement, 3. The wind wasn't powerful enough to move the ball unless my putter was in the path causing some sort of aerodynamic pressure jump / speed up at the ball

The idea that this is a penalty doesn't sit right with me.  Perhaps they could rewrite the rule such that it's an amalgam of the two previous iterations?

The old rule meant that any movement, regardless of possible cause, after grounding at address was a penalty, and the current rule says if you may have caused it, even if you didn't touch anything, then it's a penalty.

Why not say it's a penalty only if both are satisfied.  You are the likely cause AND you have addressed the ball?

[iacas]

26 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

The old rule meant that any movement, regardless of possible cause, after grounding at address was a penalty, and the current rule says if you may have caused it, even if you didn't touch anything, then it's a penalty.

That's not really correct.

18-2a still existed. 18-2b was removed.

The "old" rule still penalized you even if you hadn't addressed the ball. It goes back decades.

[SG11118]

3 hours ago, iacas said:

@SG11118, you determine whether you most likely caused the ball to move or not and proceed accordingly.

The rules of golf are supposed to provide clarity so everyone is interpreting the rules the same way.  In terms of fairness in rules, I strongly disagree this situation should be argued that the golfer caused the ball to move.  However, the rules do not cover this situation, so it is left to possible contrasting interpretations from golfers.

[natureboy]

Interesting perspective from a decent green reader who putted on these greens in all four rounds. Though his estimate of slope around the pin is surprisingly high. I thought they would bend over backwards to avoid a 4* pin placement anywhere even if the surrounding terrain would be more sloped. Caveat that he did not make any statement as to the slope on the 5th hole, though.

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golf-central-blog/spieth-dj-us-open-penalty-i-would-have-thrown-fit

Quote

With the amount of slope the pins were on, on certain holes anywhere from 3.2 to 4 degrees slope on certain occasions, and you’re putting often from more slope than that, a 3 mile per hour wind can move the ball resting on the top of the grass on poa annua,

 

Edited June 29, 2016 by natureboy

[iacas]

13 hours ago, natureboy said:

Interesting perspective from a decent green reader who putted on these greens in all four rounds. Though his estimate of slope around the pin is surprisingly high. I thought they would bend over backwards to avoid a 4* pin placement anywhere even if the surrounding terrain would be more sloped. Caveat that he did not make any statement as to the slope on the 5th hole, though.

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golf-central-blog/spieth-dj-us-open-penalty-i-would-have-thrown-fit

He's wrong. 4 degrees is 7% slope. At stimp 10 a ball rolls off at 7% slope.

[Golfingdad]

23 hours ago, newtogolf said:

... 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.

 

23 hours ago, iacas said:

4° slope would be 7% slope, so no, the hole was not cut on a 7% slope. Not even close. The ball would not even come to rest on such a slope.

 

48 minutes ago, iacas said:

He's wrong. 4 degrees is 7% slope. At stimp 10 a ball rolls off at 7% slope.

While the guys on the radio and Jordan Spieth might have their numbers or units wrong, that doesn't mean the sentiment is wrong, does it?  US Open greens are faster, firmer and likely to have pins in more precarious positions than your average greens, are they not?

 

17 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

The old rule meant that any movement, regardless of possible cause, after grounding at address was a penalty, and the current rule says if you may have caused it, even if you didn't touch anything, then it's a penalty.

 

16 hours ago, iacas said:

That's not really correct.

18-2a still existed. 18-2b was removed.

The "old" rule still penalized you even if you hadn't addressed the ball. It goes back decades.

OK, but that doesn't really address the part of my post that actually answers the OP's question directly:

 

17 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

Why not say it's a penalty only if both are satisfied.  You are the likely cause AND you have addressed the ball?

 

[saevel25]

9 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

While the guys on the radio and Jordan Spieth might have their numbers or units wrong, that doesn't mean the sentiment is wrong, does it?  US Open greens are faster, firmer and likely to have pins in more precarious positions than your average greens, are they not?

I don't think that ball was on a part of the green that was extremely sloped. Below is a screen shot on DJ's approach shot into that pin location on Sunday. You can see his ball, which backs up to about 3-4 ft from the pin. 

 

[iacas]

5 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

While the guys on the radio and Jordan Spieth might have their numbers or units wrong, that doesn't mean the sentiment is wrong, does it?  US Open greens are faster, firmer and likely to have pins in more precarious positions than your average greens, are they not?

They weren't any faster, really, than The Memorial tournament.

