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

[Grinde6]

3 minutes ago, xcott said:

No, do you not understand the rule regarding moving the ball while marking it? 

This is COMPLETELY off topic.  DJ didn't move the ball in the act of marking it...not sure what you are getting at here...

[Lihu]

9 minutes ago, iacas said:

So players should just be able to move their ball whenever they want so long as they put it back? Without penalty?

I give up.

 

6 minutes ago, xcott said:

No, do you not understand the rule regarding moving the ball while marking it? 

I think he just gave up.

 

So, it's pretty critical not to touch the ball or move it even in the act of marking the ball. If the marker itself causes it to move even a dimple or so that's about the only thing that's okay. Anything else is a penalty.

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, xcott said:

No, do you not understand the rule regarding moving the ball while marking it? 

My goodness… We aren't talking about the ball moving while marking it!

5 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

What was the deciding factor then, did they have video we didn't see?  If DJ wasn't leading and didn't have all the cameras on him that he did would they have stuck with the conclusion of the RO?  

I don't know, nor do I care to speculate. The RO screwed up, though. It was a penalty. Without cameras, and had the RO done his job properly, it was still a penalty.

This isn't the thread to discuss that, though.

6 minutes ago, Baog said:

I think you missed the word "accidentally." Of course players should be penalized for moving the ball on purpose, but that situation is covered under a different rule anyway if they are trying to get some information about the break, for example.

So the player claims it was an accident. "Oops. I accidentally moved my ball and gave myself a great read."

[Baog]

If that was his attitude, he could already just knock it down the hill with his coin, as mentioned before. Cheaters gonna cheat.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Baog

[xcott]

In today's rules a player could get a read by moving their ball while marking and lying about the accidental nature of it. 

So assuming you're ok with the ball marking rule, what is so fundamentally different about a player accidentally moving the ball at rest after it has been marked on the green?

7 minutes ago, Lihu said:

If the marker itself causes it to move even a dimple or so that's about the only thing that's okay. Anything else is a penalty.

That's not actually the rule though. There is nothing in the rules about how far or what causes it to move other than the process of marking.

A person could also pick up their ball after marking then "accidentally" drop it and see how it rolls toward the hole. The rules of golf assume honesty in regards to intentions. Assuming an honest person, I see no benefit the player gets in accidentally moving the ball by addressing it on the green. You're already allowed to mark it and pick it up, so you can't change the lie like you could in the rough.

I'm really interested in the fundamental difference in an accidental move via marking or an accidental move otherwise. Maybe you thiink the accidental marking rule should be changed, if so then I think that is consistent. 

[Lihu]

8 minutes ago, xcott said:

So assuming you're ok with the ball marking rule, what is so fundamentally different about a player accidentally moving the ball at rest after it has been marked on the green?

That's not actually the rule though. There is nothing in the rules about how far or what causes it to move other than the process of marking.

You are not allowed to test the green.

Quote

Under the USGA golf rules, rule 16.1 D prohibits a player from testing the surface of the putting green. Mark Wilson discusses some situations where Rule 16 comes into play and scenarios, like being on the practice putting green where the rule does not apply. However, when you are playing make sure you know what the local rules are and where they are applied.

http://www.pgadigitalgolfacademy.com/video/testing-the-surface-of-the-putting-green-007286/

[iacas]

1 minute ago, Baog said:

If that was his attitude, he could already just knock it down the hill with his coin, as mentioned before.

Is that the world in which you want to live?

2 minutes ago, xcott said:

In today's rules a player could get a read by moving their ball while marking and lying about the accidental nature of it.

I expect that if this occurred, we'd see a Decision that spoke to that type of abuse of the Rules.

The spirit of the rules would forbid such an action, and the golfers would be lying if they intentionally moved the ball and lied that it was an accident directly attributable to the act of marking the ball. For example, they'd have to deliberately shove or hit the ball rather than gingerly set the coin down from behind. Their actions would be different, and they'd be lying on top of it.

