USGA Announces Local Rule for 18-2 on Putting Green

[iacas]

14 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

This discussion between you and @Pete has brought up another question in my head.  My first response to all of these scenarios is that when a ball gets nudged that's not supposed to (whether it be from the putterhead, or a coin, or fumbled from your hand), it's not moving very fast and most likely would be very easy to intercept before it rolled to the hole and gave you that free advantage.

Yeah, but you're not always going to notice right away (maybe you're making practice strokes looking at the hole) or be able to bend over or reach forward to get it in time.

I generally don't really like scenarios as anyone can come up with anything, and it's tough to come up with a "representative scenario." I only added mine because the idea of an advantage was brought up, and this rules change does result in a new way to gain an advantage without a penalty.

My general dislike of the Local Rule has much more to do with with the increased "okayness" with golfers being careless around a ball that's in play.

14 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

But under the new rule, since we're talking about a ball in play - are you even allowed to stop a moving ball that you accidentally nudged?  Because what if you did that, and then it was determined, or at the very least questioned, that it actually wasn't you that caused the movement? Or am I unnecessarily in the weeds here?

Good question, but I think the answer will be pretty simple. Off the top of my head…

a. If it's obvious you caused it to move, there's no problem picking it up. If you caused it to move accidentally, no penalty, replace. If you caused it to move on purpose (edit to add that this is without making a stroke at it), penalty, replace.

b. If it's not obvious, you should not touch it. Determine after it comes to rest again what caused it to move.

If you touch it while it's moving, then either a will apply if you caused it to move, or you'd be guilty of touching a moving ball and Rule 19 would probably come into play. You might even end up closer to the hole if you accidentally picked up a ball that the wind and slope caused to move, but you'd take a penalty stroke in doing so.

I think what's more likely to happen, though, is that golfers will think this rule is in place when it's not, or it will become a standing "local rule" among leagues and foursomes even if it's not truly enacted as a Local Rule.

[DaveP043]

12 minutes ago, iacas said:

My general dislike of the Local Rule has much more to do with with the increased "okayness" with golfers being careless around a ball that's in play.

The Rules have been getting "softer" on us golfers for decades.  Witness Richard Tufts' article from 1960:

http://gsrpdf.lib.msu.edu/ticpdf.py?file=/1960s/1960/601112.pdf

[natureboy]

7 hours ago, krupa said:

Got a tough downhill putt on a fast green?  Oops, I was just taking my stance and "accidentally" nudged the ball and it started rolling!  

There's one green at my home course where I would love to take advantage of this local rule. 

Under the new local rule wouldn't you just replace it? And if you did it repeatedly wouldn't your playing partners report you to the handicap committee for testing the putting surface?

[Golfingdad]

11 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Under the new local rule wouldn't you just replace it?

Yes, but after you have now gleaned a little information as to how it could be expected to break. (Note that a few posts ago I admitted that I thought the same thing originally before the light bulb went off in my head)

[krupa]

42 minutes ago, natureboy said:

And if you did it repeatedly wouldn't your playing partners report you to the handicap committee for testing the putting surface?

I see where you're coming from, repeated abuse of the rule should be quite obvious.  But if you don't have regular partners, play at different courses, just don't give a shit, etc.  

Although I got off-track with the "how it could be abused" argument, my real complaint (as I mentioned) is that I feel the new rule goes against the principles of the game itself.  And if my barroom pool league holds me to a higher standard than the USGA, what's that saying about golf in 2017!?  

[natureboy]

3 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

Yes, but after you have now gleaned a little information as to how it could be expected to break. (Note that a few posts ago I admitted that I thought the same thing originally before the light bulb went off in my head)

I understood that, but if you have a cheating mentality you maybe get to use this only sparingly...likely even less than the 'sleight of hand' ball mark replacement shift that sometimes gets pointed out / called. Otherwise you get put under the scrutiny of the committee and testing the green and cheating rules could be applied.

Plus to make it look like an accident you can't really take a proper stroke at it, can you? Seems to me that if you don't hit it the same pace you would an actual putt you are trying to hole, the information you would gain is likely going to be only partial.

Edited January 5, 2017 by natureboy

[Golfingdad]

6 minutes ago, natureboy said:

I understood that, but if you have a cheating mentality you maybe get to use this only sparingly...likely even less than the 'sleight of hand' ball mark replacement shift that sometimes gets pointed out / called. Otherwise you get put under the scrutiny of the committee and testing the green and cheating rules could be applied.

Plus to make it look like an accident you can't really take a proper stroke at it, can you? Seems to me that if you don't hit it the same pace you would an actual putt you are trying to hole, the information you would gain is likely going to be only partial.

So?  It's still free information that you wouldn't have been able to get before this rule.

Why are you making me argue against the new rule?  I'm in favor of it!  (I think)

[natureboy]

2 hours ago, krupa said:

my real complaint (as I mentioned) is that I feel the new rule goes against the principles of the game itself.  And if my barroom pool league holds me to a higher standard than the USGA, what's that saying about golf in 2017!?  

I wonder if this is an experiment by the USGA to go way out on the limb and reel it back in a bit when they incorporate it into the official rulebook?

