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

[Keep It Simple]

I am ok with the rule as it exists currently (I do not see an urgent need to revise it).  I am ok with the ruling that DJ was in violation.  My only issue is that DJ continues play under the assumption that the original decision by the RO was final.  I would have been satisfied if the RO made a decision but informed DJ it is possible upon further investigation that a penalty may still be applied.  This way Dustin can decide whether or not he should change his strategy to account for the possibility of a 1 stroke disadvantage.        

 

 

  

 

 

[Asheville]

26 minutes ago, Keep It Simple said:

I am ok with the rule as it exists currently (I do not see an urgent need to revise it).  I am ok with the ruling that DJ was in violation.  My only issue is that DJ continues play under the assumption that the original decision by the RO was final.  I would have been satisfied if the RO made a decision but informed DJ it is possible upon further investigation that a penalty may still be applied.  This way Dustin can decide whether or not he should change his strategy to account for the possibility of a 1 stroke disadvantage.        

 

 

  

 

 

Many here (and the USGA) agree with you.

[iacas]

4 hours ago, newtogolf said:

You said they weren't a 15 but during the broadcast that is what they kept telling us.

They weren't 15. Superintendents inflate the stimp.

Read the comments.  Dynda knows what he's talking about. I did some tests of my own, too (Saturday afternoon).

4 hours ago, newtogolf said:

As for the rule, if a RO is asked to make a ruling and he does his job es expected that should be the final ruling under 18-2.  If they want to penalize him for misrepresenting his actions and they can prove it then that's a different penalty (34-2). 

We're not discussing that here. We're discussing possible changes to rule 18, and specifically, 18-2. Not rule 34.

[natureboy]

11 hours ago, rehmwa said:

The ground is a living thing and water moves and grass blades react, etc etc etc could cause a delayed responsed to pressure/release on the ground.  That's why the practice stroke, even if it did cause the motion, is a bogus penalty (I agree with you).

I'd say on the green - change the rule to replace the ball and play on - no penalty.  But clearly there are other opinions.

I agree about the fundamental underlying cause here on fast greens. Depending on the particular geology and grass blade morphology where the ball is replaced just the proximity of the golfer or gently walking toward or standing near the ball might tip the scales toward a small but noticeable shift in its position. Sometimes late in the day on the practice green uneven blades of grass complicates placing the ball with the line vertically - it wants to roll a dimple unless you move the bottom of the ball to a different spot.

One could argue per your point above and @DrvFrShow that it's unclear whether the original cause for the movement of the ball is its original placement on the green surface under a rule (16-1b) where the movement precipitated by this underlying primary cause was simply delayed in time.

10 hours ago, iacas said:

Had he made a ruling with all of the facts, I think there would have been debate about it either way (probably less so if the crowd favorite wasn't penalized), but I feel that it would have settled things. ...the USGA, because they're rules geeks, cared more about "getting it right" (which honestly I commend them for, but many do not), than trying to save face at that point. Their integrity mattered more to them than the egg on their face/PR hit.

As soon as Newell heard "my ball moved" he should have been very careful to ascertain the facts.

I think the ruling makes sense. Again, it's simply two steps:

• Did the ball move? Binary. Yes or no.
• If yes, what caused it to move? That's not binary, but if the weight of the evidence favors "the player did something to make it move," it's a penalty. If there's any other plausible reason, it's given tremendous weight, and the player isn't penalized.

Right. You're not supposed to be casual around your golf ball. You're not even allowed to accidentally drop your ball marker (coin) on the golf ball and have it move a dimple - that's a penalty, too.

The rule is two questions, and if the answer is "no" to the first one, you don't even worry about the second. 99.999% of the time, you don't even have to answer "yes" to the first question.

I think the rule is pretty well written, and I'm glad that 18-2b is gone, and that 18-2/0.5 is there to allow room to blame something other than the player.

But there are times, whether you like it or not, that a player is most likely to have caused the ball to move even if they don't touch the ball.

It may have settled things as far as the ruling, but possibly not the rule. It's not entirely clear that DJ would have consciously remembered grounding the putter even if asked specifically as it's such an automatic habit in his routine.

Can't you fumble the ball marker and move the ball if it's done in the act of replacing the ball vs. originally marking the ball?

The new rule is not simply two steps. The determination of what caused it to move involves several judgement calls. I think the difference between Wattel and DJ's outcome with essentially equivalent actions by the players underscores this.

The old rules were more binary weren't they? Old-old rule players could be sensitive to grounding the club if they felt wind (or as routine per Nicklaus) and back off. The 2012 and new rule allowed wind to be removed as a penalizing cause and that's probably the most frequent situation to arise - at least on the putting surface.