The Rules of Golf generally don't have rules covering someone intentionally lying in order to cheat because it doesn't happen all that often. Even players writing down the wrong number on the scorecard are assumed to have made a mistake, not intentionally trying to shave strokes.

And, all that said, if a player had a habit of moving a ball while marking it in such a way that one might think he's testing the condition, etc. then he'd be warned to be more careful about marking the ball, and subsequent "accidents" would not be regarded as accidents, but intentional movements separate from marking the ball.

4 minutes ago, xcott said:

So assuming you're ok with the ball marking rule, what is so fundamentally different about a player accidentally moving the ball at rest after it has been marked on the green?

It's not accidental in that case. That's a fundamental difference.

---

Now, again, I'll remind you and others that the topic of this thread is "how would you change Rule 18-2?" This assumes you have a problem with Rule 18-2. I don't. I think it's fine the way it is. You make the best decision you can about what most likely caused the ball to move. Removing 18-2b was a good change.

This thread is not about players lying.

And I know the rules pretty well. I'm a rules official.

Please switch back to the topic at hand. It's not about how to try to cheat by lying and abusing the RoG. It's about how, if you feel 18-2 should be improved, you would do so.

[CarlSpackler]

IMO, the penalty should be determined by the player or club making contact with the ball or grass. If the player's putter is hovering, as was the case with DJ, there should be no penalty. I'm not a physics expert, but I don't see any way that DJ's actions caused that ball to move. If he dropped his putter behind the ball, then I could see a penalty being assessed.

[Baog]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

The spirit of the rules would forbid such an action, and the golfers would be lying if they intentionally moved the ball and lied that it was an accident directly attributable to the act of marking the ball.

Precisely. That's why there is no fundamental reason to reject a change to the rules such that a ball, once marked and replaced on the green, shall be replaced without penalty if it moves and the player did not intend to cause it to move.

Obviously that's not the way the rule reads and for historical reasons, it's probably not going to change. The current rule isn't terrible, but it would be improved if changed to the above.

[iacas]

10 minutes ago, CarlSpackler said:

IMO, the penalty should be determined by the player or club making contact with the ball or grass. If the player's putter is hovering, as was the case with DJ, there should be no penalty. I'm not a physics expert, but I don't see any way that DJ's actions caused that ball to move. If he dropped his putter behind the ball, then I could see a penalty being assessed.

He soled the club near the ball. Twice, IIRC, relatively close to the time the ball moved. He also waved the putter back and forth near the ball, too.

And the player is obviously in contact with the grass at pretty much all times, unless he's figured out a way to hover. In which case I suspect 14-3 might come into play.

10 minutes ago, Baog said:

Precisely. That's why there is no fundamental reason to reject a change to the rules such that a ball, once marked and replaced on the green, shall be replaced without penalty if it moves and the player did not intend to cause it to move.

I disagree. I don't care whether the player intended to move the ball. I generally don't like rules where you have to read the mind of the player. The fact is the ball moved, and it's up to the committee to determine what caused the ball to move. In this case, and currently, if your ball moves and you're deemed to be most likely to be the cause, you're penalized. I'm good with that. I don't think 18-2 should be changed.

Players should be careful around their golf ball. If you just get to accidentally kick your golf ball on the putting green, that care erodes.

And, you're now complicating the rules farther because the status of a rule depends on something as stupid as "the ball has been marked and replaced."

[rehmwa]

It would be something to just have the transcript of the conversation they had after the tourney ended.  Perhaps something like this....

DJ "look, I didn't even ground my club at address, no way I caused the ball to move.  Go look at the vid"

USGA "under the new rules it's not just at and after address.  You know you did ground the club right next to the ball immediately prior you starting to address the ball.  Do you think that was enough to cause the movement?"

DJ "really?  that's the new rules, I thought it was to just protect us from stupid movements of the ball after address."

USGA "yes, right or wrong, the change was made to fix that, but it now includes any chance the player moved the ball for any reason (shows the verbage)"

DJ "ok, the prior grounding is possible then  No issues, I'll take the stroke."

