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

[Golfingdad]

Here's a pretty good, albelit long, article about the whole thing: http://www.golfdigest.com/story/what-really-happened-dustin-johnson-the-usga-and-the-us-open-fiasco?mbid=social_facebook

But mainly, I just wanted to post this excerpt:

Quote

Unless and until there’s a philosophical shift on green speeds, PGA Tour official Slugger White would love to see the rule amended again to allow for the replacement of a ball that moves for any reason without being touched. “I’ve been beating that horse for years,” he told the Daytona Beach News-Journal.

[iacas]

19 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

But mainly, I just wanted to post this excerpt:

No thanks. You're not always close enough to know where it was originally. So just play it as it lies. Simple.

Again, would anyone here want Tiger to have had to replace his ball on the lip of the 70th hole at Augusta had it stopped in 2005?

[GolfLug]

What is the process of determining % of certainty (area between most likely and beyond reasonable doubt)?  I am assuming some subjectivity is inevitable in deciding that since there is most possibly not an exact a mathematical equation available.

[iacas]

21 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

What is the process of determining % of certainty (area between most likely and beyond reasonable doubt)?  I am assuming some subjectivity is inevitable in deciding that since there is most possibly not an exact a mathematical equation available.

Yup.

[iacas]

I just read the article about this in Golf Digest (IIRC - the one with Patrick Reed on the cover) and I was reminded of this thread.

I still think the only modification that makes any sense is to simply raise the bar from 51% to something like 75%. What language they might use in doing so, I don't know. I think I proposed "beyond reasonable doubt" which is less than "virtual certainty."

I still reject the idea of adding layers of distinction, like:

• A ball that had been marked versus another that hasn't. The status of a ball in play is the same, and that should remain the same whether a ball has been marked previously or not. There are, remember, other places a ball can be marked and lifted, too.
• A ball being on the putting green versus one sitting up in the rough. 18-2 covers all balls at rest moved regardless of their location, and I reject the idea that a ball is more likely to move on a putting green than when it's sitting up in the rough, or on a steep slope in a firm bunker, or on pine straw, or hardpan, or many other situations.

I also found the Golf Digest article disconcerting in one way, too: the USGA was solely "blamed" or whatever you want to call it for the rule being the way it is. Yet… the Rules are the joint operation of the USGA/R&A. In fact, they don't even publish different rules books anymore. It's not only the same rules, it's the same book.

The R&A, for all we know, may have been just as happy or pushed for this rule language more than the USGA. After all, the British Open is where we often see balls rolling on the putting greens due to high winds, even with their slower green speeds.

 

[natureboy]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

I just read the article about this in Golf Digest (IIRC - the one with Patrick Reed on the cover) and I was reminded of this thread.

I still think the only modification that makes any sense is to simply raise the bar from 51% to something like 75%. What language they might use in doing so, I don't know. I think I proposed "beyond reasonable doubt" which is less than "virtual certainty."

I still reject the idea of adding layers of distinction, like:

• A ball that had been marked versus another that hasn't. The status of a ball in play is the same, and that should remain the same whether a ball has been marked previously or not. There are, remember, other places a ball can be marked and lifted, too.
• A ball being on the putting green versus one sitting up in the rough. 18-2 covers all balls at rest moved regardless of their location, and I reject the idea that a ball is more likely to move on a putting green than when it's sitting up in the rough, or on a steep slope in a firm bunker, or on pine straw, or hardpan, or many other situations.

I also found the Golf Digest article disconcerting in one way, too: the USGA was solely "blamed" or whatever you want to call it for the rule being the way it is. Yet… the Rules are the joint operation of the USGA/R&A. In fact, they don't even publish different rules books anymore. It's not only the same rules, it's the same book.

The R&A, for all we know, may have been just as happy or pushed for this rule language more than the USGA. After all, the British Open is where we often see balls rolling on the putting greens due to high winds, even with their slower green speeds.

I get your point about distinction between marked vs. not marked. I personally don't think a green distinction is so onerous. Location on teeing ground and green impacts many other rules.

The R&A likely didn't worry about this potential scenario because the green speeds are slow enough that if the ball is moving you automatically have an external cause - the wind.

