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

[iacas]

Kevin, you've made your final post in this thread. You've repeatedly failed to suggest your own language to improve 18-2, and you don't even discuss the language or changes suggested by others.

Now you're not only twisting what I say, but you're twisting and conflating the language of the rules with the colloquial definitions, and you're misunderstanding/misrepresenting things @Fourputt has said, too. Add that to the pile of BS like your complete belief (without any evidence whatsoever) that a player's footsteps are likely to cause a ball to move and it feels as though your entire purpose in this topic is to argue for the sake of arguing. I'm aware of the fact that your condition likely makes it difficult for you to let go, but I've tolerated this enough. You're done.

Spoiler

8 hours ago, natureboy said:

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.

Sorry, but you don't get to define things colloquially or "in the regular world." They're not "like situations" at all. The ball is deemed at rest when overhanging the hole only after ten seconds or when a player makes a stroke at it (for which they're not penalized for hitting a moving ball). "Like situations alike" is a rule ("equity") and so you don't get to say "like situations alike" when the situations, under the Rules, are not alike.

8 hours ago, natureboy said:

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.

Read 1-2/4.

You're also consistently overstating how easy it is for a player's footsteps to cause movement 12+ inches away from the ball. You've got no evidence, no supporting data, and just your own opinions on the likeliness of this happening.

I've jumped near golf balls in a joking way playing casually and even that doesn't cause the ball to move. A player's footsteps are highly, highly unlikely to do anything to cause a ball to move on the putting green. Heck, if the player is outside of 12" or so, a player's sneeze might be more likely to dislodge a precariously positioned ball than his footsteps.

You'd be a massive asshole if you attempted to penalize a player for walking toward his golf ball overhanging the hole, and no committee on earth would assess the player a penalty for walking to the ball in a normal way (i.e. not jumping, slamming his feet down, etc.) when overhanging the hole. None.

You have no evidence, proof, data, etc. You're done.

8 hours ago, natureboy said:

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.

They're not.

8 hours ago, natureboy said:

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.

They're not like situations.

 

[SG11118]

On ‎10‎/‎21‎/‎2016 at 3:08 PM, iacas said:

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.

I'm not positive what I would propose right now.  Not allowing marking/lifting/cleaning may have some merit, but I don't think it is what I'd propose.  I've thrown out a couple things earlier in this thread that was somewhat what I'd like to see and somewhat just talking out loud.  I'm likely ok with your concept of changing the certainty threshold on 18-2 if some appropriate wording can be created - as it is an improvement over the rules as they currently sit.  I don't know that I'd consider it the best rule improvement option though.  Digging into a better understanding of the principle of playing the ball as it lies and how it pertains to marking/lifting/cleaning may lead me to a better proposal for a rule change.  I'll probably bring it up in the Tufts Rules Principles thread - once I've had a chance to review Tufts myself.

Edited October 24, 2016 by SG11118

[SG11118]

SG11118 Proposal:

[ADD RULE] 18-7 Following Putting Ball Back in Play

Following lifting/replacing or lifting/cleaning/replacing in accordance with the rules, the player shall make their next stroke from the location where the ball was replaced. Likewise, following the player taking a legal drop in accordance with the rules, the player shall make their next stroke from the location where the ball came to rest following the drop. 

The only exception for not playing the next shot from the location described is if the player determines their ball is unplayable and proceeds per Rule 28: 

1. If the ball at rest moves from the location described in 18-7 prior to stroke, and there is less than virtual certainty the golfer caused the ball to move, the ball is replaced and played without penalty

2. If there is virtual certainty that the golfer caused the ball at rest to move from the location described in 18-7 prior to the stroke, the player shall be penalized and shall proceed per rule 18-2

3. Once the ball is played from this position it is no longer subject to 18-7 unless ball is once again lifted/replaced, lifted/cleaned/replaced, or a new drop is taken in accordance with the rules

[REVISE] Decision 18-2/0.5

[ADD TO BEGINNING] This evidence standard is not appropriate for ball being played immediately following lifting/replacing, lifting/cleaning/replacing, or taking a drop.  Refer to rule 18-7 for the evidence standard for these situations.  For all other situations, the evidence standard is as follows:

(NOTE: I believe rule 18-2 can be left as is.  Several other decisions such as 18-1/12 will also need to be reviewed, revised and/or deleted as they are no longer applicable)

Rationale: A ball that has been in the golfers "hand" is no longer technically being played “as it lies”.  The ball has been taken out of play and re-entered into play.  It is being played as a necessary exception to the Principle of playing the ball as it lies.  In doing so, the ball has potentially been made more likely to become a “ball at rest moved” - either due to natural elements or artificial elements.  This rule change will both protect the golfer from potentially being blamed for the ball in this situation moving (unless the already defined "virtually certain" criteria is met.  It will also ensure the golfer doesn’t gain an advantage or disadvantage because the ball has potentially artificially been made more likely to move due to wind, rain, gravity, etc.  If the player has not touched their ball, the normal rules of golf apply - as does the "more likely than not" criteria described in D18/2-0.5. 

