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

[Phil McGleno]

Moving your ball without making a stroke at it and not being allowed to move it like in a drop or ground under repair or whatever would be unprecedented.-I do not see the R and A or USGA doing that.

Has something ever been a penalty before that is then changed to not a penalty?-Besides putting with the flagstick in which actually went the other way.

I think the current rule is as good as it can get.-If the original RO had asked better questions maybe this would not even be a discussion.

[natureboy]

43 minutes ago, iacas said:

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.

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.

The decisions that get established at top events and interpretations of the rule at high levels filters down to lower level rules officials where it filters down to us (people who actually pay attention to the rules) through club tournaments, forums like this, rules sites (including USGA / R&A), and watching on tv.

Your sarcasm detector seems faulty. But if the unobservable vibrations or movement of the turf from a player stepping or standing near the ball and causing it to move is liable for a penalty, then tiptoeing around any precarious lie (including very fast greens) or reaching way out for the ball would seem advisable to avoid the possibility of a 'chance' stroke.

No issue with a player moving their ball in play as a penalty. Not penalizing a player (regardless of being near or having addressed) because wind moves the ball makes sense. I don't consider walking in to address the ball and 'fairly taking a stance' to be accident or clumsiness unless the disturb vegetation or fall down in the process.

36 minutes ago, Phil McGleno said:

Has something ever been a penalty before that is then changed to not a penalty?-Besides putting with the flagstick in which actually went the other way.

1960 experiment with distance only penalty on OB / lost ball.

[iacas]

Just now, natureboy said:

The decisions that get established at top events and interpretations of the rule at high levels filters down to lower level rules officials where it filters down to us (people who actually pay attention to the rules) through club tournaments, forums like this, rules sites (including USGA / R&A), and watching on tv.

No. The Rules of Golf are the Rules of Golf immediately, not after years of filtering down from a tiny percentage of golfers who are Rules Officials that attend Rules Symposiums.

Just now, natureboy said:

Your sarcasm detector seems faulty.

Hardly, given your posts in this thread.

Just now, natureboy said:

But if the unobservable vibrations or movement of the turf from a player stepping or standing near the ball and causing it to move is liable for a penalty, then tiptoeing around any precarious lie (including very fast greens) or reaching way out for the ball would seem advisable to avoid the possibility of a 'chance' stroke.

No, because it's highly unlikely that vibrations from your feet - unless you're jumping up and down or something - would cause a ball to move. I don't think that would ever, under normal circumstances, rise to the level of even 30 or 40%, let alone 51%.

Just now, natureboy said:

No issue with a player moving their ball in play as a penalty. Not penalizing a player (regardless of being near or having addressed) because wind moves the ball makes sense. I don't consider walking in to address the ball and 'fairly taking a stance' to be accident or clumsiness unless the disturb vegetation or fall down in the process.

Then a rules official or player would be perfectly correct to deem that the player was not most likely to have caused the ball to move in those situations!

But if a player does something that the rules official, fellow competitor, or the guy himself figures made the ball move, it's a penalty.

That's just the current rule, as written. Congratulations! You've voiced support for the current rule, as written!

Just now, natureboy said:

1960 experiment with distance only penalty on OB / lost ball.

Exactly… an experiment. One that was quickly turned around, and one that was over 50 years ago.

As I said at the end, the player caused the ball to move. The likelihood of that resulting in no penalty is somewhere between slim and none, IMO.

Now, again, I'll ask you to put up your suggested language or change. What is it? Because you've yet to offer much of anything, so far as I can tell.

[SG11118]

On ‎10‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 11:06 AM, iacas said:

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.

When you are allowed to mark, clean, and place the ball on the spot, you are no longer playing the ball as it lies.  In cleaning the ball, you are changing the playing characteristics of the ball, potentially making it more susceptible to movement.  If you don't want to add a layer of distinction, make it anytime you drop a ball or place the ball back in play.  However, I could definitely see the argument that in both cleaning and marking, you are making the ball much more susceptible to movement than if you clean and drop, or if you mark and replace without being able to clean.

[iacas]

Just now, SG11118 said:

When you are allowed to mark, clean, and place the ball on the spot, you are no longer playing the ball as it lies.

