USGA Announces Local Rule for 18-2 on Putting Green

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, natureboy said:

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.

Yup.

And to indulge the off-topic for the last time: your Broadie data doesn't appear to say what you think it says. From memory, they sink 5% more five-foot putts (they already make well over the majority of them, limiting gains), but that's after a first putt from somewhere else on the green - often not at all on the same line as the resulting five footer. That's not at all the same kind of thing.

/OT

[sjduffers]

I would like to add as a data point that I had a ball move on the green yesterday. The ball rolled away from the hole, perhaps a couple of dimples. It was a cold, damp day but not very windy (around than 10mph I think), on a Muni course with average green speed, not superslow or superfast. I had not marked the ball even though it may have had a little bit of mud on it (see below).

I did not ground the club or make practice strokes very near the ball, or at all. I had taken my stance though (and thus could see the ball move), but the putter was nowhere near the ball. I did not cause it to move, ie touch the ball or disturb its local environment, but the green had plenty of irregularities, many of them spike marks and poorly repaired ball marks, and I suspect that was the cause of the ball instability.

Did i give myself a penalty? No. Did I replace the ball? Yes, I did. Did it matter? No: it was a practice round... But, it did happen in a situation where you wouldn't think it would. And that's why I am mentioning it.

Happy New Year everyone! 

Edited January 7, 2017 by sjduffers

[iacas]

56 minutes ago, sjduffers said:

Did i give myself a penalty? No. Did I replace the ball? Yes, I did. Did it matter? No: it was a practice round... But, it did happen in a situation where you wouldn't think it would. And that's why I am mentioning it.

You should have played the ball from its new position.

Since you moved it back, you actually played from the wrong place.

But yeah, in a round against nobody… who cares?

[sjduffers]

I need to amend my post to say that I realize (albeit after the fact), that I should not have replaced the ball, as I didn't cause it to move. My bad. Either way it doesn't count! ;)

The main point was and still is that there was no obvious reason for the ball to move, not wind, not gravity, not me. And yet, it did, visibly, on an average green. So perhaps this rule, or its Local Rule applied in 2017, comes into play more than we think it does, or should come into play even more, if people knew about it and are honest...

Edited January 7, 2017 by sjduffers

[Fourputt]

I don't know if this was mentioned earlier or not - I just skimmed the last 3 pages of this discussion.  My biggest concern over this modification to 18-2 is that a player can be excused for foolishly causing his ball to move due to lackadaisical inattention on the putting green, but will be penalized for accidentally stepping on or kicking his ball (even though he was trying to take great care not to) when searching for it in deep rough where the ball may not even be visible.  

This dichotomy is inconsistent with equity - that like situations are treated in the same manner.  I don't see it as either reasonable or logical when measured against the fundamental principles of the game.  To me, it would actually be more logical to penalize the careless act on the green and excuse the completely inadvertent act in the rough.

[Pete]

4 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

I don't know if this was mentioned earlier or not - I just skimmed the last 3 pages of this discussion.  My biggest concern over this modification to 18-2 is that a player can be excused for foolishly causing his ball to move due to lackadaisical inattention on the putting green, but will be penalized for accidentally stepping on or kicking his ball (even though he was trying to take great care not to) when searching for it in deep rough where the ball may not even be visible.  

This dichotomy is inconsistent with equity - that like situations are treated in the same manner.  I don't see it as either reasonable or logical when measured against the fundamental principles of the game.  To me, it would actually be more logical to penalize the careless act on the green and excuse the completely inadvertent act in the rough.

I completely understand what you are saying. However, the only reason this rule can even exist is because on the putting green you can recreate virtually the exact position of the ball. In the rough after you have accidentally kicked it, it is almost certain that you could not replicate the original location of the ball.

IMO if we could replace the ball exactly as it was prior to it being moved accidentally any where on the golf course, I would be in favour of this new rule applying across the whole course. Because I don't see 'foolishly causing his ball to move due to lackadaisical inattention' as anything to do with how good you are at playing golf. I'm in the minority.

[DaveP043]

4 minutes ago, Pete said:

I'm in the minority.

Now we can agree completely on something  

And to be clear, I'm not trying to put you down, or make fun of you.  I appreciate that we can have differing opinions, and still respect each other.

[iacas]

8 minutes ago, Pete said:

Because I don't see 'foolishly causing his ball to move due to lackadaisical inattention' as anything to do with how good you are at playing golf. I'm in the minority.

Again, there are many rules in many sports that don't have to do with "playing" that sport.

That is one of your weaker arguments IMO.

[Fourputt]

27 minutes ago, Pete said:

I completely understand what you are saying. However, the only reason this rule can even exist is because on the putting green you can recreate virtually the exact position of the ball. In the rough after you have accidentally kicked it, it is almost certain that you could not replicate the original location of the ball.

IMO if we could replace the ball exactly as it was prior to it being moved accidentally any where on the golf course, I would be in favour of this new rule applying across the whole course. Because I don't see 'foolishly causing his ball to move due to lackadaisical inattention' as anything to do with how good you are at playing golf. I'm in the minority.

I don't necessarily agree.  When 2 balls are in close proximity to each other and the play of the first one destroys the lie of the second, you either recreate the lie or find the nearest similar lie within one clublength.  That would refute your contention that the accuracy of the lie has anything to do with the result of taking action under this rule.

[Golfingdad]

45 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

I don't know if this was mentioned earlier or not - I just skimmed the last 3 pages of this discussion.  My biggest concern over this modification to 18-2 is that a player can be excused for foolishly causing his ball to move due to lackadaisical inattention on the putting green, but will be penalized for accidentally stepping on or kicking his ball (even though he was trying to take great care not to) when searching for it in deep rough where the ball may not even be visible.  