I'm not sure rejecting the idea of a ball more likely to move on a putting surface just from the proximity of a player is valid. In those other scenarios you cite, the ball is further from the ground surface with a larger 'cushion' of vegetative matter that would help hold it in place if the player's body weight slightly deforms the ground nearby at address. This isn't really an issue for steep slope in firm bunkers because the sand surface has no rigidity / inter-laced structure like a turf surface.

Green surfaces are typically quite differently maintained than all other parts of a course. The turf structure is going to be significantly different as a result. I expect when firm and fast conditions prevail the turf layer (~ floating on a sand base) on the greens becomes stiffer and the deformation of the player's body weight is spread out more vs. a smaller radius deformation on moister greens - and therefore more likely to affect the ball (esp. on very fast greens). That's likely why these penalties seemed to start happening as Oakmont was drying out over the weekend.

IMO you can keep the current rule with your 75% bar if you allow for high slope / stimp (possibly with drier turf) combinations to be one of the external causes. That would have given DJ and Wattel (possibly Lowry too though he said he was at fault) the same no fault ruling that I think they deserved, since IMO the underlying cause was outside the players' control.

Edited October 12, 2016 by natureboy

[iacas]

33 minutes ago, natureboy said:

I get your point about distinction between marked vs. not marked. I personally don't think a green distinction is so onerous. Location on teeing ground and green impacts many other rules.

I disagree that there are "many" other rules.

33 minutes ago, natureboy said:

The R&A likely didn't worry about this potential scenario because the green speeds are slow enough that if the ball is moving you automatically have an external cause - the wind.

The R&A co-wrote all of the rules, and the green speeds are not slow enough that the ball moving is not automatically an external cause. There are several parts of the Old Course and several other British Open courses where a ball is near the roll-off point. Besides, the R&A is concerned about more than the one major they run - they are concerned with every course everywhere in the world outside of the U.S. and Mexico, and all golf played on those courses.

33 minutes ago, natureboy said:

I'm not sure rejecting the idea of a ball more likely to move on a putting surface just from the proximity of a player is valid. In those other scenarios you cite, the ball is further from the ground surface with a larger 'cushion' of vegetative matter that would help hold it in place if the player's body weight slightly deforms the ground nearby at address. This isn't really an issue for steep slope in firm bunkers because the sand surface has no rigidity / inter-laced structure like a turf surface.

A ball can move from the vibrations a player causes. I can put the ball on a table and make it move, despite the lack of your cushion. Balls can move in all sorts of situations.

33 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Green surfaces are typically quite differently maintained than all other parts of a course. The turf structure is going to be significantly different as a result. I expect when firm and fast conditions prevail the turf layer (~ floating on a sand base) on the greens becomes stiffer and the deformation of the player's body weight is spread out more vs. a smaller radius deformation on moister greens - and therefore more likely to affect the ball (esp. on very fast greens). That's likely why these penalties seemed to start happening as Oakmont was drying out over the weekend.

I'll ignore the wild ass guesses you're making about whatever you're on about now, and will point out that in one round at the U.S. Women's Mid-Am, we had no fewer than five 18-2 questions. I don't recall the count that went against the player, but this isn't just an issue at Oakmont, and they didn't "start happening" at Oakmont. That's just where it was more publicized.

You keep wanting to make this about Oakmont, and about the putting green specifically, but that's where you go wrong, and where some people mislead themselves somewhat. While a putting incident at Oakmont brought 18-2 to the forefront, it's happened multiple times. It's happened in previous years, on the putting green, in the rough, on pine straw, and all over. It happened to Adam Scott, IIRC, when he was in contention at the British Open a few years ago.

It's myopic and short-sighted to pretend that this only ever happens on the putting green and only really started happening in June, 2016.

33 minutes ago, natureboy said:

IMO you can keep the current rule with your 75% bar if you allow for high slope / stimp (possibly with drier turf) combinations to be one of the external causes.

Those are already considered.

33 minutes ago, natureboy said:

That would have given DJ and Wattel (possibly Lowry too though he said he was at fault) the same no fault ruling that I think they deserved, since IMO the underlying cause was outside the players' control.

Oh my, again with the Wattel stuff.

Even the article in Golf Digest pointed out that there was a significant difference in time. As I've said before in this thread (I re-read most of it), if DJ's case was 55% likely to be his fault due to the one-second gap in time, it's reasonable to conclude that Wattel was 45% due to the five or six seconds, and thus, that the rule as currently written was applied properly in both cases.