But even if you don't ground the putter you are now subject to the influence of your body weight and footsteps on the micro-environment holding the ball in position because the time window for potential influencing actions by the player has expanded (at least to ~ 6+ seconds per Wattel's ruling - but potentially undefined) relative to the window after addressing the ball and judgement calls by your partner, competitor, opponent, referee, or committee as to the acceptable cause-effect time lag.

I think the times where the players is most likely to have caused the ball to move occurs more through the green than the putting surface where the condition of slope and stimp has a great influence on its tendency to move from imperceptible causes. 

17 hours ago, iacas said:

The problem with that is that a player can make a ball move without physically touching it.

Mind control! 

But seriously how would you (and would you want to) police against unintentional player influence of air currents relative to where you stand in relation to the ball. How would this affect normal play on a windy day? If a player intentionally attempted to channel wind to move their ball aren't there other rules to cover that? Perched lies in the rough, interleaved vegetation  / branches, and surface lies on steep slopes in bunkers seem the most likely other scenarios for unintentional ball movement without physical contact by a player or their equipment.

12 hours ago, turtleback said:

"Show me exactly what you did" would have resulted in a correct ruling and no (or at least a heck of a lot less) controversy.  

A Rules Official's blunder should not be the impetus for changing a rule.  If he had done his job properly we wouldn't even be having this thread.

Not for certain. It's quite likely that DJ may not have been consciously aware of his light grounding tap as part of his putting routine. Don't know, but I know I have many secondary habits that I'm not conscious of when I'm carrying out a routine task that's essentially a habit.

17 hours ago, iacas said:

"significant" and "material" don't work as rules because people will disagree over what constitutes significant. The better rule is to say "did the ball move at all?" It's a binary state, not a sliding grey area of "a little" or "kinda."

But the determination of the evidence of what caused the ball to move isn't binary. The timing factor, for example, has no defined upper limit and has a window that is at least under rulings made so far up to ~ 6+ seconds long. That factor alone created a differential ruling result for what to me were essentially identical actions by each player in terms of potential influence of the ball. The only difference in my view is that the micro-environment around Wattel's lie was slightly different than DJs causing more of a time lag.

Edited June 22, 2016 by natureboy

[iacas]

6 hours ago, natureboy said:

It may have settled things as far as the ruling, but possibly not the rule. It's not entirely clear that DJ would have consciously remembered grounding the putter even if asked specifically as it's such an automatic habit in his routine.

If his routine was automatic he would likely have demonstrated it the same.

6 hours ago, natureboy said:

Can't you fumble the ball marker and move the ball if it's done in the act of replacing the ball vs. originally marking the ball?

What's that got to do with anything?

6 hours ago, natureboy said:

The new rule is not simply two steps. The determination of what caused it to move involves several judgement calls. I think the difference between Wattel and DJ's outcome with essentially equivalent actions by the players underscores this.

Tomato, tomato. It's two steps. Did the ball move? Did the player cause it to move?

You can't eliminate the timing.

6 hours ago, natureboy said:

The old rules were more binary weren't they? Old-old rule players could be sensitive to grounding the club if they felt wind (or as routine per Nicklaus) and back off. The 2012 and new rule allowed wind to be removed as a penalizing cause and that's probably the most frequent situation to arise - at least on the putting surface.

How do you figure they were more binary? 18-2b was, sure, but removing that was good, no? The 2016 rule is more lax for the players, it gives them more outs. It not only removed 18-2b it gave the players wiggle room for citing another cause for the ball to move even if the player is close. The 2012 rule includes 18-2b. As it does in 2008, 2004, 2000…

6 hours ago, natureboy said:

But even if you don't ground the putter you are now subject to the influence of your body weight and footsteps on the micro-environment holding the ball in position because the time window for potential influencing actions by the player has expanded (at least to ~ 6+ seconds per Wattel's ruling - but potentially undefined) relative to the window after addressing the ball and judgement calls by your partner, competitor, opponent, referee, or committee as to the acceptable cause-effect time lag.

So? You take the available evidence and determine the most likely cause of the ball moving.

6 hours ago, natureboy said:

But seriously how would you (and would you want to) police against unintentional player influence of air currents relative to where you stand in relation to the ball. How would this affect normal play on a windy day? If a player intentionally attempted to channel wind to move their ball aren't there other rules to cover that? Perched lies in the rough, interleaved vegetation  / branches, and surface lies on steep slopes in bunkers seem the most likely other scenarios for unintentional ball movement without physical contact by a player or their equipment.

What other rules? Rule 18 is "Ball at Rest Moved." It kinda covers all the situations where a ball at rest is moved.

