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

[SG11118]

3 hours 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.

Not sure how my proposal prevents proper play.  I believe it does so while being closer to the principles behind the rules.

3 hours ago, iacas said:

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.

I wouldn't have said anything about this if I would've known it was going to throw any conversation related to the proposed rule off track.

3 hours ago, iacas said:

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

Again - don't get my rationale for the rule change confused with the proposed rule change.  The rule change proposal says nothing about zooming in a camera at HD level.  The rule change does nothing to change how a ball is replaced.

3 hours ago, iacas said:

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.

I agree that the proposed rule change treats the situations differently.  I disagree that they are like situations.  I disagree that my proposal ends up being less equitable than the rules the way they are written. 

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, SG11118 said:

Not sure how my proposal prevents proper play.  I believe it does so while being closer to the principles behind the rules.

Pretty sure he was responding more to your straw men stuff there, the OT stuff. But he can speak for himself.

3 minutes ago, SG11118 said:

Again - don't get my rationale for the rule change confused with the proposed rule change.  The rule change proposal says nothing about zooming in a camera at HD level.  The rule change does nothing to change how a ball is replaced.

It's your rationale, and my pointing this out is to share the fact that under the rules, the lies are considered the same, and thus, you are playing the ball as it lies. You're not changing or altering the lies (beyond the super zoomed in HD level, which is still not even factual).

A player who marks his ball, lifts it, and replaces it replaces it in the same lie. He's playing the ball as it lies.

3 minutes ago, SG11118 said:

I agree that the proposed rule change treats the situations differently.  I disagree that they are like situations.  I disagree that my proposal ends up being less equitable than the rules the way they are written. 

They are. A ball is sitting somewhere, just like another ball. Both move. And, yet, they're judged differently.

[Fourputt]

47 minutes ago, SG11118 said:

Not sure how my proposal prevents proper play.  I believe it does so while being closer to the principles behind the rules.

 

All I was doing was refuting your claim that lifting and replacing the ball is somehow in opposition to the principles because it changes the lie.  Since it does not effectively do any such thing, it needed to be so stated.  I won't comment further because this is OT anyway.

[SG11118]

On ‎11‎/‎4‎/‎2016 at 1:48 PM, iacas said:

It's your rationale, and my pointing this out is to share the fact that under the rules, the lies are considered the same, and thus, you are playing the ball as it lies. You're not changing or altering the lies (beyond the super zoomed in HD level, which is still not even factual).

A player who marks his ball, lifts it, and replaces it replaces it in the same lie. He's playing the ball as it lies.

No.  The rules currently make it clear that when you lift and replace the ball, you are no longer playing the ball as it lies.  You are playing under an exception to playing the ball as it lies.  This exception has the effect that the player is playing the ball as if he/she had hit the ball to this position, but it is still not the same as playing the ball as it lies.  This is a thread about how to change the rules.  To me, exceptions to the rules should be fair game if a better way of dealing them can be proposed. 

Neither one of us has any base of knowledge that the ball is more or less likely to move after being replaced than it was before it was lifted.  I've hypothesized that it was, forming the basis for my proposal.  I've also proposed several ways that data could be analyzed to prove or disprove my hypothesis.  The simplest way is tracking all the occurrences of the pro tours that a ball at rest moves and statistically prove whether the ball is significantly more likely to move after the ball has been in the players hand than if it hadn't. 

[iacas]

On 11/7/2016 at 9:47 AM, SG11118 said:

No.  The rules currently make it clear that when you lift and replace the ball, you are no longer playing the ball as it lies.

My point is that the lie of the ball is unaffected when you replace it. Thus there's no functional difference between a ball that was simply left alone and one that was replaced.

On 11/7/2016 at 9:47 AM, SG11118 said:

This is a thread about how to change the rules.  To me, exceptions to the rules should be fair game if a better way of dealing them can be proposed.

IMO you've not proposed anything better.

You've busted equity. Two balls sitting there in play are treated differently, and the players judged by different standards, because of what happened before that's irrelevant to the current state of the ball.

In a nutshell, that's why I reject your proposed change.

On 11/7/2016 at 9:47 AM, SG11118 said:

Neither one of us has any base of knowledge that the ball is more or less likely to move after being replaced than it was before it was lifted.

That's a straw man that I couldn't care less about.

On 11/7/2016 at 9:47 AM, SG11118 said:

I've also proposed several ways that data could be analyzed to prove or disprove my hypothesis.

I don't care what the data would show. Golf should not - can not - concern itself with things at the "blade of grass level."

[SG11118]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

My point is that the lie of the ball is unaffected when you replace it. Thus there's no functional difference between a ball that was simply left alone and one that was replaced.

I realize that was your point.  However, several times in this thread you've gotten very loose with calling this situation playing the ball "as it lies". 

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Two balls sitting there in play are treated differently, and the players judged by different standards, because of what happened before that's irrelevant to the current state of the ball.