[Martyn W]

49 minutes ago, SG11118 said:

SG11118 Proposal:

[ADD RULE] 18-7 Following Putting Ball Back in Play

Following lifting/replacing or lifting/cleaning/replacing in accordance with the rules, the player shall make their next stroke from the location where the ball was replaced. Likewise, following the player taking a legal drop in accordance with the rules, the player shall make their next stroke from the location where the ball came to rest following the drop. 

The only exception for not playing the next shot from the location described is if the player determines their ball is unplayable and proceeds per Rule 28: 

1. If the ball at rest moves from the location described in 18-7 prior to stroke, and there is less than virtual certainty the golfer caused the ball to move, the ball is replaced and played without penalty

2. If there is virtual certainty that the golfer caused the ball at rest to move from the location described in 18-7 prior to the stroke, the player shall be penalized and shall proceed per rule 18-2

3. Once the ball is played from this position it is no longer subject to 18-7 unless ball is once again lifted/replaced, lifted/cleaned/replaced, or a new drop is taken in accordance with the rules

[REVISE] Decision 18-2/0.5

[ADD TO BEGINNING] This evidence standard is not appropriate for ball being played immediately following lifting/replacing, lifting/cleaning/replacing, or taking a drop.  Refer to rule 18-7 for the evidence standard for these situations.  For all other situations, the evidence standard is as follows:

(NOTE: I believe rule 18-2 can be left as is.  Several other decisions such as 18-1/12 will also need to be reviewed, revised and/or deleted as they are no longer applicable)

Rationale: A ball that has been in the golfers "hand" is no longer technically being played “as it lies”.  The ball has been taken out of play and re-entered into play.  It is being played as a necessary exception to the Principle of playing the ball as it lies.  In doing so, the ball has potentially been made more likely to become a “ball at rest moved” - either due to natural elements or artificial elements.  This rule change will both protect the golfer from potentially being blamed for the ball in this situation moving (unless the already defined "virtually certain" criteria is met.  It will also ensure the golfer doesn’t gain an advantage or disadvantage because the ball has potentially artificially been made more likely to move due to wind, rain, gravity, etc.  If the player has not touched their ball, the normal rules of golf apply - as does the "more likely than not" criteria described in D18/2-0.5. 

So, if I understand your suggestion, you are saying that wind and water are outside agencies?

[SG11118]

34 minutes ago, Martyn W said:

So, if I understand your suggestion, you are saying that wind and water are outside agencies?

Not sure where you are getting that from? - outside agencies are defined in the ROG and clearly not wind and water.  

[Martyn W]

1 hour ago, Martyn W said:

If the ball at rest moves from the location described in 18-7 prior to stroke, and there is less than virtual certainty the golfer caused the ball to move, the ball is replaced and played without penalty

From your proposed 18-7 i

[DaveP043]

6 minutes ago, Martyn W said:

From your proposed 18-7 i

I don't believe he's defining anything as being an outside agency, he's simply proposing a particular rule for a very specific circumstance.  I agree, the effect is similar to the "outside" agency" rule, but there's no wording in his proposed rule that makes any such definition.  I'm interested because, after all of the discussion, @SG11118 has made a very specific proposal regarding a change to the rules.  I don't think I'd be in favor of adopting the change, but he's given us a very definite subject for discussion.

[iacas]

10 hours ago, SG11118 said:

1. If the ball at rest moves from the location described in 18-7 prior to stroke, and there is less than virtual certainty the golfer caused the ball to move, the ball is replaced and played without penalty

2. If there is virtual certainty that the golfer caused the ball at rest to move from the location described in 18-7 prior to the stroke, the player shall be penalized and shall proceed per rule 18-2

3. Once the ball is played from this position it is no longer subject to 18-7 unless ball is once again lifted/replaced, lifted/cleaned/replaced, or a new drop is taken in accordance with the rules

I don't like the use of virtual certainty here.

And, honestly, the more I think about it, the more I like the current definition: if the golfer is determined to be the most likely cause of the motion, they're at fault. If the summation of any other things is determined to be most likely, then he's not penalized.

10 hours ago, SG11118 said:

Rationale: A ball that has been in the golfers "hand" is no longer technically being played “as it lies”.

Not colloquially, but I disagree that it's being played as it lies. The lie is unchanged when a ball is replaced.

If a ball interferes with play you get to lift it, but you don't get to clean it, and you're ostensibly playing from the same exact lie as you had before. The ball interferes with play, though. Does a player get to replace his ball if it moves then?

10 hours ago, SG11118 said:

In doing so, the ball has potentially been made more likely to become a “ball at rest moved” - either due to natural elements or artificial elements.

