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

[Fourputt]

14 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.

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.

The only way a player could "unaddress" the ball was by marking and lifting it.  Obviously that would only apply on the green, but then most such cases of the ball moving a significant time after the player moves away are on the green.  The rule was changed because there had been several penalties assessed when it was clearly environmental conditions which caused the movement, but the rule didn't allow for any such causation after the player had addressed the ball.

[Golfingdad]

23 minutes ago, iacas said:

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.

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.

OK.  I am not deterred - I've got ideas up the wazoo.  The green is more like the teeing ground than the rest of the course.  For one, you're allowed to put your hands on your ball again.  Secondly, there is no worry about a player "testing" the grass like your example in the rough and the rest of your examples involved the player actually contacting the ball.

So why not leave the rule as-is for all of the course, and just change it for when you're on the green and only apply a penalty when the ball is moved because it is touched?  I don't like the 51% rule when applying a penalty that is so "ticky-tack" so lets move it to something less grey.  If you don't touch it and it moves, then just put it back.  Or, perhaps it could be said that if it moves closer to the hole, then it gets replaced, but if it moves away from the hole, then just leave it be.

EDIT:  Oh, and remove that one exception to the rule about not touching your line where they say you are allowed to touch the ground in front of your ball during your routine.  People don't need to do that, so just take that out.  (So somebody unscrupulous couldn't game my system by pushing down really hard when they have a slick downhiller to try and get a free read.

[newtogolf]

7 hours ago, iacas said:

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

A lot of people seem to be wrong.  Spieth is the 3rd or 4th person who has claimed the holes were on 3* - 4* of slope, one of them (who was on PGA Tour radio) was an official from the PGA Tour who stated that they would never place a hole in a location where the slope was over 2* but the USGA does place holes on slopes up to 4*.  

I agree with @Golfingdadthe rule needs to differentiate between greens and the rest of the course.  

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

So why not leave the rule as-is for all of the course, and just change it for when you're on the green and only apply a penalty when the ball is moved because it is touched?

Why shouldn't players just take care when their ball is on the green not to cause it to move?

And you want to further complicate the rules by adding yet another distinction? Why should a ball on the fringe penalize a player who causes it to move while a ball two inches away on the green penalize a player who causes it to move?

We allow players to mark and clean their ball on the putting green for various reasons. I don't see "because a ball can move more easily on the green" as another good reason to draw a line of distinction in this rule on the putting green. Also, I could argue that it's easier to cause a ball to move more easily in the rough.

Maybe, as I said above, it's simply best if players take care not to cause their ball to move?

4 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

I don't like the 51% rule when applying a penalty that is so "ticky-tack" so lets move it to something less grey.

The point of the 51% is that the wind can move your ball - even blow it into the hole - and you play it as it lies. But if you are the most likely cause of it moving, you put it back and add a stroke.

You don't like the rule, but that's not really a reason to change it. Especially if your reasoning is that it's "ticky tacky." I think it's way more "ticky tacky" to let a player cause a ball to move so long as they didn't address it.

4 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

If you don't touch it and it moves, then just put it back.

What if you didn't cause it to move?

If Tiger's chip at Augusta had stopped briefly, either near the cup or at the top of the slope on the 16th green, he should have to put it back? If your ball is on the top of a slope, and the wind nudges it and it moves down the slope and into the hole, you put it back?

And what if you cause it to move without touching it? What if your caddie causes it to move? Touches it? What if your partner does so?

4 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Or, perhaps it could be said that if it moves closer to the hole, then it gets replaced, but if it moves away from the hole, then just leave it be.

Who is to say that a ball farther from the hole isn't easier? What if there's a big spike mark in the way, or the fringe, and the player moves the ball farther away from the hole to avoid that? Do you not see how simply saying "moves" is the best wording? Because then you're not attaching a value to the advantage or disadvantage. Plus a ball that moves horizontally (along the arc), under your rules, would have players arguing over whether the ball was closer or farther away. No?

A lot of what you're suggestion has already been discussed in the thread.

---

I don't think the current rule is all that bad.

If it's determined that you most likely caused the ball to move without making a stroke at it (or lifting, dropping, etc.), pretty much anywhere on the course once the ball is in play, you're penalized.

Yeah, there's a little judgment in there, but there is judgment in other rules, and the rule is otherwise black and white, and simple.

[iacas]

I think I could accept a single simple change to rule 18-2 and the corresponding 18-2/0.5 Decision.

