USGA Announces Local Rule for 18-2 on Putting Green

[saevel25]

25 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

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.

I disagree. A golfer takes extra care when looking for a golf ball as to not step on it. A golfer takes care not to ground a club in a bunker. The PGA Tour players routinely took care at the British Open when wind us to cause a penalty if you ground the putter. There are examples were they are required to take care because the conditions and the course they are playing dictate as such.

It's not unreasonable for DJ to take care. Apparently he isn't the type to do so. He didn't take enough care at the US Open at Oakmont or at Whistling Straits when he ground his iron in a bunker. He should know the rules and read the specific rules that might apply to a specific tournament. He doesn't, he's a careless golfer. 

If that is he routine then his routine is careless. It's not an excuse to justify him causing the ball to move. 

[Golfingdad]

16 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I disagree. A golfer takes extra care when looking for a golf ball as to not step on it. A golfer takes care not to ground a club in a bunker. The PGA Tour players routinely took care at the British Open when wind us to cause a penalty if you ground the putter. There are examples were they are required to take care because the conditions and the course they are playing dictate as such.

It's not unreasonable for DJ to take care. Apparently he isn't the type to do so. He didn't take enough care at the US Open at Oakmont or at Whistling Straits when he ground his iron in a bunker. He should know the rules and read the specific rules that might apply to a specific tournament. He doesn't, he's a careless golfer. 

If that is he routine then his routine is careless. It's not an excuse to justify him causing the ball to move. 

Honestly?  Grounding his club behind his ball on the putting green is careless?  If you really believe that then I can't argue with you.

[saevel25]

3 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Honestly?  Grounding his club behind his ball on the putting green is careless?  If you really believe that then I can't argue with you.

Taking practice strokes that close to the ball. Grounding the club maybe too hard that might jar the ball. They all know how precarious it can be with a ball on those type of greens.

 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

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.

Why not? They've altered their routines for years given certain conditions. Before the rule was changed, they'd hover their putters in case the ball moved in windy conditions. Nicklaus and others wouldn't ground their club in the rough for similar reasons. When their ball is on pine straw, they're extra careful about where they even step. They take care when their ball is perched on slopes, in hazards, and all kinds of other conditions.

So do you.

Anna Nordquist should have changed her routine to not get so close to the sand and she may have won the USWO this year.

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

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.

Balls can move on a green stimping at 6 given enough slope. This rule doesn't just apply - and won't just be applied - to the U.S. Open.

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

That said, I also agree with the sentiments above that had they handled this correctly the first time, this would have never come about.

Handling it properly the first time may still have resulted in a penalty.

I don't think I'd have penalized him even after watching the video, but the ROs who made the call deemed it at least 51% that he caused it to move, and the on-site RO failed to properly ask questions, so it became what it became, and lead to this (what I feel) is an over-reaction.

1 hour ago, DaveP043 said:

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.

I don't know. The Oakmont events were a bit of an anomaly, really. This may end up being a similar sort of thing. We might not hear about it for years.

I did mention in a previous post how Billy Horschel would be screaming like crazy that he caused the ball to move accidentally when his ball rolled back into the hazard at Augusta National.

So maybe you're right. We shall see.

But yeah, I don't like that a player now has a choice whether to claim that he accidentally caused the ball to move or not. Yes, he kinda had that choice before, but it's more acceptable now because they're choosing against a penalty instead of choosing to be penalized. You now have the rare situation where a golfer can has incentive to plead guilty to something so they can escape a penalty.

1 hour ago, Pete said:

Sorry. I really was not trying to be rude or unfair.

This was the part I thought was rude.

1 hour 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'.

It presumes things and motives that are not in evidence, like everyone who disagrees with you here has a giant "rules are rules" stick up their butt, and completely ignores the fact that we're presenting arguments for the way the rules are, not just saying "rules are rules because that's what they are" or something.

1 hour ago, Pete said:

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.

Every sport has a ton of those rules. Sometimes they're called procedural rules. Dead ball penalties in football, for example, have nothing to do with how well one team plays football, but are still valid and legitimate rules that govern how the sport is expected to be played.