Or several other events that they play each year. Yes, they tend to get a little faster than the average PGA Tour event, but so what? If roll-off happens (the spot where a ball will not even come to rest) happens at 70/stimp% (i.e. roll-off occurs on 7% at stimp 10), there are dangerous spots on all but the flattest of greens at PGA Tour speeds (11-12). At stimp 12 roll-off occurs at 5.8% slope. Spots with as little as 5% would likely be considered "dangerous."

So you aren't eliminating the problem, you're just moving it to different areas of the green.

Also, the PGA Tour and even the USGA like spots which are about 2% slope (or less) for a six- to ten-foot diameter around the hole.

5 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

OK, but that doesn't really address the part of my post that actually answers the OP's question directly:

22 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

Why not say it's a penalty only if both are satisfied.  You are the likely cause AND you have addressed the ball?

Because you can cause the ball to move without addressing it. You're okay with a player accidentally hitting his ball with a practice stroke? Or hitting it with a towel while trying to swat away a fly? Or putting the club beside the ball in the rough to see how thick the grass is, and the ball moving?

There's a good reason why "addressing the ball" (18-2b) was removed.

You can cause a ball to move (and thus deserve a penalty) without having addressed it or touching it.

[Golfingdad]

7 minutes ago, iacas said:

Because you can cause the ball to move without addressing it. You're okay with a player accidentally hitting his ball with a practice stroke? Or hitting it with a towel while trying to swat away a fly? Or putting the club beside the ball in the rough to see how thick the grass is, and the ball moving?

There's a good reason why "addressing the ball" (18-2b) was removed.

How big of a problem were those examples before the "addressing the ball" was removed?  Were any major championships nearly affected by that oversight? (Honest question, not snide, because I don't actually know the answer)  Because if not, then I'd argue that the "good reason" wasn't good enough in light of what nearly happened a couple of weeks ago.

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

How big of a problem were those examples before the "addressing the ball" was removed?  Were any major championships nearly affected by that oversight? (Honest question, not snide, because I don't actually know the answer)  Because if not, then I'd argue that the "good reason" wasn't good enough in light of what nearly happened a couple of weeks ago.

So… what's your point?

Do you want to allow those things to happen (players to cause their ball to move) because they weren't preceded by "addressing the ball?"

Addressing the ball was removed because players were responsible for the ball moving after they'd addressed the ball, even if they had walked 50 yards away and the wind clearly blew the ball.

[Golfingdad]

22 minutes ago, iacas said:

So… what's your point?

Do you want to allow those things to happen (players to cause their ball to move) because they weren't preceded by "addressing the ball?"

My point is the point of the thread.  You asked us to try and come up with ideas to improve the rule and that's what I'm trying to do.  If the point of the thread was something different, let me know, and I'll stop.

22 minutes ago, iacas said:

Addressing the ball was removed because players were responsible for the ball moving after they'd addressed the ball, even if they had walked 50 yards away and the wind clearly blew the ball.

Huh.  So the rules didn't allow for "un-addressing" the ball?  That seems silly.  It's an easy fix though, isn't it?  Replace the word "after" with the word "during."  If you step away, you're not addressing it anymore.

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

My point is the point of the thread.  You asked us to try and come up with ideas to improve the rule and that's what I'm trying to do.  If the point of the thread was something different, let me know, and I'll stop.

I'm not sure you read what I wrote the way I wrote it…

Because I can't possibly believe that you think a player should be able to move some grass near his ball, cause the ball to move, and because it wasn't after he'd addressed it, face no penalty.

You don't believe that should be the case, do you?

Or that a player should be able to hit and move his ball with a towel, without penalty? Or flick it with his finger?

Because none of those acts constitute addressing the ball, but they'd all constitute moving the ball. That's why I can't believe you would require an "AND" statement: addressed AND caused it to move.

Right now the rule simply asks "did the player most likely cause the ball to move?" It applies everywhere on the course. It's a simple rule that, yes, involves a little judgment.

Your rule strikes me as significantly worse. So bad I don't think that you could possibly mean what you seem to have typed. Which is why I asked what I asked.

4 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Huh.  So the rules didn't allow for "un-addressing" the ball?  That seems silly.  It's an easy fix though, isn't it?  Replace the word "after" with the word "during."  If you step away, you're not addressing it anymore.

Nope. And "addressing" the ball is an instant in time, so there was no "during."

Plus it had to say "once" the player had addressed the ball or you could address it, lift the club up slightly as part of your pre-shot routine, the ball could move because you moved enough grass… and you wouldn't be addressing the ball?

That's why it was removed. You could address the ball, step away, and the wind could move your ball but you were still guilty of it.

P.S. You don't have to be standing there to have addressed the ball. You can look up the definition, but it doesn't matter if you've taken your stance or not.