Rather than "most likely" or 51%, how about something between "most likely" and "virtual certainty." Let's just raise the bar a bit. How about, "beyond reasonable doubt" - if that's something like 75-85% or so - or something like that.

If there's a plausible reason for the ball moving other than the player, let's give benefit of the doubt to the player.

So the rule stays about the same, but we simply raise the bar for penalizing the player. If they're bending over waving their hand trying to shoo a fly away from their ball, or thumping their putter, or they pick up a worm that was touching the ball, and the ball moves, they're penalized. In the case of the U.S. Open trio, none would likely have been penalized.

So 51% is too low, perhaps. 99% is too high. Let's just define something that's 75%. Above that, penalize and replace. Below that, play it as it lies.

Thoughts?

[Fourputt]

I like the idea that if it's in the range of 75% certain that the player did nothing overtly to cause the ball to move, and no observable environmental conditions could have caused it, then it is deemed that some unseen condition did so - most likely the speed of the green combined with some nearly invisible imperfection that made the ball seem at rest, but then "released" it after some time had passed.

[natureboy]

11 hours ago, iacas said:

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

How so? Per a USGA publication, 10 stimp limiting slope is ~ 5 degrees.

       

9 hours ago, saevel25 said:

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. 

 

It backed up to the other side of the pin, yes? Where's the footage of the approach landing and settling? I'll do a GIF.

 

4 hours 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?

That would be touching the ball with the club or equipment.

4 hours ago, iacas said:

Or putting the club beside the ball in the rough to see how thick the grass is, and the ball moving?

That is a different scenario and worthy of a penalty, but isn't likely to happen on the putting green.

Edited June 30, 2016 by natureboy

[natureboy]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

I think I could accept a single simple change to rule 18-2 and the corresponding 18-2/0.5 Decision.

Rather than "most likely" or 51%, how about something between "most likely" and "virtual certainty." Let's just raise the bar a bit. How about, "beyond reasonable doubt" - if that's something like 75-85% or so - or something like that.

If there's a plausible reason for the ball moving other than the player, let's give benefit of the doubt to the player.

So the rule stays about the same, but we simply raise the bar for penalizing the player. If they're bending over waving their hand trying to shoo a fly away from their ball, or thumping their putter, or they pick up a worm that was touching the ball, and the ball moves, they're penalized. In the case of the U.S. Open trio, none would likely have been penalized.

So 51% is too low, perhaps. 99% is too high. Let's just define something that's 75%. Above that, penalize and replace. Below that, play it as it lies.

Thoughts?

That's interesting and worth considering. I wonder if the committee would have still applied the penalty to DJ even with that 75% standard?

I would also explicitly add green speed as one of the 'conditions of the ground near the ball' worth considering under 18-2/0.5 . It's potentially allowed under the current language ("etc."), but I don't think it was taken into account sufficiently at Oakmont.

Also if the 75% standard would still penalize DJ, then the timing language should either be clarified a bit or something added simply about the presence of the player near the ball (unless also including green speed as a ground condition consideration would have excused both DJ and Wattel).

Edited June 30, 2016 by natureboy

[Piz]

Ice tills hay: If you did not perform an action consistent with those known to cause ball movement; then the movement of the ball can ought be solely attributed to actions "pear-formed" by yew.  I'd rather be presumed innocent until proven guilty (I was framed!) than presumed guilty until agreed upon as innocent.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

How so? Per a USGA publication, 10 stimp limiting slope is ~ 5 degrees.

They're wrong. 5 degrees is nearly 9% slope.

Not really the topic.

[Golfingdad]

Note:  This is just an exercise because I think that your proposal in the following post is simple and reasonable.  But I had some responses to this post in mind, so I'll post them anyways. :) ...

4 hours ago, iacas said:

Why shouldn't players just take care when their ball is on the green not to cause it to move?

They should.  I don't believe that not penalizing them in the situations I'm envisioning would make players more careless.  Consider that you're not penalized when you knock your ball off the tee, but how often do you see that happen?

5 hours ago, iacas said:

If Tiger's chip at Augusta had stopped briefly, either near the cup or at the top of the slope on the 16th green, he should have to put it back?

I see that that would be a hard call to make so .... instead of making the distinction simply being on the green, let's make it after it's been marked and lifted?  Seems reasonable that once you've got your hands on the ball, any movement could be considered, let's say, less natural, so that could be the cutoff, rather than simply being on the green.

