USGA Announces Local Rule for 18-2 on Putting Green

[iacas]

22 minutes ago, Pete said:

So I should be penalised for a ball moving, that otherwise would not have moved, when I stand next to the ball to address it.

You do not seem to be wrapping your head around the idea that you caused it to move.

22 minutes ago, Pete said:

I don't understand what more care could be taken.

I don't agree with your point of view. I like the new local rule. It embodies an element of common sense that I welcome to the rules of golf.

I don't agree with you. Obviously.

He could have not put his putter so close to his ball. He could have waited a bit if the ball was going to move on it's own.

I also wish to second what Dave said.

In most cases the cause is obvious. And now because of an exception golfers can be careless near their ball, cause it to move when it otherwise would not have, and suffer no consequences.

[Pete]

1 minute ago, DaveP043 said:

I believe this is over-dramatizing the argument.  For almost all of us, if a ball moves on the green, the cause will be apparent.  If I accidentally touched it, I caused the movement, if I didn't touch it, I didn't cause the movement.  If I cause my ball to move, outside of taking a stroke, I deserve a penalty.  If I didn't, no penalty.  That's what the previous rules said.  In almost all cases, the determination is going to be made by the individual player.  The old rule was in no way unfair.  The application of the old rule did cause some questions, and the presence of extreme slo-mo extreme HiDef cameras exaggerated those questions.  The new rule simply "de-criminalizes" what, in virtually every case we'll ever experience in our own game, is a player's mistake or carelessness.  

I hear what you are saying Dave. The reason the example is extreme is to highlight my belief that you can take care not to move your ball but be the reason your ball moves nonetheless. In these circumstances I believe the old rule was unfair.

[iacas]

1 minute ago, Pete said:

I hear what you are saying Dave. The reason the example is extreme is to highlight my belief that you can take care not to move your ball but be the reason your ball moves nonetheless. In these circumstances I believe the old rule was unfair.

Then you didn't take enough care.

If DJ had simply stepped in to his stance, that's alllowed and if he didn't stomp or something, they'd have ruled that gravity or whatever moved the ball.

Just as we were told to do in the events I officiated.

[DaveP043]

2 minutes ago, Pete said:

I hear what you are saying Dave. The reason the example is extreme is to highlight my belief that you can take care not to move your ball but be the reason your ball moves nonetheless. In these circumstances I believe the old rule was unfair.

I'd be extremely surprised that any rules official, after watching the slo-mo hi-def video of you taking the kind of care you described, walking gently, not grounding your club, etc, I doubt that the official would come to the conclusion that you've caused your ball to move.  And in the absence of a rules official and cameras, (which means way over 99% of the golf played), no player is going to conclude that he's caused his ball to move,  given the same circumstances.  The problem wasn't the rule, it was the way it was enforced in a very small number of highly visible cases

[Pete]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

You do not seem to be wrapping your head around the idea that you caused it to move.

I get it. It's physics. I understand physics. I think you can cause it to move whilst taking all precautions humanly possible. I disagree that it should be a penalty that's all.

I think there are a few of you who will be left behind as the rules become a little less 'rules are rules' and a little more 'let's find out who the best golfer is'.

[krupa]

24 minutes ago, Pete said:

So I should be penalised for a ball moving, that otherwise would not have moved, when I stand next to the ball to address it. It moves due to the slope of the green, the speed of the green, the lie of the ball and now my weight pressing into the green via my feet. I do not agree that I did not take care, I simply 'caused the ball to move' by adding my weight to that area of the green whilst the lie of the ball was precarious and likely to move should any weight be applied near it. I don't understand what more care could be taken.

Doesn't this fall under "natural causes" since technically gravity caused the ball to move?

Quote

2) Does the Local Rule apply to a ball moved by the wind?

No. If the ball was moved as a result of wind, water or some other natural cause (including gravity), the ball must be played as it lies from its new location without penalty.

 

[Pete]

3 minutes ago, krupa said:

Doesn't this fall under "natural causes" since technically gravity caused the ball to move?

Without me standing there, it would not have moved. I have caused it to move by standing next to the ball to address it.

The same way Dustin Johnson may have caused it to move by touching the ground very close to the ball.

Yes, it moves because of gravity but the golfer has created the altered environment in which gravity now moves the ball to a new location.

[iacas]

11 minutes ago, Pete said:

I think there are a few of you who will be left behind as the rules become a little less 'rules are rules' and a little more 'let's find out who the best golfer is'.

I think that's an incredibly unfair and even rude characterization of those with different opinions on this.

1 minute ago, Pete said:

The same way Dustin Johnson may have caused it to move by touching the ground very close to the ball.

You didn't read what I wrote. It wasn't DJ's stance that led them to determine he caused it to move. Had that been the action that resulted in the movement, he'd have been fine.

And again, you're using only one small exception to justify what effectively amounts to a rules change.

[Gunther]

14 minutes ago, Pete said:

I get it. It's physics. I understand physics. I think you can cause it to move whilst taking all precautions humanly possible. I disagree that it should be a penalty that's all.

I think there are a few of you who will be left behind as the rules become a little less 'rules are rules' and a little more 'let's find out who the best golfer is'.

I'm with you Pete.  If it wasn't touched and it wasn't intentional it shouldn't be a penalty, regardless the cause.    

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, Gunther said:

I'm with you Pete.  If it wasn't touched and it wasn't intentional it shouldn't be a penalty, regardless the cause.    

The local rule allows you to touch it and move it accidentally without penalty.

It's reactionary IMO and goes too far.

[Golfingdad]

24 minutes ago, iacas said:

Then you didn't take enough care.