Drop it. It's been hashed over more than it deserves and isn't really on topic. You're going to have similar but not identical situations that result in different rulings depending on whatever threshold you set. Heck, set the threshold at "player touched ball" and you're going to have a player come within a mm of touching the ball before it moves who isn't penalized and a player who barely grazes the outer molecules of a ball's cover who would be penalized.

---

Just answer the original question if you want to post in this topic: how would you change 18-2, considering the Principles, the way the Rules work, etc. If you can't answer that, and simply want to harp on the USGA for giving two different rulings for two similar but not identical situations, then just stop.

[Gunther]

4 hours ago, iacas said:

I just read the article about this in Golf Digest (IIRC - the one with Patrick Reed on the cover) and I was reminded of this thread.

I still think the only modification that makes any sense is to simply raise the bar from 51% to something like 75%. What language they might use in doing so, I don't know. I think I proposed "beyond reasonable doubt" which is less than "virtual certainty."

I would be OK with this but I think beyond reasonable doubt and virtual certainty are pretty synonymous.  Either works for me.  Hope they change it at their next session.  

[natureboy]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

A ball can move from the vibrations a player causes. I can put the ball on a table and make it move, despite the lack of your cushion. Balls can move in all sorts of situations.

If it's a surface capable of transmitting those vibrations. How thick is the table-top? Being a smooth surface you could also likely blow on it and make it move.

2 hours ago, iacas said:

in one round at the U.S. Women's Mid-Am, we had no fewer than five 18-2 questions.

How many were on green vs. off? How many involved practice swings off the green where the surface of the rough or other connected vegetation was brushed? How many went for/against the player by location? Were conditions firm and fast? What were the green stimps? Was there wind? Just the fact that you had several questions doesn't mean that you had the similarly difficult applications of the rule. They may have all been relatively cut and dried.

2 hours ago, iacas said:

You keep wanting to make this about Oakmont, and about the putting green specifically

It was what prompted the creation of this thread and many others have referenced it. I point out Oakmont, because for me and many others it's a 'failure' example of divergent rulings from essentially identical player actions. If there was no wind at The Open Championship in 2012 then I think Adam Scott stepping in near his ball was the likely cause of his ball moving (http://www.golfdigest.com/story/should-adam-scott-have-received-a-penalty-stroke-when-his-ba).

The difference in timing between DJ and Wattell was arbitrary IMO. Wattell didn't move for 6 seconds yet the ball moved. So what moved it if there was no wind and it wasn't him? IMO, the same thing that moved DJ's ball. In your eyes it was a perfectly administered application of the rules. Others, like me view it as a bad ruling in terms of treating like situations alike. I view the time delay of a few seconds as arbitrary.

Stepping into address and standing near the ball is likely to deform a turf surface somewhat even if the ball is off the green (which is likely to have a different - and potentially move susceptible - turf structure). With the rule as written it might create a potential conflict with being able to fairly take one's stance.

You likely blame DJ lightly soling his putter and/or backswing as the proximate cause. I don't view his 1/2 inch drop of the putter as any more likely to produce changes in the ground than his footsteps or standing near the ball for a span of time. This potential cause is why it's bad form to take one's bag across the green either on rollers or on one's back, right? I think it's extremely unlikely that DJ's practice stroke produced enough effective wind to dislodge the ball.

2 hours ago, iacas said:

Just answer the original question if you want to post in this topic: how would you change 18-2, considering the Principles, the way the Rules work, etc. If you can't answer that, and simply want to harp on the USGA for giving two different rulings for two similar but not identical situations, then just stop.

I am a little mystified at your almost personal defense of this rule as written. Did you or friends of yours play some part in writing it or getting it adopted?

As I see it the DJ / Wattell rulings were like situations. Both of us in applying the principle of 'treat like situations alike' see it differently.

You focus on the elapsed time difference. I view that distinction as arbitrary relative to the underlying cause of the player approaching and standing near the ball (absent wind). If the ruling bodies think it's appropriate that vibrations from a player walking in normally to address a ball deserves a penalty, then I say eliminate the time delay entirely or make it a longer, less potentially arbitrary time gap. If you've moved near the ball at any point and it moves before you take a stroke, you're likely the cause (absent wind, rain, or other acceptable external agencies). Simple, right?