5 hours ago, iacas said:

If your ball is on the top of a slope, and the wind nudges it and it moves down the slope and into the hole, you put it back?

If it's previously come to rest, been marked, lifted, and replaced?  Yes, put it back.

5 hours ago, iacas said:

And what if you cause it to move without touching it? What if your caddie causes it to move? Touches it? What if your partner does so?

No penalty.  If he touched it, then Penalty.  Penalty.  Again, if he touched it, then penalty.

5 hours ago, iacas said:

Who is to say that a ball farther from the hole isn't easier? What if there's a big spike mark in the way, or the fringe, and the player moves the ball farther away from the hole to avoid that?

If we're basing the rules on preventing intentional cheating, then why don't we require an FC to accompany a player into the woods every time he hits one in there?  There's an element of faith and honesty involved here that tells me that this type of thing wouldn't be any more of an issue than guys using foot wedges when they think nobody is looking.

5 hours ago, iacas said:

Do you not see how simply saying "moves" is the best wording? Because then you're not attaching a value to the advantage or disadvantage. Plus a ball that moves horizontally (along the arc), under your rules, would have players arguing over whether the ball was closer or farther away. No?

I don't believe that I am attaching a value to the advantage or disadvantage.  I'm saying it's cut and dried just like when a player is dropping.  If the balls rolls closer to the hole, re-drop.  If not, you're fine, regardless of whether or not the ball moved to a more or less advantageous spot for you than where it hit the course.

And I don't believe that they'd be arguing over it.  They'd get together and amicably make a decision just like they do when deciding where the guys ball crossed the margin of the hazard

5 hours ago, iacas said:

I don't think the current rule is all that bad.

I don't either.  I like your 75% idea better, but I don't have much problem with the rule as-is.  That is, if they apply it correctly, which I don't believe they did in DJ's case.

[iacas]

6 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

Note:  This is just an exercise because I think that your proposal in the following post is simple and reasonable.  But I had some responses to this post in mind, so I'll post them anyways. :) ...

Bearing that in mind… (and in a spoiler since it's largely been discussed already).

Spoiler

6 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

They should.  I don't believe that not penalizing them in the situations I'm envisioning would make players more careless. Consider that you're not penalized when you knock your ball off the tee, but how often do you see that happen?

Far more often than I see players being careless near their ball once it's in play. Heck, I've done it in the past 23 holes I've played (the ball fell off the tee).

6 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

I see that that would be a hard call to make so .... instead of making the distinction simply being on the green, let's make it after it's been marked and lifted?  Seems reasonable that once you've got your hands on the ball, any movement could be considered, let's say, less natural, so that could be the cutoff, rather than simply being on the green.

If it's previously come to rest, been marked, lifted, and replaced?  Yes, put it back.

Already discussed. Two balls two inches apart on the green should be treated the same. One should not be different because it was marked. And again, 18-2 applies to more than just the putting green, so you're again adding a level of distinction.

6 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

If we're basing the rules on preventing intentional cheating, then why don't we require an FC to accompany a player into the woods every time he hits one in there?  There's an element of faith and honesty involved here that tells me that this type of thing wouldn't be any more of an issue than guys using foot wedges when they think nobody is looking.

If something's allowed within the Rules, players will occasionally do it. It's not cheating if it's allowed under the Rules.

6 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

I don't believe that I am attaching a value to the advantage or disadvantage.  I'm saying it's cut and dried just like when a player is dropping.  If the balls rolls closer to the hole, re-drop.  If not, you're fine, regardless of whether or not the ball moved to a more or less advantageous spot for you than where it hit the course.

Again, a layer of distinction (putting green or not), and an ambiguous thing that may award an advantage for a player causing his ball to move without making a stroke so long as it's not closer to the hole?

6 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

And I don't believe that they'd be arguing over it.  They'd get together and amicably make a decision just like they do when deciding where the guys ball crossed the margin of the hazard.

If your rule had been in place, and DJ's ball had moved horizontally, we could very well be having the same argument over whether his ball moved closer to the hole or just around the radius.

And average golfers would be arguing over whether Sam's ball moved closer to the hole or not when $5 is at stake. All rules cause arguments… more so when there's a judgment call to be involved.

6 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

I don't either.  I like your 75% idea better, but I don't have much problem with the rule as-is.  That is, if they apply it correctly, which I don't believe they did in DJ's case.