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

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

[Blackjack Don]

On 6/21/2016 at 10:07 AM, Pete F said:

Why would you penalize someone for something that they received no advantage from. If the ball moves and you replace it how could you gain a stroke over your opponents? Other than that being the "rule" what reason is there to have it. 

Golf and Sailboat racing both attract rulemakers for some reason.

I like sailing from one place to another better than around buoys, maybe I'll just play golf for fun too!

Because there is no place open on their HOA board. Authoritarian magnets.

Sometimes people lose sight of the fact it's supposed to be fun. I deal blackjack. It's called gaming, but nobody is having fun. Golf is such an uptight game.

If the ball is moved on purpose, it's cheating, if scoring matters. If it's an accident, move along. The game is slow enough for the rest of us. 

[DaveP043]

2 minutes ago, Blackjack Don said:

If the ball is moved on purpose, it's cheating, if scoring matters. If it's an accident, move along. The game is slow enough for the rest of us. 

Trying to determine intent or purpose causes enforcement to become much more gray.  Rules work much better when its black and white.  In this case, if you cause a ball to move, its a violation, whether it was accidental or intentional.  And if we're not competing, do whatever you want to do.

[Groucho Valentine]

On the pro level at say the US open or British open, i think the tours could enact some kind of local rule on the greens. On a hard baked out green with the wind blowing the ball could move without any player influence what so ever. So to penalize players for that is draconian, IMO. Its easy enough to check on video.  For the rest of us, the situation is so rarely a problem that the overall rule may not be worth addressing. Local rule is the way to do it, IMO. 

[DaveP043]

10 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

On the pro level at say the US open or British open, i think the tours could enact some kind of local rule on the greens. On a hard baked out green with the wind blowing the ball could move without any player influence what so ever. So to penalize players for that is draconian, IMO. Its easy enough to check on video.  For the rest of us, the situation is so rarely a problem that the overall rule may not be worth addressing. Local rule is the way to do it, IMO. 

As I understand the rule now, if the movement of the ball is not caused by the player, the player isn't penalized.   What kind of local rule are you envisioning that would change the current rules?

[Groucho Valentine]

29 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

As I understand the rule now, if the movement of the ball is not caused by the player, the player isn't penalized.   What kind of local rule are you envisioning that would change the current rules?

I was thinking of the Dustin Johnson situation. 

[DaveP043]

Again dealing from memory, but that was evaluated and the officials determined that he was the probable (not definitively certain) cause of the movement.  The ball apparently didn't move "without any player influence what so ever."  A lot of the discussion earlier in the thread was centered around increasing the level of certainty required to conclude that a penalty was warranted, and that makes sense to me.  I'm not sure how that would need to be worded, but I'm sure it can be done..

[jkelley9]

2 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Again dealing from memory, but that was evaluated and the officials determined that he was the probable (not definitively certain) cause of the movement.  The ball apparently didn't move "without any player influence what so ever."  A lot of the discussion earlier in the thread was centered around increasing the level of certainty required to conclude that a penalty was warranted, and that makes sense to me.  I'm not sure how that would need to be worded, but I'm sure it can be done..

Agreed. 

I just wish they would understand that and cater to the situation at hand. His ball moved a HAIR. What edge could he possibly, physically, and willfully capitalize on from his ball moving there?

We need to find a way to word it where the people who would even attempt to capitalize on the movement of a ball at address rule would be assessed the penalty, but if there is an identifiable way to determine that a ball has not gained an advantage to the player that he should not be assessed the penalty. 

I understand that in competition you have to have a strict adherence to a set of rules for any and all sports. Unfortunately, to me at least, the real rules of golf and all it entails ruins the enjoyment of the game for me. Which is why I will not participate in any type of official tournament. I'll just try to play honest golf and enjoy it. 

[RussUK]

4 minutes ago, jkelley9 said:

Agreed. 

I just wish they would understand that and cater to the situation at hand. His ball moved a HAIR. What edge could he possibly, physically, and willfully capitalize on from his ball moving there?

We need to find a way to word it where the people who would even attempt to capitalize on the movement of a ball at address rule would be assessed the penalty, but if there is an identifiable way to determine that a ball has not gained an advantage to the player that he should not be assessed the penalty. 