And a golfer moving their ball by means other than a stroke or as otherwise provided by the Rules breaks one of the fundamentals of the sport: that a golfer will advance his ball and hole out solely by his skill. In that sense it directly speaks to a golfer's skill - he's causing the ball to move not by making a stroke at it or any other legal form.

What if a player has a ball perched on a slope above the hole. He accidentally drops his coin on it and the ball rolls down the slope and stops just short of the cup. The golfer has certainly gained an advantage there but under the new rule will suffer no penalty - his action was accidental. So now the golfer, without golfing skill, has gained an advantage under these rules.

And yeah, that's likely going to be a really rare case… but so too was the case that seems to have prompted this entire thing.

1 hour ago, Pete said:

Too far from what or towards what?

It goes too far in excusing player negligence.

1 hour ago, Pete said:

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?

I think the previous rule was good. I don't know that it needed to be changed.

I briefly considered language that would raise the threshold to 70% or so, but that's a vague area and rulings would even be more difficult.

It's off the top of my head, but I might have been okay with a rules change that defined "player causes the ball to move" if they physically contact the ball or otherwise do some obvious act to cause it to move." That likely would have excused Dustin Johnson's acts while still penalizing careless/negligent players who touch their ball, jump up and down near their ball, thump their putter firmly, wave a towel or their hand directly over the ball, etc.

So, again it's off the top of my head, but "touch, contact, or otherwise obviously cause the ball to move."

And they could keep the rule the way it is, as they've done for this Local Rule, for everywhere outside the putting green, because I support keeping the rule at 50%+ for a ball perched up in the rough or on pine straw, etc. Those are situations, unlike the putting green, where it's much easier to cause a ball to move without having to touch it.

55 minutes ago, Pete said:

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.

Because the ball is in play. Goalies in the NHL are not allowed to play the puck in the no-play-zone. They don't get away with it just because they were "careless" one time. Consider how many rules in how many sports you could get away with if being careless excused the penalty. Oh, I didn't put my ball back where I'd marked it? (Like that girl on the LPGA Tour.) Sorry, just careless. Oh, I cross-checked that guy in the teeth? Sorry, just careless. Can't identify your golf ball because you didn't put an identifying mark on it? Sorry, just careless. This is probably my ball, Mr. Official. Etc.

Care should be taken with balls in play. And not to ground your club in the hazard, Anna. And many other things.

55 minutes ago, Pete said:

If the ball is replaced as a result of this carelessness, then no advantage is gained.

Who's to say an advantage isn't gained? The new rule still doesn't care about whether an advantage is gained or not. I outlined a case where an advantage could be gained. Billy Herschel could gain a big advantage if he can convince a RO that he caused his ball to move (if this rule had been in place). There's two.

55 minutes ago, Pete said:

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.

The ball is not yet in play.

If that was a penalty, people would demonstrate a lot more care, particularly since you'd be lying 1 with your ball no longer on a tee.

[Golfingdad]

7 minutes ago, iacas said:

Why not? They've altered their routines for years given certain conditions. Before the rule was changed, they'd hover their putters in case the ball moved in windy conditions. Nicklaus and others wouldn't ground their club in the rough for similar reasons. When their ball is on pine straw, they're extra careful about where they even step. They take care when their ball is perched on slopes, in hazards, and all kinds of other conditions.

So do you.

I get this, but what DJ did was his normal putting routine.  So by saying DJ was careless, you're saying that his normal putting routine is careless ... during the US Open.  Thus, the US Open itself becomes the "certain conditions."  So for somebody to not be considered careless, they'd have to alter their putting routines for the US Open.  I find that to be more extreme than this rule change.

12 minutes ago, iacas said:

It's off the top of my head, but I might have been okay with a rules change that defined "player causes the ball to move" if they physically contact the ball or otherwise do some obvious act to cause it to move." That likely would have excused Dustin Johnson's acts while still penalizing careless/negligent players who touch their ball, jump up and down near their ball, thump their putter firmly, wave a towel or their hand directly over the ball, etc.

So, again it's off the top of my head, but "touch, contact, or otherwise obviously cause the ball to move."

I like this idea too.  If DJ had bumped his ball (or done any of the other things you mentioned), I would be completely on board with considering him careless and very deserving of a penalty there.

[Gunther]

2 hours 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.