I believe they did. And rules officials almost all seem to back that (while golfers almost all seem to feel the opposite). Most ROs play golf, too, though, so do you not give their opinions more weight? They're applying the rule as written, of course.

I also don't believe DJ's situation would have met the 75% criteria.

[David in FL]

9 hours ago, natureboy said:

 

That is a different scenario and worthy of a penalty, but isn't likely to happen on the putting green.

And yet it did.  And does several times each year on tour, and those are only the ones we see on tv and hear about.

Regardless, the likelihood of an infraction happening isn't the bar by which the rules measure whether or not it should be penalized.

[saevel25]

9 hours ago, natureboy said:

It backed up to the other side of the pin, yes? Where's the footage of the approach landing and settling? I'll do a GIF.

No, the ball stayed on the camera side of the pin. He missed a short 3-4 ft putt for birdie. He under-read the break on the first putt and it slid past the hole by about 3-4 ft. 

 

[natureboy]

12 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

I see that that would be a hard call to make so .... instead of making the distinction simply being on the green, let's make it after it's been marked and lifted?  Seems reasonable that once you've got your hands on the ball, any movement could be considered, let's say, less natural, so that could be the cutoff, rather than simply being on the green.

If it's previously come to rest, been marked, lifted, and replaced?  Yes, put it back.

I can see some concern with this leading to arguments as to where the original location was if the ball moved a significant distance. However, this issue still exists with no change to the rule because the ball must be replaced when the penalty is incurred (almost like a stroke & distance for the putting green).

Practically, a player would just point to the original lie / location when they saw ball movement and call over the RO or their fellow competitor to start the investigation / discussion under the rule.

4 hours ago, David in FL said:

And yet it did.  And does several times each year on tour, and those are only the ones we see on tv and hear about.

Regardless, the likelihood of an infraction happening isn't the bar by which the rules measure whether or not it should be penalized.

I was saying a ball moving from brushing vegetation / grass near the lie of a ball at rest is only likely in the rough not on a closely mown area where the blades of grass are not potentially interleaved. If DJ caused his ball to move it wasn't from brushing the blades of grass next to the ball it was from air movements or vibrations from his lightly soling the putter affecting a seemingly innocuous, but in actuality very precarious lie. I suspect a random few blades of grass / tuft was holding the ball up.

4 hours ago, saevel25 said:

No, the ball stayed on the camera side of the pin. He missed a short 3-4 ft putt for birdie. He under-read the break on the first putt and it slid past the hole by about 3-4 ft. 

Sorry, the penalty came on his putt for par, then.

So for reference his approach landing. Can you share pic of where his first putt location was?

DJ putting for par (incurring penalty):

Edited June 30, 2016 by natureboy

[saevel25]

17 minutes ago, natureboy said:

So for reference his approach landing. Can you share pic of where his first putt location was?

If I had to guess. The slope around that pin is in the 2-2.5% range. From looking at the video he gave it 1-2" outside the right edge. That would tell me he didn't think that the slope was that severe to take a larger read. I would say the read should have been 9 inches outside the right edge. That would be pretty close to 2-2.5% on fast greens. 

 

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

If I had to guess. The slope around that pin is in the 2-2.5% range. From looking at the video he gave it 1-2" outside the right edge. That would tell me he didn't think that the slope was that severe to take a larger read. I would say the read should have been 9 inches outside the right edge. That would be pretty close to 2-2.5% on fast greens. 

It's off topic, but only if he was perpendicular to the slope.

[SG11118]

15 hours ago, iacas said:

I think I could accept a single simple change to rule 18-2 and the corresponding 18-2/0.5 Decision.

Rather than "most likely" or 51%, how about something between "most likely" and "virtual certainty." Let's just raise the bar a bit. How about, "beyond reasonable doubt" - if that's something like 75-85% or so - or something like that.

If there's a plausible reason for the ball moving other than the player, let's give benefit of the doubt to the player.

So the rule stays about the same, but we simply raise the bar for penalizing the player. If they're bending over waving their hand trying to shoo a fly away from their ball, or thumping their putter, or they pick up a worm that was touching the ball, and the ball moves, they're penalized. In the case of the U.S. Open trio, none would likely have been penalized.

So 51% is too low, perhaps. 99% is too high. Let's just define something that's 75%. Above that, penalize and replace. Below that, play it as it lies.

Thoughts?

This would definitely be better.  I'd feel a lot better about the rule if the golfer is given the benefit of the doubt.