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

[Gunther]

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

I get the reasoning and it makes sense but in practical terms we're penalizing a player the same for incidental movement versus intentional movement.  In other sports there are different penalties for incidental and intentional fouls.  

Dustin Johnson was penalized for grounding his club too close to a ball that was on an unstable lie but he likely could have marked his ball and placed it a centimeter in any direction without someone calling a penalty.   

It seems when there are extenuating circumstances such as exceptionally fast greens and high winds that local rules should be available to accommodate the conditions on the greens just as we do when excessive rain makes the closely mown areas muddy and lift, clean and place is implemented.  

No need for a local rule.  If the player causes the ball to move, he should be penalized.  DJ did not cause the ball to move beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, the penalty was unjustified.  Same with Justin Thomas a couple weeks ago.

Just change the benchmark from the player being guilty unless there are extenuating circumstances to the elements are guilty unless there are extenuating circumstances, which would require definitive evidence that the player moved the ball either advertently or inadvertently.  It's pretty simple, as I see it.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Gunther

[natureboy]

1 hour ago, Gunther said:

No need for a local rule.  If the player causes the ball to move, he should be penalized.  DJ did not cause the ball to move beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, the penalty was unjustified.  Same with Justin Thomas a couple weeks ago.

Just change the benchmark from the player being guilty unless there are extenuating circumstances to the elements are guilty unless there are extenuating circumstances, which would require definitive evidence that the player moved the ball either advertently or inadvertently.  It's pretty simple, as I see it.

I like that flip of the test.

And I agree with @newtogolf that marking and lifting can fundamentally change your lie. No one is capable of exactly replacing except by fluke. The rules don't specifically require that (no rulers being broken out), but they do appropriately penalize intentional re-positioning.

Lifting and replacing on the green can both reduce or increase the chances that the ball will roll on its own, depending on the micro-conditions of the grass and ground where placed. So in my view marking and lifting can quite likely be a player causing the ball to move under the rule and you have one rule allowing you to do something and the other rule potentially penalizing you for it. 

Edited October 20, 2016 by natureboy

[iacas]

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

So in my view marking and lifting can quite likely be a player causing the ball to move under the rule and you have one rule allowing you to do something and the other rule potentially penalizing you for it. 

No, you don't. The two situations are different, just as bumping a ball off a tee can be a penalty or not, depending on whether you've whiffed with your first attempt or whether you've not yet made a stroke at the ball. The two situations are different.

The Rules of Golf assume you will do your best to replace the ball in the correct spot, but don't force an otherworldly level of precision. It would be unrealistic.

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

I like that flip of the test.

It's basically what we have now. There were no other extenuating circumstances. DJ could name nothing. No wind, no truck, no loud cheer… nothing.

[SG11118]

On ‎10‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 9:08 AM, iacas said:

Rules geeks would disagree with you there. I get the colloquial use that you're likely suggesting, but marking your ball on the green does not go against the Principle.

I'd write more on it but this morning is pretty busy. The fact remains that a ball that's sitting on the green is "in play" and is essentially the same as another ball sitting on the green. The Rules don't care, nor should they IMO, about the prior history of whether the ball was marked or lifted.

I must be missing some logic.  Has there been a previous thread that got into this?  What logic does Tufts provide?  I might have to find my copy of Tufts and look it up.  I agree that the rules of golf must at least infer that cleaning doesn't violate the principle of playing the ball as it lies.  However, should this be the case?  In real life, cleaning the ball does change the playing characteristics of the ball.  The ball with changed playing characteristics modifies both how the ball resists external forces, and the magnitude that these external forces apply to the ball (wind, gravity, ground displacement, etc.). 

[Gunther]

On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 10:37 PM, iacas said:

It's basically what we have now. There were no other extenuating circumstances. DJ could name nothing. No wind, no truck, no loud cheer… nothing.

In fact, it's the exact opposite of what we have now.  Right now the player is guilty unless it's shown that there was an extenuating circumstance; hence, DJ's penalty, and JT's as well.

My proposal would flip this to the elements being guilty unless it's shown the player clearly moved the ball.  Under that scenario neither DJ nor JT would have been penalized because neither actually caused the ball to move, more likely the ball rested precariously on a blade of grass or impression in the ground.

It seems the R&A are already employing this approach. Last weekend Noren's ball moved in the fairway on the 1st hole after he had grounded his club nearby.  The rules official deemed no penalty because it couldn't be proven that the player caused the move.  Using the logic employed by the USGA, they would probably have deemed that in the absence of evidence that the elements were involved, the player with a greater than 51% likelihood caused the movement.