A few points have been raised that this rule allowing carelessness will significantly affect scores. If the USGA applies it at its own tournaments, they can compare the effects of 'test' rule changes like this on scores to see what the likely statistical impact is. Because it's so rare a circumstance vs. drops and other more common rulings, I expect it's barely going to touch average scores in either direction.

The interview with Mike Davis on Golf Channel that I posted indicated this issue had come up at more events than just the U.S. Open at Oakmont primarily due to the trend for rising green speeds so they at least have a few data points for comparison. Implementing the new local rule, they can also do a little debrief of all players in the scoring tent to check the number of times a ball at rest moved question came up on the greens during a tournament, get the details and make an assessment of how the old vs. new rule may have affected the final ruling and score.

17 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

So?  It's still free information that you wouldn't have been able to get before this rule.

Why are you making me argue against the new rule?  I'm in favor of it!  (I think)

I get that point. I'm not convinced it's going to be a large improvement over a pro's ability to read a significant slope. This is something they could probably measure with a range of handicaps to see what effect a non-obvious 'accidental' tap of the ball actually gives a player across a range of skill levels. Rather than HCP you could start the experiment on the practice green where each participant would be rated on pure putting (read, bead, speed) ability using some of Broadie's putting practice drills that correlate to strokes gained ability.

Plus if you get a reputation for 'strategic clumsiness' that's going to be a big hit on your career prospects with fans, sponsors, etc. The only reason I know Simon Dyson's name, for example. For amateurs it would be easier to avoid scrutiny by changing courses a lot, but this type of player already likely sandbags / hustles using other rule breaking, which I expect would have a much larger impact on scores, and tourney/match outcomes.

Edited January 6, 2017 by natureboy

[Golfingdad]

12 minutes ago, natureboy said:

I wonder if this is an experiment by the USGA to go way out on the limb and reel it back in a bit when they incorporate it into the official rulebook?

A few points have been raised that this rule allowing carelessness will significantly affect scores. If the USGA applies it at its own tournaments, they can compare the effects of 'test' rule changes like this on scores to see what the likely statistical impact is. Because it's so rare a circumstance vs. drops and other more common rulings, I expect it's barely going to touch average scores in either direction.

The interview with Mike Davis on Golf Channel that I posted indicated this issue had come up at more events than just the U.S. Open at Oakmont primarily due to the trend for rising green speeds so they at least have a few data points for comparison. Implementing the new local rule, they can also do a little debrief of all players in the scoring tent to check the number of times a ball at rest moved question came up on the greens during a tournament, get the details and make an assessment of how the old vs. new rule may have affected the final ruling and score.

I get that point. I wonder if it's going to be a significant improvement over a pro's ability to read a significant slope? I also think this is something they could measure with a range of handicaps to see what effect a non-obvious 'accidental' tap of the ball actually gives a player across a range of skill levels. Rather than HCP you could start the experiment on the practice green where each participant would be rated on pure putting (read, bead, speed) ability using some of Broadie's putting practice drills that correlate to strokes gained ability.

Plus if you get a reputation for 'strategic clumsiness' that's going to be a big hit on your career prospects with fans, sponsors, etc. The only reason I know Simon Dyson's name, for example. For amateurs it would be easier to avoid scrutiny by changing courses a lot, but this type of player already likely sandbags, which I expect would have a much larger impact on scores, and tourney/match outcomes.

You might be overthinking this one.

[natureboy]

13 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

You might be overthinking this one.

Possibly, but in what way(s) were you thinking? Seems that lacking comparative data we're all just speculating.

As I see it, the scenario of an unstable lie on a large slope of a slow green isn't going to take the ball very far from the original spot due to the inherent slowness of the green itself. Areas of large slope on greens tend to be limited in area, because holes typically need to be placed on lower sloped portions of the green. With PGA / USGA stimps a ball 'hanging' on a slope tends to be less common because the grass is so tight, the ball usually releases on its own under the influence of ball spin, wind, or gravity. I expect those are going to remain the larger number of occurrences of the ball moving on the green for pros. Sometimes that will take the ball closer, sometimes farther.

4 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

The Rules have been getting "softer" on us golfers for decades.  Witness Richard Tufts' article from 1960:

http://gsrpdf.lib.msu.edu/ticpdf.py?file=/1960s/1960/601112.pdf

I'm kinda surprised he didn't grouse about the introduction of the unplayable lie rule. When was that again? I bet that shaved a ton of strokes off the average players' game when their ball found a clump of gorse.

Edited January 6, 2017 by natureboy

[Golfingdad]

15 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Possibly, but in what way(s) were you thinking? Seems that lacking comparative data we're all just speculating.

As I see it, the scenario of an unstable lie on a large slope of a slow green isn't going to take the ball very far from the original spot due to the inherent slowness of the green itself. Areas of large slope on greens tend to be limited in area, because holes typically need to be placed on lower sloped portions of the green. With PGA / USGA stimps a ball 'hanging' on a slope tends to be less common because the grass is so tight, the ball usually releases on its own under the influence of ball spin, wind, or gravity. I expect those are going to remain the larger number of occurrences of the ball moving on the green for pros. Sometimes that will take the ball closer, sometimes farther.