My perspective is to step outside the rules mentally to view the impact on the playing of the game and it's image. If you stay strictly within the rules as written I don't think you will ever get why other people view this as a bad ruling or see the potential conflict with being able to fairly take one's stance or the related issue with slick greens.

You seem to want the issue to just go away. I'm arguing for a little deeper thought. IMO, cleaning up the rule this last little bit would allow the USGA to both avoid recurrence of a 'stupid penalty' while keeping their 'fetish' for super-fast green speeds to defend par on shorter historic courses (which I personally do like to see played).

If your new 75% standard would create an identical ruling between Wattel and DJ, and Adam Scott then I'd support it with no special language for the putting green.

Edited October 12, 2016 by natureboy

[iacas]

Off topic stuff is hidden. Which is to say… most of it. No more, Kevin. Just answer the question, please.

Spoiler

4 hours ago, natureboy said:

If it's a surface capable of transmitting those vibrations. How thick is the table-top? Being a smooth surface you could also likely blow on it and make it move.

Yep. Goes against your cushion theory.

4 hours ago, natureboy said:

How many were on green vs. off? How many involved practice swings off the green where the surface of the rough or other connected vegetation was brushed? How many went for/against the player by location? Were conditions firm and fast? What were the green stimps? Was there wind? Just the fact that you had several questions doesn't mean that you had the similarly difficult applications of the rule. They may have all been relatively cut and dried.

The point was that the rule is applied on green surfaces and golf courses and events that aren't as sloped, or fast, or prestigious, etc. as the U.S. Open. You're hyper focusing on one event… to what end, I don't know. The rule applies - and comes up - several times.

Not all instances were on the green and some on the green resulted in penalties to the player without actually touching the ball, IIRC.

4 hours ago, natureboy said:

It was what prompted the creation of this thread and many others have referenced it.

That's beside the point. The rule has to be applied to more than just the U.S. Open at Oakmont.

4 hours ago, natureboy said:

I point out Oakmont, because for me and many others it's a 'failure' example of divergent rulings from essentially identical player actions

They weren't identical. You keep seeing the Wattel and DJ things as identical, but per the language in the Rules and 18-2/0.5, they weren't. The time elapsed was different. It's the second bullet point in the Decision.

4 hours ago, natureboy said:

The difference in timing between DJ and Wattell was arbitrary IMO.

It was not arbitrary. It's a relevant fact. Again, I'll refer you back to the suspicious sushi point.

If someone leaves the office at 5:10pm and a murder is committed 30 miles away at 5:30pm, it's unlikely that person could have committed the murder, but if it's only 5 miles away, far more likely. Time matters in determining culpability.

I'm not interested in discussing Wattel/DJ. The rules committee was clearly not convinced 100% that DJ incurred a penalty, but they went with the > 50% logic. We don't know if it was 51% or 72%. The guess is that it was just barely beyond the "most likely" bit, and had there been another five seconds between actions and the ball moving like Wattel, it may have dropped beneath that threshold. Simple as that.

4 hours ago, natureboy said:

Stepping into address and standing near the ball is likely to deform a turf surface somewhat even if the ball is off the green (which is likely to have a different - and potentially move susceptible - turf structure). With the rule as written it might create a potential conflict with being able to fairly take one's stance.

That doesn't make sense.

4 hours ago, natureboy said:

You likely blame DJ lightly soling his putter and/or backswing as the proximate cause. I don't view his 1/2 inch drop of the putter as any more likely to produce changes in the ground than his footsteps or standing near the ball for a span of time. This potential cause is why it's bad form to take one's bag across the green either on rollers or on one's back, right? I think it's extremely unlikely that DJ's practice stroke produced enough effective wind to dislodge the ball.

I have no idea what the bag across the green bit is about. None. They in fact do that in Australia, drive their push cart right across the green, and it's frowned upon slightly here because it just adds to the weight of the people traveling across the green.

I don't "blame" DJ for anything. I simply understand why the USGA ruled the way they did and feel they applied the rule, as written, properly. Whether it's a bad rule or not is the point of this thread - to change it for the better. You aren't actually interested in discussing that, though.

4 hours ago, natureboy said:

I am a little mystified at your almost personal defense of this rule as written. Did you or friends of yours play some part in writing it or getting it adopted?

There's nothing personal about it, and if you've read that into anything I've written, you're misjudging things quite badly.