In a nutshell, that's why I reject your proposed change.

I can appreciate and understand this argument.  I tend to believe this situational equity isn't so important that it must be maintained, particularly when taking an exception to playing the ball as it lies.  I could easily see golf played in the future with these two situations not being treated equally.  We're probably not going to agree on this. 

1 hour ago, iacas said:

I don't care what the data would show. Golf should not - can not - concern itself with things at the "blade of grass level."

Are you certain about this?  Looking at the existing rules:

With a few exceptions, rule 16-1 says a golfer isn't allowed to touch the line of their putt.  Why is this?  Rule 1-2 already clearly covers that the player cannot modify the course to change its' playing conditions in relation to the golfer.  Someone thought it was important enough additionally that you don't touch or step on the line of your putt that they saw the need to include it separately in rule 16.  It is very plausible to me that this rule is at least in part trying to prevent the golfer from modifying the playing conditions of the course at a "blade of grass level"? 

Additionally, a golfer isn't allowed to purposely bend anything growing including a blade of grass if they have done so to improve their lie.  This one isn't generally going to come into play except for a single long thick blade of grass, (or group of grass), or in thick rough, but it is still a "blade of grass level" rule. 

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, SG11118 said:

I realize that was your point.  However, several times in this thread you've gotten very loose with calling this situation playing the ball "as it lies".

I understand that, and you're smart enough to know what I'm saying.

5 minutes ago, SG11118 said:

I can appreciate and understand this argument. I tend to believe this situational equity isn't so important that it must be maintained, particularly when taking an exception to playing the ball as it lies. I could easily see golf played in the future with these two situations not being treated equally.  We're probably not going to agree on this.

We're not.

Besides, your rule would encourage people to mark and lift and replace their ball whenever possible as it affords more protection to them. Tap-in? No, better mark and lift it just in case…

5 minutes ago, SG11118 said:

Are you certain about this?  Looking at the existing rules:

With a few exceptions, rule 16-1 says a golfer isn't allowed to touch the line of their putt.  Why is this?  Rule 1-2 already clearly covers that the player cannot modify the course to change its' playing conditions in relation to the golfer.  Someone thought it was important enough additionally that you don't touch or step on the line of your putt that they saw the need to include it separately in rule 16.  It is very plausible to me that this rule is at least in part trying to prevent the golfer from modifying the playing conditions of the course at a "blade of grass level"?

No.

And yes, I'm certain.

5 minutes ago, SG11118 said:

Additionally, a golfer isn't allowed to purposely bend anything growing including a blade of grass if they have done so to improve their lie.  This one isn't generally going to come into play except for a single long thick blade of grass, (or group of grass), or in thick rough, but it is still a "blade of grass level" rule. 

You're allowed to lightly ground your club and that directly affects blades of grass. They move. They also tend to spring back, but don't have to spring back exactly.

That's not at all the same thing. So yeah, I'm still certain.

And kindly stop with the straw men/tangents.

[SG11118]

On ‎11‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 5:30 PM, iacas said:

No.

And yes, I'm certain.

I'm confused what you mean - No you're not certain or yes you are certain?  If you are certain, please elaborate why you are certain.

[turtleback]

2 hours ago, SG11118 said:

I'm confused what you mean - No you're not certain or yes you are certain?  If you are certain, please elaborate why you are certain.

I think he means no it is not plausible, and yes he is certain that it is not plausible.

[iacas]

37 minutes ago, turtleback said:

I think he means no it is not plausible, and yes he is certain that it is not plausible.

Pretty much. I could have been clearer, but I find the whole "blade of grass level" discussion to be irrelevant. The Rules of Golf cannot and do not concern themselves with things at that level.

A spike mark that you might step on is not a "blade of grass level" event. It's visible (clearly, since you can see it and step on it), and if you do that, you've substantially altered the line of your putt. You can't fix a ball mark a few inches in front of your ball in the fairway before you play it either because that too is altering the line of play (13-2 IIRC?), but it too is much bigger than the "blade of grass level."

[boogielicious]

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2016/11/12/usgas-davis-rule-18-2-that-god-forsaken-rule.html

Quote

USGA's Davis: "Rule 18-2, that God-forsaken rule"

Golf Channel's Rex Hoggard reports that the USGA's Mike Davis apologized to the PGA of America's annual meeting for his organization's rift with the PGA over the proposed anchored putting ban. 

But I found his comments on the pending simplification of the rules, and in particular, the dreaded 18-2, more eye-opening.

Davis added that the USGA has a draft of that new code that is “simpler” than the current rules, and that his association will release the draft sometime next year.

Specifically, Davis addressed the ruling from this year’s U.S. Open that led to eventual champion Dustin Johnson being penalized when his ball moved on the fifth green during the final round.

“As for the Dustin Johnson ruling, Rule 18-2, that God-forsaken rule, that is going to be getting attention in the near future. We listen and we learn,” he said.