6 hours ago, natureboy said:

Not for certain. It's quite likely that DJ may not have been consciously aware of his light grounding tap as part of his putting routine. Don't know, but I know I have many secondary habits that I'm not conscious of when I'm carrying out a routine task that's essentially a habit.

If it's such a habit, asking a player to repeat it should result in the same thing. Plus the referee has likely seen his routine a few times, so if he demonstrates just walking up to the ball, the referee would be able to say that was not his routine.

6 hours ago, natureboy said:

But the determination of the evidence of what caused the ball to move isn't binary.

I never said it was. I was responding to a suggested change that you the words "significant" or "material" changes in the ball's position should be included.

So no, stop with the word games.

6 hours ago, natureboy said:

The timing factor, for example, has no defined upper limit and has a window that is at least under rulings made so far up to ~ 6+ seconds long. That factor alone created a differential ruling result for what to me were essentially identical actions by each player in terms of potential influence of the ball.

Did you see my suspicious sushi example earlier?

You can make identical actions, but in determining cause, you have to consider the timing.

Let's hear your suggestion for how you'd write up 18-2. Share it. Let's see it, @natureboy.

[natureboy]

4 hours ago, iacas said:

What other rules? Rule 18 is "Ball at Rest Moved." It kinda covers all the situations where a ball at rest is moved.

It relates to your oft-cited scenario of a player causing a ball to move due to altering air currents. IMO if it's unintentional / unwitting then it should not be a penalty scenario. It's hard enough to play golf in a high wind situation without having to be hypervigilant about how physically approaching the ball might incur a penalty. I think that becomes a scenario where the rules overshadow / interfere with normal sporting play. If it's an intentional action that is deemed an attempt to influence the ball or alter its lie then rule 1-2 (http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!rule-01) applies. The judgement call on that would be essentially the same as your suggestion for the ref to have DJ run through his normal putting routine and the ref's likely familiarity with what is normal and what is not.

 

4 hours ago, iacas said:

What's that got to do with anything?

You were arguing that the rules penalize you for moving the ball with your marker. That only applies during the initial marking and lifting, not the act of replacing IIRC.

[turtleback]

23 hours ago, Groucho Valentine said:

DJ really bailed out the USGA with that whole penalty thing. My feeling has always been club to ball or club to ground behind the ball at address that should determine whether or not a penalty should be applied if the players ball moves. It doesn't appear Johnson did either. Johnson thankfully made the whole situation irrelevant to the tournament. 

In a similar situation on the green, i would like to see the rule simplified to just club or part of a players body to an unmarked ball. Intentional or not. 

First I am going to assume that by "My feeling . . ." you mean what you think the rule SHOULD be, not that you think the current rule can be interpreted that way.

In your formulation, why is grounding the club next to the ball prior to a practice swing LESS likely to move the ball than grounding it behind the ball.  In each case you have the club, in close proximity to the ball, touching the ground.  Which is, in fact, what Dustin did.

20 hours ago, Aflighter said:

Your missing the point.In order to get rid of this issue I was saying a stroke should be attempted to be defined as stroke.He made no attempt to hit ball.It just moved and a ball that moves by accident or act of elements should not be penalty because theres no advantage to be gained.

Yes aslong as its moved back.The Na thing is how can you prove he swung and missed ball intentionally although of course he did.Say im on tee.I swing and miss ball.How can you prove I didnt just miss the ball.Seen guys whiff shots before.

Really?  You think Na just whiffed?  Sorry, but that is just crazy.  A 25 handicapper rarely whiffs completely but a PGA touring pro does it regularly.  Uh huh.

[Aflighter]

24 minutes ago, turtleback said:

First I am going to assume that by "My feeling . . ." you mean what you think the rule SHOULD be, not that you think the current rule can be interpreted that way.

In your formulation, why is grounding the club next to the ball prior to a practice swing LESS likely to move the ball than grounding it behind the ball.  In each case you have the club, in close proximity to the ball, touching the ground.  Which is, in fact, what Dustin did.

Really?  You think Na just whiffed?  Sorry, but that is just crazy.  A 25 handicapper rarely whiffs completely but a PGA touring pro does it regularly.  Uh huh.

Is it that hard to understand what im saying? I said we all know he didnt whiff but it should be black and white.If you swing and miss then its a stroke no  matter what because  i was in a bunker with ball well below feet and yes i whiffed.I took  stroke but whats to say I couldn't say hey  intentionally missed?

Edited June 22, 2016 by Aflighter

[Groucho Valentine]

17 minutes ago, turtleback said:

First I am going to assume that by "My feeling . . ." you mean what you think the rule SHOULD be, not that you think the current rule can be interpreted that way.