4 hours ago, natureboy said:

As I see it the DJ / Wattell rulings were like situations. Both of us in applying the principle of 'treat like situations alike' see it differently.

By definition, they were not. They were similar, but not exactly alike. It's that simple.

4 hours ago, natureboy said:

You focus on the elapsed time difference. I view that distinction as arbitrary relative to the underlying cause of the player approaching and standing near the ball (absent wind).

I don't think you know what the word "arbitrary" means. It's in the rules. The time matters.

If I take a practice swing near the ball in the rough and then ten seconds goes by and then the ball moves, I'm less likely to have caused the ball to move than if the ball had moved one second after I did it. The timing matters. That's why it's the second bullet point in the Decision.

4 hours ago, natureboy said:

If the ruling bodies think it's appropriate that vibrations from a player walking in normally to address a ball deserves a penalty, then I say eliminate the time delay entirely or make it a longer, less potentially arbitrary time gap. If you've moved near the ball at any point and it moves before you take a stroke, you're likely the cause (absent wind, rain, or other acceptable external agencies).

I don't know where you got that the "walking in normally" matters much.

And yeah, if there's no other explainable reason… and you did things that are likely to have caused the ball to move, you caused the ball to move.

4 hours ago, natureboy said:

My perspective is to step outside the rules mentally to view the impact on the playing of the game and it's image.

That's still not the topic, and you don't have the market cornered on trying to do the right thing.

4 hours ago, natureboy said:

If you stay strictly within the rules as written I don't think you will ever get why other people view this as a bad ruling or see the potential conflict with being able to fairly take one's stance or the related issue with slick greens.

Kevin, improving the rule is why I started the thread.

4 hours ago, natureboy said:

You seem to want the issue to just go away.

Right. That's why I bumped the thread after it was dormant for awhile, and why I started the thread to begin with… C'mon now. Use some logic.

 

 

4 hours ago, natureboy said:

I'm arguing for a little deeper thought. IMO, cleaning up the rule this last little bit would allow the USGA to both avoid recurrence of a 'stupid penalty' while keeping their 'fetish' for super-fast green speeds to defend par on shorter historic courses (which I personally do like to see played).

What's been your proposal? I can't recollect one.

4 hours ago, natureboy said:

If your new 75% standard would create an identical ruling between Wattel and DJ, and Adam Scott then I'd support it with no special language for the putting green.

Given what they said and how they acted re: DJ's penalty, it seemed awfully close that it was not an easy call, and that tells me it was likely between 50 and 75%.

[natureboy]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

What's been your proposal? I can't recollect one.

Given what they said and how they acted re: DJ's penalty, it seemed awfully close that it was not an easy call, and that tells me it was likely between 50 and 75%.

I've made suggestions in the thread.

Would your suggested change alter the ruling for Adam Scott? In your opinion would the 75% standard increase the minimum 'time elapsed' duration?

[iacas]

Just now, natureboy said:

Would your suggested change alter the ruling for Adam Scott? In your opinion would the 75% standard increase the minimum 'time elapsed' duration?

There's no "minimum" now. Or a maximum.

[natureboy]

12 minutes ago, iacas said:

There's no "minimum" now. Or a maximum.

True enough. Poor word choice by me.

Do you think a 75% standard would establish a de-facto minimum so that small differences in elapsed time (like a few seconds) would not be used to differentiate situations that are essentially the same?

Edited October 13, 2016 by natureboy

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, natureboy said:

True enough. Poor word choice by me.

Do you think a 75% standard would establish a de-facto minimum so that small differences in elapsed time (like a few seconds) would not be used to differentiate situations that are essentially the same?

That's not answerable. It depends on the circumstances. Every time. It's still a judgment call - did the player cause the motion?

Sorry.

You should have known that though.

[newtogolf]

10 hours ago, iacas said:

That's not answerable. It depends on the circumstances. Every time. It's still a judgment call - did the player cause the motion?

Sorry.

You should have known that though.

If it boils down to a judgement call then the changing of percentages will have minimal influence.  It seems the only way o avoid the risk of being assessed such a penalty is to not ground your club near the ball.  

[natureboy]

3 hours ago, newtogolf said:

If it boils down to a judgement call then the changing of percentages will have minimal influence.  It seems the only way o avoid the risk of being assessed such a penalty is to not ground your club near the ball.  