Letting it be known the rule is not a favorite of the USGA's will go a long way toward healing the wounds caused by this one.

Interesting.

[iacas]

10 hours ago, boogielicious said:

Interesting.

Yeah, interesting. Really, I think the current rule is fine. Unless they change the manner in which this rule is applied, or essentially build a different rule for just the putting green (not what I'd like to see), I'm not sure how they'll get around the basic logic of the rule as it exists right now: if the player causes the ball to move, he's penalized.

The USGA and R&A are constantly working on a simpler, different definition of the Rules of Golf as a whole, and as pieces. Every so often (decades) they implement a fairly big change.

[Hardspoon]

11 minutes ago, iacas said:

Yeah, interesting. Really, I think the current rule is fine. Unless they change the manner in which this rule is applied, or essentially build a different rule for just the putting green (not what I'd like to see), I'm not sure how they'll get around the basic logic of the rule as it exists right now: if the player causes the ball to move, he's penalized.

I would be very surprised if they actually change the rule; like you say, it doesn't get much simpler or clearer.

I could see them revisiting some of the Decisions.

[SG11118]

On ‎11‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 7:09 PM, iacas said:

A spike mark that you might step on is not a "blade of grass level" event. It's visible (clearly, since you can see it and step on it), and if you do that, you've substantially altered the line of your putt.

Is a blade of grass not visible too? 

Especially in the days of metal spikes - it seems a spike mark is simply a blade of grass or two that have been somewhat uprooted by someone's spike. 

14 hours ago, Hardspoon said:

I would be very surprised if they actually change the rule; like you say, it doesn't get much simpler or clearer.

What is there currently is clearly written, but is much less clearly interpreted.  It will be difficult, but I think it will get changed to something that is more definitive and less open to interpretation. 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, SG11118 said:

Is a blade of grass not visible too? 

Especially in the days of metal spikes - it seems a spike mark is simply a blade of grass or two that have been somewhat uprooted by someone's spike.

No, c'mon… We're talking about something that's visible from 20 feet away versus something that was also described as "microscopic." You notice when the spike mark is there and then when it's gone; you don't notice if a ball is sitting on the left side or the right side of a blade of grass or if a blade of grass that was sticking up a millimeter is now flush with the neighboring blade.

1 hour ago, SG11118 said:

What is there currently is clearly written, but is much less clearly interpreted.  It will be difficult, but I think it will get changed to something that is more definitive and less open to interpretation. 

Maybe. I doubt it'll be similar to your proposed rules change.

[SG11118]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

No, c'mon… We're talking about something that's visible from 20 feet away versus something that was also described as "microscopic." You notice when the spike mark is there and then when it's gone; you don't notice if a ball is sitting on the left side or the right side of a blade of grass or if a blade of grass that was sticking up a millimeter is now flush with the neighboring blade.

What word in the English language refers to a magnitude where it is visible to the naked eye, but may require focusing on small objects to do so?  There probably is a word for this magnitude of size, and that was always what was intended in my proposal and explanations.  Any time I used the word small, micro or microscopic was only meant to imply that people needed to look at a smaller scale at the object than they normally would.  After people started getting hung up on "micro", I switched to "blade of grass" level.

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Maybe. I doubt it'll be similar to your proposed rules change.

I was willing to let 18-2 and D18/2-0.5 remain as is for situations where the ball was not lifted or dropped beforehand.  It seems like Mr. Davis doesn't might not even want to do that.

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, SG11118 said:

What word in the English language refers to a magnitude where it is visible to the naked eye

To be honest… I don't care. Your whole bit about "blade of grass level" changes was, IMO, completely irrelevant.

12 minutes ago, SG11118 said:

I was willing to let 18-2 and D18/2-0.5 remain as is for situations where the ball was not lifted or dropped beforehand.  It seems like Mr. Davis doesn't might not even want to do that.

I'm highly doubtful the USGA and R&A will change the Rules of Golf to care whether a ball has been lifted. As I've said, it breaks the idea of equity - two balls sitting in the same lie (generally enough speaking - through the green, on the putting green, etc.) would be treated differently under your proposed rules change.

Again, that's what my rejection of your suggestion boils down to. It violates the idea of equity. It's a straw man or a wild goose chase or a non-sequitur or whatever you want to call it to say that the ball is not "played as it lies" or the lie might be altered by picking a ball up and replacing it or whatever else you've got.

---

I don't agree with all of the Rules, and my fear is that they'll actually make this rule a bit worse in an attempt to appease people who think it's a bad rule now, when IMO, this is the best the rule has ever been. Before, a player could clearly not cause his ball to move but could still be penalized; now, we're simply asked to determine whether the player caused the ball to move, and if more than likely it is so, to penalize the player.

It's simple and straightforward.

Yes, it's a bit subjective, but the only ways to make it not subjective are to basically always penalize the player or to never penalize the player. Anyone could come up with a scenario in which either of those don't make sense.