I liked the ruling but it surprised me because I expected a penalty, just based on what we've seen this season.

[Rulesman]

2 hours ago, Gunther said:

It seems the R&A are already employing this approach..

If this was the Portugal Masters , it was run by the European Tour not the R&A. 

[Gunther]

19 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

If this was the Portugal Masters , it was run by the European Tour not the R&A. 

It was last weekend, the British Masters, but likely also run by the Euro Tour.  Even so, they adhere to R&A rules, do they not?

[Fourputt]

27 minutes ago, Gunther said:

It was last weekend, the British Masters, but likely also run by the Euro Tour.  Even so, they adhere to R&A rules, do they not?

They are ALL the SAME rules.  Some few are subject to some individual interpretation, and those are usually the ones that cause the most controversy.  I think that the Ruling Bodies (USGA and R&A) are bowing to too many complaints from touchy/feely TV viewers.  This rule needs to revert back to black and white like it was even as little as 10 years ago.  

You only really had 2 questions to ask:

Did the ball move after address?  If yes then penalty.  If the player had not addressed the ball, then did the player take any action that could have caused the movement?  If yes, then penalty.  And any doubt was resolved against the player.  Harsh?  Maybe, but you knew where you stood and the smart player took special care to stay on the safe side of the penalty statement.

[Martyn W]

5 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

Did the ball move after address?  If yes then penalty.

Not necessarily, remember 18-2ii went away this year

[iacas]

4 hours ago, SG11118 said:

What logic does Tufts provide?  I might have to find my copy of Tufts and look it up.

Go for it. But as it's fairly off topic here, please post in this thread:

 

4 hours ago, SG11118 said:

However, should this be the case?  In real life, cleaning the ball does change the playing characteristics of the ball. 

If your proposal to improve 18-2 is to not allow marking/lifting/cleaning on the putting green… it doesn't really change 18-2 at all, because the ball can still move after being at rest, due to the player or other things.

This thread is to propose changes to rule 18-2. Everyone gets to have their own opinion, but I've yet to see one that has changed my mind. I'm against making the standard of proof "virtual certainty" (particularly when your ball is on pine straw, or in the rough, or countless other situations beyond the putting green), but I'd be amenable to some sort of threshold around 75%, not that I have the faintest idea how to word it or apply that relatively evenly.

3 hours ago, Gunther said:

In fact, it's the exact opposite of what we have now.  Right now the player is guilty unless it's shown that there was an extenuating circumstance; hence, DJ's penalty, and JT's as well.

That's incorrect. The weight of all evidence is considered and the most likely cause(s) identified. If the player was ten feet away and the wind didn't blow and the earth didn't shake or other things… the player would not be deemed at fault even without any "extenuating circumstance(s)."

Your proposal is based on a misunderstanding of the current rule.

3 hours ago, Gunther said:

Under that scenario neither DJ nor JT would have been penalized because neither actually caused the ball to move, more likely the ball rested precariously on a blade of grass or impression in the ground.

DJ was deemed to have caused the ball to move, because of his actions very near to the ball in time and space. He caused his ball to move, the rules committee deemed.

It wasn't simply the lack of "extenuating circumstances" that doomed DJ. It was what he did right near the ball and right around the time the ball moved. The absence of those "extenuating circumstances" and the presence of his own actions are what caused the rules committee to feel he surpassed the 50% threshold.

3 hours ago, Gunther said:

It seems the R&A are already employing this approach. Last weekend Noren's ball moved in the fairway on the 1st hole after he had grounded his club nearby.  The rules official deemed no penalty because it couldn't be proven that the player caused the move. Using the logic employed by the USGA, they would probably have deemed that in the absence of evidence that the elements were involved, the player with a greater than 51% likelihood caused the movement.

The USGA and R&A apply this rule the same.

I suggest you re-read 18-2/0.5 again. Particularly:

Quote

If the weight of evidence indicates that it is more likely than not that the player caused the ball to move, even though that conclusion is not free from doubt, the player incurs a one-stroke penalty under Rule 18-2 and the ball must be replaced. Otherwise, the player incurs no penalty and the ball is played as it lies unless some other Rule applies (e.g., Rule 18-1).

@Gunther, 18-2 is not a case of "guilty unless proven innocent."