If DJ had simply stepped in to his stance, that's alllowed and if he didn't stomp or something, they'd have ruled that gravity or whatever moved the ball.

Just as we were told to do in the events I officiated.

I'm with @Pete on this one.  I believe you are being a bit unreasonable in saying that DJ was careless by doing exactly what he and (nearly) every other golfer does every single time they putt the ball.

It don't think it's right or fair to tell the best golfers in the world they need to alter their putting routine whenever they are playing in the US Open.  The local rule makes sense to me in that regard.  I feel that they're acknowledging that they are helping cause the movement by baking out the greens and they don't want to have to deal with the fallout of another of these type of incidents.

That said, I also agree with the sentiments above that had they handled this correctly the first time, this would have never come about.  However, my opinion of what was correct then was that they made the correct ruling on the spot and that was the end of the whole affair. (Yes, I know that many of you dispute this and you don't need to rehash the arguments :))

[Rulesman]

12 minutes ago, Gunther said:

I'm with you Pete.  If it wasn't touched and it wasn't intentional it shouldn't be a penalty, regardless the cause.    

Are you only talking about a ball on the green?

If so, it is extremely unlikely that a player could ever cause a ball to move without touching it. Unless the green is mown to 2".

[krupa]

19 minutes ago, Pete said:

Without me standing there, it would not have moved. I have caused it to move by standing next to the ball to address it.

The same way Dustin Johnson may have caused it to move by touching the ground very close to the ball.

Yes, it moves because of gravity but the golfer has created the altered environment in which gravity now moves the ball to a new location.

I'm not at all convinced that the normal actions of a golfer will alter the green enough to cause a stationary ball to start rolling again.   

This just in... 

Just now, Rulesman said:

Are you only talking about a ball on the green?

If so, it is extremely unlikely that a player could ever cause a ball to move without touching it. Unless the green is mown to 2".

I guess I'm not the only one. :)

[DaveP043]

I'll make a prediction.  At some time in the next year or two, a ball will move away from the hole, maybe it'll roll 6 or 8 feet or more.  Because of the new rule, we'll be using slo-mo hi-def at the player's request, to confirm that he did indeed cause the movement, so that he can return the ball to its original position, rather than being forced to putt from further away.  We'll be reading for weeks about the (next DJ) who got screwed by the on-course rules official that denied his request, ruling that the movement was caused by the wind, rather than by the player.  The only thing that will change is the preferred claim by the player.

[Pete]

28 minutes ago, iacas said:

44 minutes ago, Pete said:

I think there are a few of you who will be left behind as the rules become a little less 'rules are rules' and a little more 'let's find out who the best golfer is'.

I think that's an incredibly unfair and even rude characterization of those with different opinions on this.

Sorry. I really was not trying to be rude or unfair. I am finding it hard to communicate the point that this local rule eliminates a penalty for something that has nothing to do with golfing skill. It makes the rules more likely to reward the better golfer and I like that and I don't think some people do like that.

22 minutes ago, iacas said:

The local rule allows you to touch it and move it accidentally without penalty.

It's reactionary IMO and goes too far.

Too far from what or towards what?

Edit: This question is better asked as: Are you against the principle of the new local rule? Or is it that there was nothing wrong with the old rule so why should it change?

Edited January 4, 2017 by Pete

[DaveP043]

4 minutes ago, Pete said:

Sorry. I really was not trying to be rude or unfair. I am finding it hard to communicate the point that this local rule eliminates a penalty for something that has nothing to do with golfing skill. It makes the rules more likely to reward the better golfer and I like that and I don't think some people do like that.

I'm on the other side of the issue from you, but I took no offense.  In my view, this rule DOES remove a penalty for the rare situations in which a player was pretty careful, but the ball still moved.  However, I think those situations, and in particular the DJ situation, were probably handled poorly, I'm not sure the rule itself was the issue.  However, the revised rule allows a player to be rather careless once he's on the green, with no penalty, and that's not a good thing, in my view.  In addition, the rule does nothing to speed up the resolution of these cases, the same judgement must be made when the ball moves.  I think its a rule change that was made to resolve an issue that was caused more by poor handling of individual cases than with problems with the original rule itself.

[Pete]

1 minute ago, DaveP043 said:

I'm on the other side of the issue from you, but I took no offense.  In my view, this rule DOES remove a penalty for the rare situations in which a player was pretty careful, but the ball still moved.  However, I think those situations, and in particular the DJ situation, were probably handled poorly, I'm not sure the rule itself was the issue.  However, the revised rule allows a player to be rather careless once he's on the green, with no penalty, and that's not a good thing, in my view.  In addition, the rule does nothing to speed up the resolution of these cases, the same judgement must be made when the ball moves.  I think its a rule change that was made to resolve an issue that was caused more by poor handling of individual cases than with problems with the original rule itself.

I agree with everything you've said here apart from that someone should receive a penalty for being careless on the green. I don't understand why that matters. If the ball is replaced as a result of this carelessness, then no advantage is gained. They may be slowing down the round and annoying people, but that would be the same for someone knocking the ball off the tee on the teeing ground. There is no penalty for carelessness there.

[DaveP043]

Just now, Pete said:

 but that would be the same for someone knocking the ball off the tee on the teeing ground. There is no penalty for carelessness there.

I have no problems with carelessness when the ball is not in play.  Once you put it in play, I believe you should take appropriate care not to move it accidentally.  That applies whether its in the fairway, perched high on a tuft of rough, buried in a bunker, in a nice lie in the fringe, or on the green, any time the ball is in play.  To me, that's just the way golf should be.