Well said. It's going to come down to how this rule is taught / explained in rules symposia to encourage consistency among rules officials. I doubt the rules folks just say 'we leave it to your best judgement' without examples / rough tests of what's clear-cut vs. 'grey area'. If the prior 'grey area' was in the vicinity of 51%, the 75% judgement line should be shifting the grey area demarcation significantly in terms of weight or type of evidence.

The vibrations from your footsteps can still dislodge the ball. Best not to go near it at all.

[SG11118]

Poll?

I'd probably vote for the Slugger White suggestion of moving the ball back once it is marked on the green.  In my opinion, it is the cleanest, easiest way to clean up the rules on the green to allow the game to be played without reliance on rules officials judgment.  As Iacas has said several times, this rule change doesn't do anything for "through the green" situations.  An additional rule would need to be added to address through the green situations. I'd probably be fine with going back to the addressing the ball / grounding the club being the trigger factor as to whether you caused the ball to move.  Generally, wind isn't going to cause the ball to move through the green, so if you get into a situation where it is teetering on gravity instability, you need to realize this and play the ball without grounding your club.

I'm not completely opposed to the 75% certainty rule change, but it would probably be my second choice.

[iacas]

4 hours ago, newtogolf said:

If it boils down to a judgement call then the changing of percentages will have minimal influence.  It seems the only way o avoid the risk of being assessed such a penalty is to not ground your club near the ball.  

Or do other things. Like jumping up and down, or moving a stick that might pull a piece of pine straw near the ball, etc. There's a lot more that can cause a ball to move than grounding a club nearby.

But yes, any time it's a percentage it's going to be a judgment call. Regardless of whether that percentage is 50+%, the "99%" (ish) that's "virtually certain," or something in the middle. The "virtually certain" thing requires the least (almost no) judgment, but I don't know that "75%" requires any less than 51%.

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

It's going to come down to how this rule is taught / explained in rules symposia to encourage consistency among rules officials.

Not really, no.

You continue to focus only on events like the U.S. Open. The Rules of Golf need to be applied whether it's the U.S. Open or a guy playing against his buddies, in a small tournament, in the collegiate game, etc.

There are very few people, relatively, who go to "rules symposia" and are acting rules officials.

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

I doubt the rules folks just say 'we leave it to your best judgement' without examples / rough tests of what's clear-cut vs. 'grey area'

Then you'd be surprised. We didn't cover this in any depth. 18-2/0.5 is about all there is to it.

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

The vibrations from your footsteps can still dislodge the ball. Best not to go near it at all.

1 hour ago, SG11118 said:

I'd probably vote for the Slugger White suggestion of moving the ball back once it is marked on the green.

I don't think he said "once its marked." I also gave reasons above why this change doesn't make sense to me. Read some of the previous pages.

1 hour ago, SG11118 said:

In my opinion, it is the cleanest, easiest way to clean up the rules on the green to allow the game to be played without reliance on rules officials judgment.

You don't need to rely on rules officials now.

1 hour ago, SG11118 said:

As Iacas has said several times, this rule change doesn't do anything for "through the green" situations. An additional rule would need to be added to address through the green situations. I'd probably be fine with going back to the addressing the ball / grounding the club being the trigger factor as to whether you caused the ball to move.

I wouldn't, and I think you're kind of alone in that. The rule was changed recently to remove this restriction - they're not going to put it right back to penalizing anyone just because they addressed the ball.

Remember, too, you can't really un-address the ball. So you address the ball with a 7-iron on a slope in the fairway, walk 50 yards away, and the ball moves… and you'd go back to penalizing the player? That won't fly, IMO.

1 hour ago, SG11118 said:

I'm not completely opposed to the 75% certainty rule change, but it would probably be my second choice.

The problem with that is the language they'd have to use. Right now "virtually certain" is fine, and "more likely than not" (51%) is fine. I can't see the Rules of Golf adding "pretty likely" or whatever else you could conjure up to mean 75%. And I think "virtual certainty" is way too high.

---

The Rules of Golf treat a player moving their ball in play without making a stroke as something that should be penalized.

The Rules of Golf penalize accidents and clumsiness in other areas - to expect that they'll just say "you can't drop your ball marker on your ball and move it without penalty, but if you cause it to move in some other ways and you're fine" is just silly.