I understand that in competition you have to have a strict adherence to a set of rules for any and all sports. Unfortunately, to me at least, the real rules of golf and all it entails ruins the enjoyment of the game for me. Which is why I will not participate in any type of official tournament. I'll just try to play honest golf and enjoy it. 

Could'nt agree more. I try and play by the rules as much as i can without spoiling the enjoyment (which is the reason we all play) and even have a copy of the rules in my bag. The problem for most weekend golfers is that they are so damn complicated. 

Im sure there are a lot of the rules that could be re-written or even discarded?

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Blackjack Don said:

Sometimes people lose sight of the fact it's supposed to be fun. I deal blackjack. It's called gaming, but nobody is having fun. Golf is such an uptight game.

I don't think golf is an uptight game at all. Is a club championship or whatever more uptight than pickup basketball? Yes. But a 3-on-3 city basketball tournament is probably more uptight than almost every casual Saturday foursome.

1 hour ago, Groucho Valentine said:

On the pro level at say the U.S. open or British open, i think the tours could enact some kind of local rule on the greens. On a hard baked out green with the wind blowing the ball could move without any player influence what so ever. So to penalize players for that is draconian, IMO. Its easy enough to check on video.  For the rest of us, the situation is so rarely a problem that the overall rule may not be worth addressing. Local rule is the way to do it, IMO. 

There's no need at all for a Local Rule (and you also can't make a "Local Rule" for anything you want, like you seem to think). The Rule as it exists right now covers exactly this: determining what is the most likely cause of the ball moving.

20 minutes ago, jkelley9 said:

I just wish they would understand that and cater to the situation at hand. His ball moved a HAIR. What edge could he possibly, physically, and willfully capitalize on from his ball moving there?

Again, you can't base rules on how much a ball moves, just whether it moves. Saying "well, it didn't move much" opens a huge can of worms.

20 minutes ago, jkelley9 said:

We need to find a way to word it where the people who would even attempt to capitalize on the movement of a ball at address rule would be assessed the penalty, but if there is an identifiable way to determine that a ball has not gained an advantage to the player that he should not be assessed the penalty.

I completely disagree. It should have nothing to do with intent or "attempting to capitalize."

Also, you don't penalize based on whether an advantage was gained, you penalize based on whether any advantage could ever really be gained.

Doing as you suggest would go against so much of the history of the Rules of Golf, things at the very core and foundation of everything we have in the Rules.

I get how it can make sense "colloquially" or in this little context, but one doesn't even have to go outside of this very rule to create problems. Is 1/4" enough to gain an advantage? What if the ball is no longer on the line of a spike mark? If 1/4" is fine, what about 3/8"? 1/2"? Everyone's going to have a different definition. While "moved" is black and white, "moved more than a little" is not.

20 minutes ago, jkelley9 said:

I understand that in competition you have to have a strict adherence to a set of rules for any and all sports. Unfortunately, to me at least, the real rules of golf and all it entails ruins the enjoyment of the game for me. Which is why I will not participate in any type of official tournament. I'll just try to play honest golf and enjoy it. 

I don't think I'll ever understand that sentiment.

In 99.9% of the rounds I play - competitive or otherwise - the rules don't even really come up. Everyone knows the basics: where to drop when the ball goes into a hazard, or whatever, and that's plenty to get through the round. 9 times out of 10 when I'm called over by players in a rules situation, the answer is obvious - they're just looking to make sure they do something like drop properly, or asking if something entitles them to relief.

[jkelley9]

31 minutes ago, iacas said:

Again, you can't base rules on how much a ball moves, just whether it moves. Saying "well, it didn't move much" opens a huge can of worms.

I completely disagree. It should have nothing to do with intent or "attempting to capitalize."

Also, you don't penalize based on whether an advantage was gained, you penalize based on whether any advantage could ever really be gained.

Doing as you suggest would go against so much of the history of the Rules of Golf, things at the very core and foundation of everything we have in the Rules.