Why is it more likely?

10 hours ago, SG11118 said:

This rule change will both protect the golfer from potentially being blamed for the ball in this situation moving (unless the already defined "virtually certain" criteria is met.

That's the only real change you're making.

And you're creating two situations… both for a ball in the same situation: sitting on the golf course somewhere. Who cares what happened in the past to the ball? No other rule really cares about the past (just the previous shot, for stroke and distance type things, or dropping when you've hit from within a water hazard and fail to get out, etc.), only the current state of the ball (and, again, the location of the previous stroke).

Ball A is sitting on the green near a tier. Ball B is sitting an inch away. The wind blows while the golfers are walking back onto the green and both balls roll down to a few inches from the hole, but one of the balls was previously marked. Why are they to be treated differently?

What if the player only marked the ball and didn't actually lift it? Heck, you're required to mark a ball you're looking to identify… does this rule cover that?

10 hours ago, SG11118 said:

It will also ensure the golfer doesn’t gain an advantage or disadvantage because the ball has potentially artificially been made more likely to move due to wind, rain, gravity, etc.

I don't think it's more likely to move.

I don't like your rule at all.

Two balls, Ball A and Ball B are sitting on pine straw a few inches apart. It's breezy but not overly so. Player B marks and lifts his ball so A can play. A soles his club lightly and the ball moves a second later. He's penalized as there was no particular gust or anything.

He replaces and plays. Then B replaces his ball and does the same thing: lightly soles his club and the ball moves a second later… but because the virtual certainty is not met, he's not penalized for doing the same thing(s)?

7 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

I don't think I'd be in favor of adopting the change, but he's given us a very definite subject for discussion.

I'm not in favor of it at all.

And the more and more and more I think about it, the more I like the current rule.

Seriously, if the player is determined to be the most likely cause of the ball moving, he's penalized. If the summation of all other possibilities accounts for 50%, he's not penalized.

It's about as good as it can get, IMO. It applies to a wide range of areas - not just the putting green, for example. It doesn't matter what the past state of the ball was. So on.

It's clean and simple. Some people simply don't like that it penalized some players. But those players were deemed more likely than not to have caused their ball to move! So, they deserved a penalty.

[SG11118]

11 hours ago, iacas said:

Not colloquially, but I disagree that it's being played as it lies. The lie is unchanged when a ball is replaced.

If a ball interferes with play you get to lift it, but you don't get to clean it, and you're ostensibly playing from the same exact lie as you had before.

This is the part of the proposal I had the toughest part with.  I thought about taking this situation out of my proposed rule change, but in the end decided to leave it in.  Ostensibly is the key word here.  The lie is likely slightly changed - at least at an individual blade of grass level due to the lifting and replacing.  On a more micro level, I believe that multiple blades of grass have bent, deformed, laid slightly differently due to the act of lifting and replacing.  It likely isn't noticeable to the human eye, but it is still different.  In most cases this difference isn't going to make any difference to the play, but I think there is a chance that it could, so I decided to leave it in my proposal.

11 hours ago, iacas said:

And you're creating two situations… both for a ball in the same situation: sitting on the golf course somewhere. Who cares what happened in the past to the ball?

These are two different situations though.  One, you are playing the ball naturally as it lies - the other, you are playing in an artificial position. 

Consider an experiment.  Find an uneven lie on your golf course and take 3 balls - throw or roll one ball (or hit it with a golf club) towards a spot to represent a stroke off a club, drop one ball on the lie, and place one ball on the lie.  Repeat the experiment multiple times.  Which of the three situations has found it's way to the most level and most stable ground?  My guess is the thrown or rolled ball has by far found itself to the most stable ground.  Dropping the ball may have rolled most of the way to a flatter spot, but probably didn't have enough energy to roll to as stable of a spot as the first ball.  Placing the ball likely has resulted in the ball being in the most unstable position.  This is probably fine in itself, but now add in consideration for the rules of golf related to dropping - would the ball have been allowed to roll several club lengths to reach as stable of a spot as it is able?  No - it would've been dropped twice and placed at the location where the ball hit on the second drop.

My argument is, a stroked ball is generally going to find a more stable location where it is less likely to move due to external forces (the wind, the golfer lightly grounding the club, etc).  In most cases, both situations will be stable enough to play without the ball at rest moving prior to the golfer's next shot.  This proposal is dealing with the rare cases where it isn't.  I don't have any proof in my argument, but to me my argument makes sense. 

12 hours ago, iacas said:

Ball A is sitting on the green near a tier. Ball B is sitting an inch away. The wind blows while the golfers are walking back onto the green and both balls roll down to a few inches from the hole, but one of the balls was previously marked. Why are they to be treated differently?