This dichotomy is inconsistent with equity - that like situations are treated in the same manner.  I don't see it as either reasonable or logical when measured against the fundamental principles of the game.  To me, it would actually be more logical to penalize the careless act on the green and excuse the completely inadvertent act in the rough.

No, I don't think it was mentioned.  Interesting point.

[iacas]

If you accidentally step on the ball  in the rough or something, you don't really know what lie need to re-create.

That is not true on the green, which is probably part of the reason why you're allowed to mark your ball on the green at any time.

[Pete]

1 minute ago, Fourputt said:

I don't necessarily agree.  When 2 balls are in close proximity to each other and the play of the first one destroys the lie of the second, you either recreate the lie or find the nearest similar lie within one clublength.  That would refute your contention that the accuracy of the lie has anything to do with the result of taking action under this rule.

Then maybe we will see this rule enacted across the whole course. Maybe after another Dustin Johnson situation but this time on the fringe. I can't wait for that. Mwahahahaha 

 

19 minutes ago, iacas said:

Again, there are many rules in many sports that don't have to do with "playing" that sport.

That is one of your weaker arguments IMO.

I'm not arguing whether being careful not to move the golf ball is a golfing skill. We simply disagree on that.

But if removing or changing one of these rules that don't have to do with playing that sport, made it more more likely that the winner(s) are those who perform that particular sport better than others, why would you not want to remove or change it? 

 

 

1 minute ago, iacas said:

If you accidentally step on the ball  in the rough or something, you don't really know what lie need to re-create.

That is not true on the green, which is probably part of the reason why you're allowed to mark your ball on the green at any time.

That's the point I was trying to make. Thanks.

[Fourputt]

33 minutes ago, iacas said:

If you accidentally step on the ball  in the rough or something, you don't really know what lie need to re-create.

That is not true on the green, which is probably part of the reason why you're allowed to mark your ball on the green at any time.

Yet 18-2 specifies that if the ball is moved, it must be replaced.  That infers that the lie at the placement point is close enough to the original that any difference is irrelevant for the purposes of the rule.  And under the provisions of several rules the ball can be marked, lifted, and replaced anywhere on the golf course.  The player is required to use care that the lie of the ball is not functionally changed during the procedure.  Now he can be as clumsy as he likes on the green, but nowhere else on the course.  Just doesn't make any sense to me.

[iacas]

10 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

Yet 18-2 specifies that if the ball is moved, it must be replaced. That infers that the lie at the placement point is close enough to the original that any difference is irrelevant for the purposes of the rule.

No, because you do so at the cost of a penalty stroke.

12 minutes ago, Pete said:

I'm not arguing whether being careful not to move the golf ball is a golfing skill. We simply disagree on that.

No, we don't disagree. It's not a golfing skill.

12 minutes ago, Pete said:

But if removing or changing one of these rules that don't have to do with playing that sport, made it more more likely that the winner(s) are those who perform that particular sport better than others, why would you not want to remove or change it?

This is where you're not understanding my point.

This rule has quite a bit to do with playing the sport while not really having much at all to do with golfing skill. Just like the similar procedural style rules in other sports.

Those procedural or non-skill related rules are still inherent and important to the proper playing of the sport.

Not because "rules are rules," but for reasons I've already shared related to this specific rule. Fundamental principles and all that.

[Asheville]

I have only crocodile tears for careless Dustin Johnson. The real benefactors of this new Local Rule will be the old coots with shaky hands who until now have had to address the ball on the putting green from about two inches away. Now, they can slide that Bulls Eye in there quite close without fear of an 18-2. 

[Asheville]

Four-ball stroke play competition. Local Rule for accidental movement of ball on putting green is in effect.

Partners A and B both on the putting green. Partners C and D off the putting green. In accordance with R22, Ball Assisting or Interfering with Play, A marks B's ball. C and D chip on.

A goes to mark his own ball, but cannot find his marker. He spies it on the putting green and thinking to himself that he must have dropped it, retrieves his marker and marks his own ball. A's partner B now realizes that his partner has moved his ball marker.

Referee summoned and side A/B argue that the movement of the ball marker was an "accident" and therefor the Local Rule applies. Side C/D disagree claiming A's action was not an "accident" but instead was a "mistake".

How do you rule?

PS This actually happened this week.

 

[Fourputt]

34 minutes ago, Asheville said:

Four-ball stroke play competition. Local Rule for accidental movement of ball on putting green is in effect.

Partners A and B both on the putting green. Partners C and D off the putting green. In accordance with R22, Ball Assisting or Interfering with Play, A marks B's ball. C and D chip on.

A goes to mark his own ball, but cannot find his marker. He spies it on the putting green and thinking to himself that he must have dropped it, retrieves his marker and marks his own ball. A's partner B now realizes that his partner has moved his ball marker.

Referee summoned and side A/B argue that the movement of the ball marker was an "accident" and therefor the Local Rule applies. Side C/D disagree claiming A's action was not an "accident" but instead was a "mistake".

How do you rule?

PS This actually happened this week.

 

B should incur a 1 stroke penalty and the marker must be replaced.  Although the marker was moved by A by mistake, it was not an "accident".  The act of moving it was intentional.  A should pay more attention to what he's doing.

[Rulesman]

Assuming A acted with B's permission, B is penalised 1 stroke. 

The fact that A didn't realise what the marker was there for is irrelevant, he moved it intentionally.

Edited April 27, 2018 by Rulesman