16 minutes ago, Martyn W said:

Not necessarily, remember 18-2ii went away this year

I believe @Fourputt was suggesting the rule go back to the way it was a decade ago or so.

I disagree with that (reverting to the older rule), @Fourputt. Yes, it was "cleaner" to apply, but it resulted in penalty strokes being assessed to players who did nothing wrong and did not, themselves, cause the ball to move. That's not worth the "cleanliness" IMO.

[Fourputt]

1 hour ago, Martyn W said:

Not necessarily, remember 18-2ii went away this year

As Erik said, I was wishing for a reversion to the old rule.  I know how they weakened it by fiddling with what, in my opinion, didn't need fixing.  Under the old rule, if you don't address the ball then you aren't liable for it's movement unless you clearly did something to cause it.  If you took your stance and grounded the club in a questionable situation (like a wind whipped green), then you take your chances.  All you had to do was not ground the club to avoid such a penalty (unless you clearly did something else to cause the movement).

[Gunther]

1 hour ago, Fourputt said:

  I think that the Ruling Bodies (USGA and R&A) are bowing to too many complaints from touchy/feely TV viewers.

I think you're onto something here. While they're all the same rules, different officials can interpret them and adjudicate differently.  The fact is, in the case of Noren, I would have thought that with longer grass (he was in lush rough) the player would have been much more likely to have caused the movement of the ball than anything DJ or JT did on a green.  Yet they ruled no penalty.

As I said, I liked the ruling because there wasn't anything to show that Noren caused the movement except for grounding the club a couple inches behind and inside the ball (not directly behind).  The ball moved when his club had been pulled away maybe a second or two.  Very similar to the other 2 cases except not on the green.  Still it surprised me cuz I thought he was more guilty than the other 2.  

Oh well, we'll see if anything ultimately gets changed.  I always favor the player in rules situations such as this, although I also believe if the player clearly moved the ball inadvertly, he should be penalized so I'm not completely against penalties.  I just want the evidence to be certain and where it isn't, the player should get the benefit of the doubt.  I hope they move in that direction.

[natureboy]

3 hours ago, Fourputt said:

This rule needs to revert back to black and white like it was even as little as 10 years ago.  

You only really had 2 questions to ask:

Did the ball move after address?  If yes then penalty.  If the player had not addressed the ball, then did the player take any action that could have caused the movement?  If yes, then penalty.  And any doubt was resolved against the player.

Did they ever look at just an exception to this rule for obvious external causes like wind and gravity?

3 hours ago, Fourputt said:

Harsh?  Maybe, but you knew where you stood and the smart player took special care to stay on the safe side of the penalty statement.

To a large extent though the hovering of the club was only relevant to actually causing the ball to move off the greens. Just stepping in to the ball and standing there (esp. on fast greens) is likely the primary cause - absent wind.

Why is a putt that comes to rest on the edge of the cup and then goes in when a player walks toward it to mark it not treated the same under this rule. It's at rest and then it moves. Treat like situations alike, right? Why make an exception because it's on the green or near the hole?

The player walking in is the likely cause and aren't extra heavy footsteps not allowed, because they are likely to tip the balance?

7 hours ago, Gunther said:

In fact, it's the exact opposite of what we have now.  Right now the player is guilty unless it's shown that there was an extenuating circumstance; hence, DJ's penalty, and JT's as well.

Might not be 'opposite', but I do think your idea is a bit like shifting of the burden of proof from the defendant to the plaintiff. If done this way you could stick with the existing 51% threshold to be tighter on latitude.

2 hours ago, iacas said:

 

@Gunther, 18-2 is not a case of "guilty unless proven innocent."

It just seems that way with a few of the rulings as applied.

2 hours ago, Fourputt said:

Under the old rule, if you don't address the ball then you aren't liable for it's movement unless you clearly did something to cause it.  If you took your stance and grounded the club in a questionable situation (like a wind whipped green), then you take your chances.  All you had to do was not ground the club to avoid such a penalty (unless you clearly did something else to cause the movement).

To a large extent though the hovering of the club to avoid a penalty was only relevant to actually causing the ball to move off the greens. Just stepping in to the ball and standing there (esp. on fast greens) is likely the primary cause of movement - absent wind.

I personally like that the wind moving the ball regardless of whether or not the club was grounded does not result in a penalty now.

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Did they ever look at just an exception to this rule for obvious external causes like wind and gravity?

There are two ways he could reasonably respond to this…

A) How would he know?
B) The current rule does just that.