In my opinion, they should be treated differently.  One ball has come to rest naturally into a stable position.  The other ball came to rest in that position, then it was possibly cleaned, lifted, and replaced into a location where the grass supporting the ball has to at least some level been artificially changed from how it was when the ball came to rest.  Maybe a chunk of mud was all that was keeping this ball from rolling down the hill.  Should the golfer really be able to remove that chunk of mud, replace the ball during a lull in the wind, and then watch as the wind picks up and takes the ball to the hole?  

12 hours ago, iacas said:

Two balls, Ball A and Ball B are sitting on pine straw a few inches apart. It's breezy but not overly so. Player B marks and lifts his ball so A can play. A soles his club lightly and the ball moves a second later. He's penalized as there was no particular gust or anything.

He replaces and plays. Then B replaces his ball and does the same thing: lightly soles his club and the ball moves a second later… but because the virtual certainty is not met, he's not penalized for doing the same thing(s)?

If B lightly soles his club and the ball immediately moves, I would say that virtual certainty has been met.  If there is a second delay like you say, I would say that virtual certainty has not been met.  Golf has always had "rub of the green" situations.  It isn't always fair.  But keep in mind the two balls were still in different positions - even though they were similar.  It is possible that B artificially made his ball more likely to move when lightly soling the club because he had lifted and replaced it (at least at a small/microscopic level).

13 hours ago, iacas said:

And the more and more and more I think about it, the more I like the current rule.

That is fine.  The rule is ok as written.  I don't think my proposal is perfect, but in my opinion it is an improvement over the current.  It is fine for others to disagree.  I wasn't expecting full agreement in writing it.  I only ask that people distance themselves from their "appreciation" or "sacredness" of the current rules to give proper consideration to a proposal that may make the rules better.

The Tufts thread led me to the conclusion that taking drops and replacing of balls are both "exceptions" to the Principle of Playing the Ball as it Lies, and not a part of the Principle.  My argument about on a micro level the player slightly changing their lie during replacing due to the grass being bent, deformed, or laid slightly differently might also cause a small "exception" to the other primary principle of Playing the Course as You Find It.  My proposal does not violate either of the two Principles.  It only takes those instances where exceptions are already in place and treats them differently. 

Let's say the USGA and R&A were considering my proposal, but there was some question as to whether the ball really is less stable in dropping, placing or replacing than in a situation where the ball comes to rest after being struck.  They could ask the various pro tours to compile statistics for the situations where balls at rest move on the course over a year or two, to statistically prove whether or not it is more likely, and whether or not it is statistically significant enough for this proposal to make sense.

[Fourputt]

From this proposal and discussion, I get the impression that SG1118 isn't as careful about replacing a lifted ball as he should be.  Done correctly, there is no significant change in the ball's position or the turf that it is resting on.  This should never be an issue unless something occurred to damage the original lie from which the ball was lifted.

[Gunther]

11 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

From this proposal and discussion, I get the impression that SG1118 isn't as careful about replacing a lifted ball as he should be.  Done correctly, there is no significant change in the ball's position or the turf that it is resting on.  This should never be an issue unless something occurred to damage the original lie from which the ball was lifted.

I think that on a microscopic level, there would be almost no chance to place the ball precisely in its previous position with no variation to position or ground conditions.  

Whether that variation is material from a playing standpoint is debateable, I'd guess not most of the time.  But, that doesn't negate the argument.

[Fourputt]

8 minutes ago, Gunther said:

I think that on a microscopic level, there would be almost no chance to place the ball precisely in its previous position with no variation to position or ground conditions.  

Whether that variation is material from a playing standpoint is debateable, I'd guess not most of the time.  But, that doesn't negate the argument.

Note that I said "significant".  When done correctly, replacing a ball will not make it any more likely to move than if it had never been lifted.  The ball will have the same lie and the same affect on play as if it was never touched.  That is the difference between "placing" and "replacing".  

Replacing means that the ball is returned to its original spot as closely as it humanly possible.  This should not materially change the lie of the ball once replaced.

If that can't be done, then it must be placed in a spot that is as nearly similar as can be found nearby, or in some cases the original lie must be recreated.  In those cases the new lie will of necessity be somewhat changed, but even then it should not make the ball any more likely to move.

[iacas]

12 hours ago, SG11118 said:

Ostensibly is the key word here.  The lie is likely slightly changed - at least at an individual blade of grass level due to the lifting and replacing.

I don't care about a micro level. The ball is replaced - so its lie is exactly the same as far as the Rules go.

12 hours ago, SG11118 said:

These are two different situations though.  One, you are playing the ball naturally as it lies - the other, you are playing in an artificial position.

The situations are not different. You're playing the ball from the same lie in both cases.

The ball doesn't have to be replaced on the putting green in exactly down to the nearest tenth of a millimeter. It's not practical to require that level of precision. So the same standard applies here.

Replacing the ball = the same lie.