In your formulation, why is grounding the club next to the ball prior to a practice swing LESS likely to move the ball than grounding it behind the ball.  In each case you have the club, in close proximity to the ball, touching the ground.  Which is, in fact, what Dustin did.

Really?  You think Na just whiffed?  Sorry, but that is just crazy.  A 25 handicapper rarely whiffs completely but a PGA touring pro does it regularly.  Uh huh.

None. But It can be interpreted the way i posted. I think it should be. Its different because you have a situation on the green were you are taking a ball out of play and then replacing it in play. The conditions are different. Theres no purpose to strike behind a practice stroke on a green. To take it that one step further, why could one not use same rules one uses on teeing grounds where only "meaningfull strokes count"?  It would probably complicate play a ton, but technically how is that any different? You're placing the ball in play each time. To say you're recreating the previous shot after you clean and replace the ball is technically false anyway. 

[turtleback]

27 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

None. But It can be interpreted the way i posted. I think it should be. Its different because you have a situation on the green were you are taking a ball out of play and then replacing it in play. The conditions are different. Theres no purpose to strike behind a practice stroke on a green. To take it that one step further, why could one not use same rules one uses on teeing grounds where only "meaningfull strokes count"?  It would probably complicate play a ton, but technically how is that any different? You're placing the ball in play each time. To say you're recreating the previous shot after you clean and replace the ball is technically false anyway. 

"Meaningful strokes?  Are we just making things up now?  There are no rules on the teeing ground about meaningful strokes and you want to extend that to everything.  OK.

In my rule book a stroke is a stroke, anywhere on the course.

[Fourputt]

41 minutes ago, natureboy said:

 

 

You were arguing that the rules penalize you for moving the ball with your marker. That only applies during the initial marking and lifting, not the act of replacing IIRC.

It applies either way.  The stipulation is that it must be during the direct act, not 2 inches away from and dropping one or the other.

[DrvFrShow]

If you don't have to touch the ball or the ground to cause the ball to move to get a penalty, I don't know what to tell you. I no longer have a dog in this fight.

[Groucho Valentine]

10 minutes ago, turtleback said:

"Meaningful strokes?  Are we just making things up now?  There are no rules on the teeing ground about meaningful strokes and you want to extend that to everything.  OK.

In my rule book a stroke is a stroke, anywhere on the course.

Yes there is. Maybe you should check up on it before you bark off like that. 

[jgreen85]

No need to change the rule; simply, ask the player if he thinks he made it move. Explain the rule and then ask if he thinks he more likely than not caused the ball to move.

This is game of honor; at least that's what I was told.

[DrvFrShow]

1 minute ago, jgreen85 said:

No need to change the rule; simply, ask the player if he thinks he made it move. Explain the rule and then ask if he thinks he more likely than not caused the ball to move.

This is game of honor; at least that's what I was told.

I think they asked Johnson if he thought he caused the ball to move, and Johnson said "no" and the RO told him to putt the ball from its current position. Then later they assessed the penalty.

[jgreen85]

Just now, DrvFrShow said:

I think they asked Johnson if he thought he caused the ball to move, and Johnson said "no" and the RO told him to putt the ball from its current position. Then later they assessed the penalty.

That's my point. The last sentence should not have happened. DJ said no, that's the end of it. It's up to the player to call penalties on themselves; rules officials are there for advice/guidance. 

[Fourputt]

6 minutes ago, DrvFrShow said:

I think they asked Johnson if he thought he caused the ball to move, and Johnson said "no" and the RO told him to putt the ball from its current position. Then later they assessed the penalty.

My understanding was that the official asked him if he had grounded his club, and he said "No".  I don't think that DJ understood that grounding his club can be somewhere other than behind the ball, and he certainly did ground his club beside the ball during his pre-shot routine.  Had the official delved a bit deeper and asked him to demonstrate his pre-shot routine, the matter might well have ended right there with the penalty assessed, the ball replaced, and the game goes on.

[rehmwa]

For on the green - penalty stroke if any movement is caused by contact - replace it.  Caused by anything else - replace it, no penalty.  UNLESS - If the player disturbs a butterfly and the butterfly lands on a branch and disturbs a leaf which falls and hits the ball causing it to move and it's on video and someone calls it in - then two stroke penalty - replace it.

(yes, even grounding the club, etc.  Make it simpler.  I may be joking about the butterfly part for those here that are a bit literal - maybe)

 

Spoiler

Frankly, at this point, I'm more interested in keeping people's phones on mute during the final approach shot of a major - but that's off topic