7 minutes ago, natureboy said:

To a large extent though the hovering of the club was only relevant to actually causing the ball to move off the greens. Just stepping in to the ball and standing there (esp. on fast greens) is likely the primary cause - absent wind.

I think you're misreading what he wrote.

And you have no idea what the "primary cause" is, particularly since you're not even discussing a specific situation right now. I can see how soling your putter near the ball could be more likely to cause a ball to move than walking in and stopping a foot+ away from the ball.

7 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Why is a putt that comes to rest on the edge of the cup and then goes in when a player walks toward it to mark it not treated the same under this rule. It's at rest and then it moves. Treat like situations alike, right? Why make an exception because it's on the green or near the hole?

A ball overhanging the hole is not deemed at rest until the time has elapsed (or the player taps in). The situations are not alike.

Spoiler

OT: The ten second (plus time to get to the hole) rule applies because otherwise you'd have players standing there forever waiting for the wind to possibly blow the ball into the hole. There's a very direct chance of saving a stroke, while the wind blowing the ball 1/4" on your twenty footer isn't going to save a full stroke. Though of course if you do wait for the wind to blow your ball down a tier or something, you can still be penalized for unduly delaying play.

7 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Might not be 'opposite', but I do think your idea is a bit like shifting of the burden of proof from the defendant to the plaintiff. If done this way you could stick with the existing 51% threshold to be tighter on latitude.

You, too, seem to be reading this incorrectly. Re-read 18-2/0.5.

There's no presumption of guilt or innocence. The facts are simply weighed, and the most likely cause determined. The player is not guilty until proven innocent.

7 minutes ago, natureboy said:

To a large extent though the hovering of the club to avoid a penalty was only relevant to actually causing the ball to move off the greens. Just stepping in to the ball and standing there (esp. on fast greens) is likely the primary cause of movement - absent wind.

Kindly stop just making stuff up.

7 minutes ago, natureboy said:

I personally like that the wind moving the ball regardless of whether or not the club was grounded does not result in a penalty now.

On that we agree.

[Fourputt]

5 hours ago, natureboy said:

Did they ever look at just an exception to this rule for obvious external causes like wind and gravity?

To a large extent though the hovering of the club was only relevant to actually causing the ball to move off the greens. Just stepping in to the ball and standing there (esp. on fast greens) is likely the primary cause - absent wind.

To a large extent though the hovering of the club to avoid a penalty was only relevant to actually causing the ball to move off the greens. Just stepping in to the ball and standing there (esp. on fast greens) is likely the primary cause of movement - absent wind.

 

Not necessarily true.  Grounding the club when your ball lies in rough is equally risky.  By not grounding the club, if the ball moves when the player did not even touch the grass near it, I would be inclined to rule it as a act of God.  If he grounds the club or takes a practice swing in the immediate vicinity, then I call the penalty.  That is still true even under the theoretically less penal rule in today's rule book.  Reverting to the previous version wouldn't change that in any significant way.

I have been in a windy situation where the ball sitting up in heavy rough never really seemed to be at rest - it was sort of fluttering with the wind gusts that were moving the grass.  I've also seen a player be penalized (correctly) for causing a ball lying in fairway grass to move after taking a practice swing more than a foot away from the ball.  

Every ruling must be treated as a unique incident, and the more you allow the referee latitude in making his decision, the more subjective the rule becomes.

 

[natureboy]

15 hours ago, Fourputt said:

Not necessarily true.  Grounding the club when your ball lies in rough is equally risky.  By not grounding the club, if the ball moves when the player did not even touch the grass near it, I would be inclined to rule it as a act of God.  If he grounds the club or takes a practice swing in the immediate vicinity, then I call the penalty.  That is still true even under the theoretically less penal rule in today's rule book.  Reverting to the previous version wouldn't change that in any significant way.

I have been in a windy situation where the ball sitting up in heavy rough never really seemed to be at rest - it was sort of fluttering with the wind gusts that were moving the grass.  I've also seen a player be penalized (correctly) for causing a ball lying in fairway grass to move after taking a practice swing more than a foot away from the ball.  

Maybe I didn't word my post well, but you're actually agreeing with me. I was saying that grounding or disturbing the vegetation near a perched lie in the rough is more likely to dislodge the ball than on the green because of the more interconnected 'mat' of grass or vegetation stems. It was smart not to ground your club or take practice swings near the ball in the rough under both the old and current rules.