12 hours ago, SG11118 said:

Consider an experiment.  Find an uneven lie on your golf course and take 3 balls - throw or roll one ball (or hit it with a golf club) towards a spot to represent a stroke off a club, drop one ball on the lie, and place one ball on the lie.  Repeat the experiment multiple times.  Which of the three situations has found it's way to the most level and most stable ground?  My guess is the thrown or rolled ball has by far found itself to the most stable ground.  Dropping the ball may have rolled most of the way to a flatter spot, but probably didn't have enough energy to roll to as stable of a spot as the first ball.  Placing the ball likely has resulted in the ball being in the most unstable position.

I don't agree. A ball rolling to a stop is rolling to a stop. I don't care if I've putted it from 35 feet or three feet - the last three feet of roll will be fundamentally the same.

12 hours ago, SG11118 said:

My argument is, a stroked ball is generally going to find a more stable location where it is less likely to move due to external forces (the wind, the golfer lightly grounding the club, etc).

I continue to disagree. I'm glad your argument makes sense to you  but to me, I'm not really buying it.

12 hours ago, SG11118 said:

Maybe a chunk of mud was all that was keeping this ball from rolling down the hill.  Should the golfer really be able to remove that chunk of mud, replace the ball during a lull in the wind, and then watch as the wind picks up and takes the ball to the hole?

Yep. Why not?

The golfer did not cause the ball to move. Play it as it lies.

12 hours ago, SG11118 said:

If B lightly soles his club and the ball immediately moves, I would say that virtual certainty has been met.

You missed the point of that…

You have two identical situations, but one requires "virtual certainty" while the other requires only the preponderance of evidence. One requires 99% or so, the other 51%. For the same situation.

12 hours ago, SG11118 said:

That is fine.  The rule is ok as written.  I don't think my proposal is perfect, but in my opinion it is an improvement over the current.  It is fine for others to disagree.  I wasn't expecting full agreement in writing it.  I only ask that people distance themselves from their "appreciation" or "sacredness" of the current rules to give proper consideration to a proposal that may make the rules better.

You know, just being honest, but I hate that stuff. It's a straw man argument. Present a better rule and I'll back it, but my dislike for your rule or my "like" for this rule (if you want to call it that, maybe "respect" is better) has nothing to do with the "sacredness." I'm a contrarian and a cynic by nature. But I can also be swayed by a good argument, and I've yet to hear one on this.

12 hours ago, SG11118 said:

The Tufts thread led me to the conclusion that taking drops and replacing of balls are both "exceptions" to the Principle of Playing the Ball as it Lies, and not a part of the Principle.

I'm curious what Tufts would say today, rather than what he'd say before lifting and replacing (particularly on the putting green) was as common as it is now. Maybe he'd say Chapter 15 covers it?

12 hours ago, SG11118 said:

My proposal does not violate either of the two Principles.

Your proposal violates the concept of equity. That's one of the working principles and is covered in Chapter 11, IIRC.

Two balls that have the same status are treated differently because of things done in the past.

[Rulesman]

Tufts Chapter 11

"Many other situations occur in golf which would appear to merit
special consideration. When a ball is in a divot hole in the fairway or a foot print in a bunker, the player is suffering from the carelessness of someone else and would seem to be entitled to relief. Quite correctly, the Rules do not accord any more consideration to these situations than to the player who finds his ball in an equally difficult position created by nature, course condition or any other cause."

Edited November 3, 2016 by Rulesman

[turtleback]

21 hours ago, Gunther said:

I think that on a microscopic level, there would be almost no chance to place the ball precisely in its previous position with no variation to position or ground conditions.  

Whether that variation is material from a playing standpoint is debateable, I'd guess not most of the time.  But, that doesn't negate the argument.

Well, I disagree and think it comprehensively defeats the argument.  You cannot base the flying of a plane on quantum factors and you cannot base the rules of golf on what might be happening at the microscopic level.  IMO that would be absurd.  

[SG11118]

On 11/2/2016 at 10:56 PM, iacas said:

I don't care about a micro level. The ball is replaced - so its lie is exactly the same as far as the Rules go.

If this rule were enacted as written, the golfer wouldn't need to be concerned what is going on at the "blade of grass" level.  What is happening at the "blade of grass" level may be part of the rationale for the rule change, but a golfer following the rules wouldn't need to know that.  Are we sure that the rationale for any current rules is not influenced by behavior at "blade of grass" level?

You have said several times now that replacing the ball is the same as playing the ball as it lies, but I have seen no proof of it.  Rule 13-1 clearly states that "the ball must be played as it lies, except as otherwise provided by the rules".  This does not mean the rules treat this situation as "playing the ball as it lies".  It means the rules treat this situation as an "exception" to playing the ball as it lies.  Tufts says the same thing, and seems to have purposely avoided discussing why this rule situation complies with the principles behind the rules.