Suspect this is the gist of the conversation and DJ isn't even thinking about it today.....

 

 

6 minutes ago, iacas said:

The fact is the ball moved, and it's up to the committee to determine what caused the ball to move.

I thought it's up to the player to determine what caused the ball to move

(perhaps it's up to the committee to remind the player of the rules so he can make a fair determination)

[Baog]

4 minutes ago, iacas said:

I generally don't like rules where you have to read the mind of the player. The fact is the ball moved, and it's up to the committee to determine what caused the ball to move.

And, you're now complicating the rules farther because the status of a rule depends on something as stupid as "the ball has been marked and replaced."

The current rule requires us to determine what most likely caused the ball to move without it being touched; that's pretty hard to do sometimes (like yesterday with DJ). My suggestion would only require us not to cheat on purpose, which is already part of the rules. The rules can't be perfect either way because we have imperfect information.

At this point, I'll just accept that you like the current rule best and I think it could be improved.

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

USGA "under the new rules it's not just at and after address.  You know you did ground the club right next to the ball immediately prior you starting to address the ball.  Do you think that was enough to cause the movement?"

Small point, but again, he'd have been penalized under the old 18-2a, too. 18-2 is basically the old 18-2a.

5 minutes ago, Baog said:

The current rule requires us to determine what most likely caused the ball to move without it being touched; that's pretty hard to do sometimes (like yesterday with DJ). My suggestion would only require us not to cheat on purpose, which is already part of the rules. The rules can't be perfect either way because we have imperfect information.

No, your suggestion changes more than that - it changes the situation where a player marks and replaces his ball, and then the wind blows it into the hole, or into a water hazard, or whatever. It has a ripple effect that changes more than just this "accidental" movement of the ball (again, with the weird bit about "did you mark/replace it yet?" thrown in there to boot).

7 minutes ago, Baog said:

At this point, I'll just accept that you like the current rule best and I think it could be improved.

I do. But that doesn't mean I can't be convinced of an improvement.

[xcott]

19 minutes ago, iacas said:

No, your suggestion changes more than that - it changes the situation where a player marks and replaces his ball, and then the wind blows it into the hole, or into a water hazard, or whatever. It has a ripple effect that changes more than just this "accidental" movement of the ball (again, with the weird bit about "did you mark/replace it yet?" thrown in there to boot).

27 minutes ago, Baog said:

Now we're talking. I was trying to find out the fundamental difference between the addreses the ball and the marking rule, and you've come up with some. Interesting ripple effects. I still think the proposed change is better, but these are caveats to consider. 

[tdiii]

A displacement of less than 2" shall not be deemed a movement.  If it occurs, whether by means of the player or outside agency, the ball shall be replaced and played. 

[Hardspoon]

2 minutes ago, tdiii said:

A displacement of less than 2" shall not be deemed a movement.  If it occurs, whether by means of the player or outside agency, the ball shall be replaced and played. 

How do you determine whether it moved 2" or more? Doesn't that just replace one problem (did the player cause it to move) with another (did it move 2")? And, it's a problem that's even harder to judge using video.

[Pete]

@iacas yes I'm exactly saying we should allow accidents and misfortune/fortune to happen when it is so simple to replicate the original situation in order that the luck is negated, especially on the greens.

And having 16 clubs isn't something that can be caused by wind or super fast greens so that is not an accurate comparison.

I know this is not really possible as you say, because the principle of making judgements about whether an advantage has been gained, would cause even more stupid rules official interpretation and argument by people like me :)

Utopian golf would be played where penalties are only ever applied to negate an advantage gained. Why else do penalties exist? 

[iacas]

23 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

How do you determine whether it moved 2" or more? Doesn't that just replace one problem (did the player cause it to move) with another (did it move 2")? And, it's a problem that's even harder to judge using video.

Agreed. Plus 2" might mean getting to avoid a big spike mark or could greatly improve your lie in the rough, fairway, etc.