I think on fast greens just stepping in to address the ball is the likely cause in more occasions than not when there is no wind or earthquake to ascribe it to. The extremely short cut grass stems are much less likely to be interlaced than high rough or other vegetation through the green. 

IMO hovering the club on the greens under the old rule was just a way to avoid penalties that were more likely caused by the influence of the player taking their stance near the ball plus some random tufts of grass or minor surface irregularities. I think it's interesting in light of this discussion how when greens were much slower on average that many putters (Paul Runyan e.g.) used to ground their club twice - once in front of and once behind the ball. Curious how that practice once considered helpful has faded as green speeds increased.

It seems accepted in golf that soft turf deforms significantly under human body weight, and that human body weight can 'squeeze' water out of the ground by compacting the soft earth and giving the displaced water a depression to pool in (like pics below). That's why the definition for casual water includes surface water that appears 'after the player takes their stance'. So doesn't it seem logical to conclude that the ground is not a rigid surface like a thick steel plate?

http://stonygolf.blogspot.com/2013/01/what-do-you-mean-your-not-open-today.html

So the ground can deform under human body weight. As greens and other course turf firm up, the deformation does not go away, but is spread out over a larger area as the turf surface becomes stiffer / drier on a continuum. This will lessen the magnitude of deformation at any one spot, but also spread it across a larger area of proximity to the player (and closer to the ball). If the green is particularly slick (smoother), the ball will be more prone to move under this small influence (depending on random particular ground and lie conditions). Sort of like the difference between standing in the middle of a piece of wet cardboard vs. dry (of same thickness) on top of an underlying base that has some give. The wet cardboard will have more local sag while the stiffer, dry cardboard will depress across a larger area.

According to Clegg Impact Hammer values (STRI programme), the compaction strength of a soft green is half that of a firm green. It's not an order of magnitude different. Because of the root structure and at least some humus content, the turf will always be a bit spongy (unless the surface loses all moisture like this past year at TPC) and it also rides on a layer of semi-moist sand, which you know from walking on the beach is somewhat deformable. Even the Earth's bedrock crust is deformable given sufficient weight and time.

 

Spoiler

So in your scenario with the ball fluttering in the rough, you had to wait for the wind to subside before striking it, yes? Otherwise you'd incur a penalty under 14-5. And there would be no penalty for undue delay because you were waiting for the ball to stop moving, yes?

 

Edited October 22, 2016 by natureboy

[Fourputt]

7 hours ago, natureboy said:

 

 

  Hide contents

So in your scenario with the ball fluttering in the rough, you had to wait for the wind to subside before striking it, yes? Otherwise you'd incur a penalty under 14-5. And there would be no penalty for undue delay because you were waiting for the ball to stop moving, yes?

 

Not really.  In  those situations I never ground the club, even now with the rule taking some of the onus off of the player.  I never have tended to ground the club in anything but fairly light rough.  If I approach the ball and never touch the grass near it, then I can't really be held responsible for any subsequent movement.  I've played from some very precarious lies over the years, and never had a ball actually move because of any action that could be attributed to me.

[natureboy]

14 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

Not really.  In  those situations I never ground the club, even now with the rule taking some of the onus off of the player.  I never have tended to ground the club in anything but fairly light rough.  If I approach the ball and never touch the grass near it, then I can't really be held responsible for any subsequent movement.  I've played from some very precarious lies over the years, and never had a ball actually move because of any action that could be attributed to me.

Spoiler

But if the ball is 'fluttering in the rough' isn't it moving? I thought you weren't allowed to hit a moving ball?

 

On 10/21/2016 at 7:33 PM, iacas said:

A ball overhanging the hole is not deemed at rest until the time has elapsed (or the player taps in). The situations are not alike.

That's a de jure distinction of actually like situations only within the bubble of the rules. It's not a de facto distinction in the regular world where objects at rest tend to remain at rest.

If I step near a ball that has come (in actuality) to rest on the lip in order to tap it in and that causes it to go in saving me a stroke, I am automatically not at fault per the rules. But if I step in to putt a ball that is not near the lip then I could be liable for causing a ball to move if it happens to shift sooner rather than later under the influence of my steps and weight on the ground. I see those two scenarios as fundamentally alike.

I wouldn’t like not awarding those putts. But I could see not doing so being consistent with the principle of treating like situations alike. I mentioned it to underscore that it seemed an exception to the principles has already been made in a general rule for a ball at rest because of its special location (by the hole) as some have suggested in the thread (on the green) as ways to improve the current 18-2 rule.

Edited October 23, 2016 by natureboy