On 11/2/2016 at 10:56 PM, iacas said:

I don't agree. A ball rolling to a stop is rolling to a stop. I don't care if I've putted it from 35 feet or three feet - the last three feet of roll will be fundamentally the same.

You are missing the point I was trying to make.  I'm saying that if you hit a ball someplace where you need to take a drop (GUR, Hazard, Cart Path), you could very well end up getting stuck putting the ball back into play at a spot on the course that it is physically unable for a played ball to stop at.  

On 11/2/2016 at 10:56 PM, iacas said:

Yep. Why not?

The golfer did not cause the ball to move. Play it as it lies.

I disagree.  This is not playing under the principle of playing the ball as it lies.

On 11/2/2016 at 10:56 PM, iacas said:

You missed the point of that…

You have two identical situations, but one requires "virtual certainty" while the other requires only the preponderance of evidence. One requires 99% or so, the other 51%. For the same situation.

These two balls are in different locations.  They are in similar situations, but they are not in the same situation.  Is a person allowed to mark and lift their ball and then replace it 4" away and say that they've replaced it in an identical situation?  Additionally, a few decisions could be established saying what constitutes virtual certainty if the ball is in a precarious position such as on pine straw.  The intent of this rule proposal is not to give the golfer an out when it is clear that they have been the direct cause for their ball moving.  

On 11/2/2016 at 10:56 PM, iacas said:

You know, just being honest, but I hate that stuff. It's a straw man argument. Present a better rule and I'll back it, but my dislike for your rule or my "like" for this rule (if you want to call it that, maybe "respect" is better) has nothing to do with the "sacredness." I'm a contrarian and a cynic by nature. But I can also be swayed by a good argument, and I've yet to hear one on this.

This comment wasn't necessarily aimed at you, but fine.  Tell me why it makes sense why lifting and replacing a ball (that doesn't interfere with another ball) falls within the principles of golf.  Tell me why the situation I describe in the next comment below does not currently violate the concept of equity.  I get the sense you are at least somewhat blindly defending both situations because they are currently in the rules rather than because they make sense that they are in the rules.  The point of this thread is to suggest improvements to the rule.  I believe I've cleaned up some of the uncertainty and am more in compliance with the principles of golf than the rules currently are as written.  

Maybe my rule proposal isn't perfect.  I'll grant you that I have zero proof that a ball comes to rest in a more stable position after a stroke than after a drop or place.  I'm somewhat confident of my theory on this one, but it would require more study before I or the USGA or the R&A would want to see my rule implemented.  I'll grant you that I have zero proof that the ball ends up sitting differently on the individual blades of grass before and after it is marked.  (See my response to Fourputt)  This is more of a theory, and I'd like to see high def zoom cameras study this situation before and after marking to see if my theory is correct.

On 11/2/2016 at 10:56 PM, iacas said:

Your proposal violates the concept of equity. That's one of the working principles and is covered in Chapter 11, IIRC.

Doesn't the rules of golf already violate the concept of equity?  Player A addresses his ball on the green and 3.0 seconds later the ball moves and is assessed a penalty because it hit the 51% level (more certain than not) that the golfer caused the ball to move.  Player B is playing in the next group, hits the ball to the exact same spot, addresses the ball in the exact same way, but his ball moves 3.2 seconds after address, so he only hit a 49% certainty level because an extra 0.2 seconds have passed.  Is this not two similar situations being treated differently?  I believe my rule proposal will help eliminate this conflict, because most of these instances occur on the green and can now be treated the same because both golfers will have the ability to mark/lift/clean/replace.

On 11/2/2016 at 0:54 PM, Fourputt said:

From this proposal and discussion, I get the impression that SG1118 isn't as careful about replacing a lifted ball as he should be.  Done correctly, there is no significant change in the ball's position or the turf that it is resting on.  This should never be an issue unless something occurred to damage the original lie from which the ball was lifted.

Says the guy with the tagline of "he who has the fastest cart never has a bad lie"

My theory is that as the golf ball is rolling to a stop, the ball itself is pushing the individual blades of grass sideways in the direction of ball movement.  Because the blades of grass are individually weak springs cantilevered out of the ground, they are trying to "spring" back to their original position.  This spring is creating a force opposite to the direction of ball movement helping to cause the ball to stop.  The ball comes to rest in this position with the grass leaning in a position that helps stabilize the ball.  The ball is then marked and lifted and the individual grass blades spring somewhat back to the vertical position.  Probably not all the way, but at least some of the way.  The ball is replaced onto blades of grass that are more vertical than they were when the ball was lifted.  Because the ball is replaced vertically from above it re-bends the blades of grass under the weight of the ball, but from a different direction, so with a different direction of force.  The ball has lost this built in grass stabilization mechanism during the lifting and replacing.  This theory would need to be proven prior to thinking about enacting this rule change proposal.