I get how it can make sense "colloquially" or in this little context, but one doesn't even have to go outside of this very rule to create problems. Is 1/4" enough to gain an advantage? What if the ball is no longer on the line of a spike mark? If 1/4" is fine, what about 3/8"? 1/2"? Everyone's going to have a different definition. While "moved" is black and white, "moved more than a little" is not.

I don't think I'll ever understand that sentiment.

In 99.9% of the rounds I play - competitive or otherwise - the rules don't even really come up. Everyone knows the basics: where to drop when the ball goes into a hazard, or whatever, and that's plenty to get through the round. 9 times out of 10 when I'm called over by players in a rules situation, the answer is obvious - they're just looking to make sure they do something like drop properly, or asking if something entitles them to relief.

That's fine and all. You spend the majority of your life in the game of Golf and I do not. I play differently than you, especially in that I don't play competitively. Totally different when it's competitive, I get that.

I'm aware that it's all subjective in what I've said so far, I said that it was myself. The whole 1/4", 3/8" comment - no need to go to the obvious. I get that it's a tough spot. What I don't like is how a player can be penalized by this rule in situation where he does not intentionally nor advantageously move it. 1 stroke is huge. And yes, how else would you penalize? Well you can't penalize a fraction of a stroke of course... unless you open the 37th can of worms in this thread. I don't like how a player gets such a "harsh" penalty when in reality of "most of the time" (which is not all the time...) it doesn't give a measurable advantage on the putting green. But a 1 stroke penalty is HUGE to MOST people's games. 

I don't have an answer how to fix it. I don't even like my own suggestions thus far. But mainly I'm stating that I hate it.

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, jkelley9 said:

What I don't like is how a player can be penalized by this rule in situation where he does not intentionally nor advantageously move it.

Players can accidentally (not intentionally) drop their coin on the ball and move it a quarter of an inch. Sometimes, clumsiness is punished.

You can accidentally trip someone in hockey. Accidentally grab someone's facemask in football. Accidentally kick a batted ball in baseball. You're penalized in each instance (if the call is made).

Rules cannot ponder intent very much.

3 minutes ago, jkelley9 said:

I don't like how a player gets such a "harsh" penalty when in reality of "most of the time" (which is not all the time...) it doesn't give a measurable advantage on the putting green. But a 1 stroke penalty is HUGE to MOST people's games. 

One stroke is 1% of most people's games, and I already addressed the idea of an "advantage" given, and how you have to assess based on the advantage that could be gained, not what one person thinks could be gained per each individual instance.

3 minutes ago, jkelley9 said:

I don't have an answer how to fix it. I don't even like my own suggestions thus far. But mainly I'm stating that I hate it.

It's fine to hate it, but… just hating it doesn't really help us advance the conversation. At least, though, I think you are acknowledging the history and difficulty and constructs of the Rules of Golf.

[newtogolf]

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

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

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

[iacas]

Just now, newtogolf said:

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

We are, yes. Just as other sports punish the act without considering the intent. There are some times in other sports when intent matters, but there are also a few times when that matters in golf, too. Generally speaking, I think rules that aim to read a player's thoughts when considering a penalty should be kept to a minimum. Don't you? Particularly when so much of the sport we play relies on self honor and integrity, and doesn't always have a camera on a player playing. If a player's ball settles down an extra half inch in the rough, who is to say whether the player intended for that to happen and/or gained any advantage? All we know is that he caused his ball to settle down into the rough by soling his club too close to the ball in the long rough (or what have you).

Just now, newtogolf said:

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

Dustin Johnson was penalized for causing his ball to move. It's an important distinction. You may not see it that way, or may not want to see it that way, but he wasn't penalized for grounding his club too close to a ball. He was penalized for having been determined to have caused a ball at rest to move.

Just now, newtogolf said:

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

The thing is… I don't care if you have a stimp 7 or 8 green, I could create or find a slope on which a ball can be precariously positioned and move with the slightest jarring or wiggling - whether by player or wind or the eventual bending of the blades of a long, slow putting green.

The Rules of Golf should be the Rules of Golf everywhere, whenever possible. That's why Local Rules exist for extreme conditions like aeration holes, seams in cut turf, winter rules, etc.  (And/or disagreements between the R&A and USGA, apparently. )