I'm kinda surprised he didn't grouse about the introduction of the unplayable lie rule. When was that again? I bet that shaved a ton of strokes off the average players' game when their ball found a clump of gorse.

In the sense that this hypothetical (accidentally knock ball down slope towards hole) I've seen or heard about happening literally ZERO times in my golfing life.  It's a hypothetical used to make a point, not a scenario we need to break down and analyze.  We don't need to look into the data to know that if you accidentally bump your ball towards the hole under the local rule you will likely gain an advantage and you won't be penalized for it.  Whereas, if you did it last year, or going forward without the local rule in place, you'll get a penalty.

[iacas]

44 minutes ago, natureboy said:

I get that point. I'm not convinced it's going to be a large improvement over a pro's ability to read a significant slope.

1. Nah. If I can see a ball rolling near the line, I'll gain tremendous knowledge. And I'm already really good at reading greens.
2. This rule will affect more than just PGA Tour pros.

44 minutes ago, natureboy said:

This is something they could probably measure with a range of handicaps to see what effect a non-obvious 'accidental' tap of the ball actually gives a player across a range of skill levels.

Like Drew said, you might be overthinking this.

And you don't have to do this often for it to be handy. And you don't even have to do it on purpose. You can accidentally gain an advantage now, whereas before you'd get a one-stroke penalty for your carelessness.

The rest ventures too far into unrelated, uninteresting stuff so I hid it.
 

Spoiler

23 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Possibly, but in what way(s) were you thinking? Seems that lacking comparative data we're all just speculating.

My "a" above is not speculation. PGA Tour pros always appreciate having a putt from near their line roll out before their putt. That's not speculation either.

23 minutes ago, natureboy said:

As I see it, the scenario of an unstable lie on a large slope of a slow green isn't going to take the ball very far from the original spot due to the inherent slowness of the green itself.

The green is still sloped. And we aren't really talking about it.

23 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Areas of large slope on greens tend to be limited in area, because holes typically need to be placed on lower sloped portions of the green.

The amount of slope on a green that's suitable for a hole location is different at different stimps.

Obviously.

A 10-footer breaks less on 4% slope at stimp 7 than a 10-footer on 1.5% slope at stimp 13.

[natureboy]

11 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

In the sense that this hypothetical (accidentally knock ball down slope towards hole) I've seen or heard about happening literally ZERO times in my golfing life.  It's a hypothetical used to make a point, not a scenario we need to break down and analyze.  We don't need to look into the data to know that if you accidentally bump your ball towards the hole under the local rule you will likely gain an advantage and you won't be penalized for it.  Whereas, if you did it last year, or going forward without the local rule in place, you'll get a penalty.

I was talking about two distinct things. Estimating how frequently the rule is likely to come up. and statistically evaluating how much of an advantage might actually be gained from that rare 'advantage' scenario with new local rule applied vs. old rule.

I think we all somewhat agree the frequency of it popping up would be relatively rare. Impact from potential abuse of the rule on individual hole score could be big, might be less than some expect.

But my point was if it's a truly objectionable point, the 'advantage' can be evaluated with some actual testing.

Edited January 6, 2017 by natureboy

[Golfingdad]

7 minutes ago, natureboy said:

I wasn't talking about whether you get a penalty or not, I was talking about statistically evaluating how much of an advantage might actually be gained from that rare scenario with new local rule applied vs. old rule.

I know.  But when it comes to discussing how this potential advantage relates to the principles of golf, as @krupa has pointed out a couple of times, the "quantity" of the advantage is entirely irrelevant.

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, natureboy said:

But my point was if it's a truly objectionable point, the 'advantage' can be evaluated with some actual testing.

[natureboy]

2 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

I know.

Sorry. I guess I missed your point. 

[saevel25]

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

I know.  But when it comes to discussing how this potential advantage relates to the principles of golf, as @krupa has pointed out a couple of times, the "quantity" of the advantage is entirely irrelevant.

I agree. Certain things just don't pass the gut test. This decision doesn't feel right. 

[natureboy]

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

I know.  But when it comes to discussing how this potential advantage relates to the principles of golf, as @krupa has pointed out a couple of times, the "quantity" of the advantage is entirely irrelevant.

Funny, I didn't even see the second sentence until now. All I saw in the first post was 'I know'. Now your point is much clearer to me. I get your point if you're approaching per Tufts' principles, but that's not specified as a limitation on the scope of the thread. A few rules do explicitly mention 'advantage' / 'disadvantage' so I thought it was potentially relevant.

If you're just looking at a binary advantage vs. no advantage, sure I agree watching the ball roll toward the hole gives you at least something. I just expect it wouldn't be very large in magnitude in most situations and Broadie's numbers about 1st vs. 2nd putts from the same distance seem to back me up.

5 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I agree. Certain things just don't pass the gut test. This decision doesn't feel right. 

Personally, I wouldn't peep a bit if they took out the accidental contact portion of the rule. They might still go that direction if/when it's considered for the full rules.