On 11/3/2016 at 4:19 AM, Rulesman said:

Tufts Chapter 11

"Many other situations occur in golf which would appear to merit
special consideration. When a ball is in a divot hole in the fairway or a foot print in a bunker, the player is suffering from the carelessness of someone else and would seem to be entitled to relief. Quite correctly, the Rules do not accord any more consideration to these situations than to the player who finds his ball in an equally difficult position created by nature, course condition or any other cause."

Not sure if this link is directed at me or someone else?    

21 hours ago, turtleback said:

Well, I disagree and think it comprehensively defeats the argument.  You cannot base the flying of a plane on quantum factors and you cannot base the rules of golf on what might be happening at the microscopic level.  IMO that would be absurd.

I don't think we are talking the microscopic level.  We are maybe talking about zooming in a couple times with high def cameras to clearly see the individual blades of grass and visit what happens to them when the ball is lifted and replaced.  If what I am suggesting happens does not happen, I would not support the rule change as written.  It is a working theory that would need to be proven to go this direction with the rules.

[Fourputt]

The principles are not so rigid that they prevent proper play.  They are guidelines that must be a part of any rules discussion.  They cannot be so fixed that they compromise the players opportunity to play the game. 

The rules should rely on and adhere to the basic principles as much as possible while still in keeping with the idea that the player must be allowed to play the game, and that most of the time, his skill, not random chance, should be what determines the outcome.  The rules are built on this idea, and are written so as to maintain the best balance possible.  They are not, nor can they ever be, perfect.  They are written to be as fair and equitable as possible in the vast majority of cases, and they have procedures defined to deal with the rare exceptions.  

I don't see how you can expect anything more from the rules for a game as potentially complex as golf.

 

[iacas]

Spoiler

1 hour ago, SG11118 said:

If this rule were enacted as written, the golfer wouldn't need to be concerned what is going on at the "blade of grass" level.

Your justification was at the "blade of grass" level, so as @turtleback said, not being concerned about the "blade of grass" level nullifies your argument.

1 hour ago, SG11118 said:

Are we sure that the rationale for any current rules is not influenced by behavior at "blade of grass" level?

There are not.

1 hour ago, SG11118 said:

You have said several times now that replacing the ball is the same as playing the ball as it lies, but I have seen no proof of it.

Replacing the ball means putting the ball back in exactly the same spot, as nearly as humanly possible. By definition. Otherwise the player has not replaced the ball. There are rules that govern even pushing the ball down a little to make sure it stays (not allowed).

1 hour ago, SG11118 said:

You have said several times now that replacing the ball is the same as playing the ball as it lies, but I have seen no proof of it.  Rule 13-1 clearly states that "the ball must be played as it lies, except as otherwise provided by the rules".  This does not mean the rules treat this situation as "playing the ball as it lies".  It means the rules treat this situation as an "exception" to playing the ball as it lies.

The ball is still played as it lies after it is replaced. The exceptions are when the ball is in GUR, in a water hazard, is OB, etc. Those are situations when the player does not need to play the ball as it lies, or is disallowed from doing so.

1 hour ago, SG11118 said:

You are missing the point I was trying to make.  I'm saying that if you hit a ball someplace where you need to take a drop (GUR, Hazard, Cart Path), you could very well end up getting stuck putting the ball back into play at a spot on the course that it is physically unable for a played ball to stop at.

No. You were talking about how a ball hit was likely to settle into a better or different spot than a ball rolled or placed or something. Go back and look at what I was responding to.

1 hour ago, SG11118 said:

I disagree.  This is not playing under the principle of playing the ball as it lies.

It is. The golfer replaced the ball under the Rules in the same lie. That the wind blew it then moved it into a new lie.

1 hour ago, SG11118 said:

These two balls are in different locations.  They are in similar situations, but they are not in the same situation.  Is a person allowed to mark and lift their ball and then replace it 4" away and say that they've replaced it in an identical situation?  Additionally, a few decisions could be established saying what constitutes virtual certainty if the ball is in a precarious position such as on pine straw.  The intent of this rule proposal is not to give the golfer an out when it is clear that they have been the direct cause for their ball moving.

You continue to miss the point of that example.

The situations are alike. I didn't say the couple of inches meant the lies were the same. Yet one situation you're requiring virtual certainty and another situation requires only 51% certainty. That's not equity.

And if your response is, as it is above, to just start throwing more Decisions at the problem, that should be a sign that you're headed down the wrong path.

1 hour ago, SG11118 said:

The intent of this rule proposal is not to give the golfer an out when it is clear that they have been the direct cause for their ball moving.

The current rule does this same exact thing! If it's clear the golfer did not cause the ball to move… he's not penalized, and he plays it as it lies in the new location.

1 hour ago, SG11118 said:

This comment wasn't necessarily aimed at you, but fine.  Tell me why it makes sense why lifting and replacing a ball (that doesn't interfere with another ball) falls within the principles of golf.

The working principles in chapter 13 and 15 are "When it is possible to do so, relief should be granted for interference which may be unfair or outside the player's match" and "Players should play the course under conditions which are as nearly as possible the same."

I'm not blindly defending the rules because they're the rules, but at the same time, when something has been the rules for decades and decades, it becomes part of the ethos and the justification for changing it has to be very, very strong.

Furthermore, you're not debating whether it's justified or within the principles to mark, lift, and clean the ball on the putting green - you're just using that as a straw man to say "well, if you're wrong about that, you're wrong about your disagreement with my proposed rule too." It's cheap, and obvious, and irrelevant.

1 hour ago, SG11118 said:

The point of this thread is to suggest improvements to the rule.  I believe I've cleaned up some of the uncertainty and am more in compliance with the principles of golf than the rules currently are as written.

And I don't believe you have, at all. I think you've created situations where equity no longer applies, and a situation that you're going to attempt to clarify with more Decisions.

1 hour ago, SG11118 said:

Maybe my rule proposal isn't perfect.  I'll grant you that I have zero proof that a ball comes to rest in a more stable position after a stroke than after a drop or place.  I'm somewhat confident of my theory on this one, but it would require more study before I or the USGA or the R&A would want to see my rule implemented.  I'll grant you that I have zero proof that the ball ends up sitting differently on the individual blades of grass before and after it is marked.  (See my response to Fourputt)  This is more of a theory, and I'd like to see high def zoom cameras study this situation before and after marking to see if my theory is correct.

And I don't consider that relevant. The Rules of Golf are not concerned with things that can't be seen at that level.

1 hour ago, SG11118 said:

Doesn't the rules of golf already violate the concept of equity?  Player A addresses his ball on the green and 3.0 seconds later the ball moves and is assessed a penalty because it hit the 51% level (more certain than not) that the golfer caused the ball to move.  Player B is playing in the next group, hits the ball to the exact same spot, addresses the ball in the exact same way, but his ball moves 3.2 seconds after address, so he only hit a 49% certainty level because an extra 0.2 seconds have passed.  Is this not two similar situations being treated differently?  I believe my rule proposal will help eliminate this conflict, because most of these instances occur on the green and can now be treated the same because both golfers will have the ability to mark/lift/clean/replace.

To answer your first question, no.

And your situations are not alike. While I agree there's undoubtedly a line somewhere, and some subjectivity, the idea is still that like situations are treated alike. If a player does something and the ball immediately moves that's very different than if the player does the same thing, walks away, and ten seconds later the ball moves.

1 hour ago, SG11118 said:

This theory would need to be proven prior to thinking about enacting this rule change proposal.

Your theory is irrelevant. The rules of golf can not and should not be concerned with things at that level. When a player marks and lifts his ball for identification, he does not have to make sure his ball is in the exact same lie when he replaces it down to the microscopic level. He has to do it as well as is reasonably humanly possible.

1 hour ago, SG11118 said:

I don't think we are talking the microscopic level.  We are maybe talking about zooming in a couple times with high def cameras to clearly see the individual blades of grass and visit what happens to them when the ball is lifted and replaced.

Why? The Rules of Golf are already not penalizing players for things they can't see with the naked eye.

11 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

The principles are not so rigid that they prevent proper play.  They are guidelines that must be a part of any rules discussion.  They cannot be so fixed that they compromise the players opportunity to play the game.

Seriously.

If the rules of golf were concerned with things down to this microscopic or at least "zoomed in HD several times" level, a golfer would never be able to replace his ball, and all golfers who ever marked and lifted their ball would be DQed for playing from a wrong place and not adding the penalty strokes to their score.

11 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

The rules should rely on and adhere to the basic principles as much as possible while still in keeping with the idea that the player must be allowed to play the game, and that most of the time, his skill, not random chance, should be what determines the outcome. The rules are built on this idea, and are written so as to maintain the best balance possible. They are not, nor can they ever be, perfect. They are written to be as fair and equitable as possible in the vast majority of cases, and they have procedures defined to deal with the rare exceptions.

Yep.

And that, ostensibly, is why you get to repair ball marks and lift and clean your ball on the putting green.

@SG11118, as you can see in the longer stuff above, this is getting too long, and too far off track.

To summarize:

• You're introducing straw men as a means of bolstering your argument, while simultaneously alleging that some people defend the Rules out of religious obligation or something. Both are cheap and easily seen through.
• The Rules of Golf cannot and should not be concerned with things at the "blades of grass" level or "several times zoomed in HD" level. If they were, a player would almost never be able to replace a ball.
• Your proposed rule, which adds to the Rules of Golf, including now at least one or two Decisions, does away with equity and treats like situations (a ball sitting somewhere, a player or the wind or something causing the ball to move) differently: one player gets to put his ball back, the other does not, and the standard by which they're judged is different.

The last one most directly says why I dislike your proposed rules change.