All the more substantiation for the new rule.  If you touch it and move it accidentally aren't you by definition being more careless than if you don't touch it and it moves yet you more likely than not caused the movement?

1 hour ago, 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'm confused by this response yet I agree.  It's far more likely that the elements caused a ball to move than a player who didn't touch it.  Been saying that all along.

[Fourputt]

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

Honestly?  Grounding his club behind his ball on the putting green is careless?  If you really believe that then I can't argue with you.

DJ grounded his putter beside the ball as part of his practice stroke, not behind it.  He stepped away because the ball moved before he grounded it behind the ball.  The toe of the putter was no more than 1/4" from the ball when he grounded it.  I have always agreed with the official ruling under the rule as it was written.

[iacas]

51 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

I get this, but what DJ did was his normal putting routine. So by saying DJ was careless, you're saying that his normal putting routine is careless ... during the US Open.

Drew, if my normal routine is to ground my club an inch behind the ball, do I not take a little more care when my ball is on pine straw or perched in the rough, and if I'm Anna Nordquist, aren't I being a little careless if I try to hover my club only 1/4" or 1/8" above the sand in a fairway bunker?

Yes, he was careless. His "normal putting routine" should be different if he wanted to avoid the possibility of causing his ball to move. Just as Jack changed his routine when his ball was perched in the rough, or we all change our routines when our ball is in the bunker, etc.

51 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Thus, the US Open itself becomes the "certain conditions."

No. A ball can be precariously perched on a green stimping at 6.

51 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

So for somebody to not be considered careless, they'd have to alter their putting routines for the US Open. I find that to be more extreme than this rule change.

Players alter their routines all the time. I don't understand why you're so hung up on that.

Yeah, DJ was stupid for getting so close to the ball. If he twitched a little he might have even nudged it physically.

A kid on my high school team had a habit of grounding his club right behind the ball. And I do mean right behind the ball. It was his routine. As his coach I told him that he should ground it farther behind the ball, because one of these times he'd cause it to move.

Lo and behold, he did one time, and I penalized him, and he was pissed.

But why? He just did what he always did… except he didn't, because that time he caused the ball to move. It was bound to happen sooner or later.

51 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

I like this idea too.  If DJ had bumped his ball (or done any of the other things you mentioned), I would be completely on board with considering him careless and very deserving of a penalty there.

Yeah, for something I thought of off the top of my head, it's held up for the last hour or two.

38 minutes ago, Gunther said:

All the more substantiation for the new rule.  If you touch it and move it accidentally aren't you by definition being more careless than if you don't touch it and it moves yet you more likely than not caused the movement?

More careless, sure… but so what? The new rule doesn't care if you touch it or don't. On that issue, the rules are exactly the same.

Exactly the same. You still determine the cause. You still use the 50% threshold. That part remains exactly the same.

[Golfingdad]

23 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

DJ grounded his putter beside the ball as part of his practice stroke, not behind it.  He stepped away because the ball moved before he grounded it behind the ball.  The toe of the putter was no more than 1/4" from the ball when he grounded it.  I have always agreed with the official ruling under the rule as it was written.

I think it's more than 1/4" and only looks like its closer because of the angle of the camera.  Regardless, I would still stipulate that it's close enough that it could have been the cause of the ball to move.  But were I making the ruling, I'd base my reasoning for no penalty on two things:

1. The amount of time between the grounding and the movement, which was a couple of seconds, and
2. The direction of the movement; straight back, not towards where he grounded the putter.

Those two pieces of evidence tell me that it wasn't the grounding that caused the movement ... or at least enough evidence to put it on the 49% side of the "more likely than not" line. :)

[iacas]

17 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

But were I making the ruling, I'd base my reasoning for no penalty on two things:

That's not what's being discussed here, though.

I don't know if I'd have penalized either. I do like to think I'd have done a better job of asking more questions than the RO on the scene.

The time for that discussion was long ago, though.

[Shooting29]

In my 30 years of golf I have played thousands of casual rounds and hundreds of tournament rounds and have seen a ball move on the green in absence of a stroke only once that I recall. I think this will only affect the minute percentage of golfers who are filmed with ultra HD. 

I will say it doesn't bother me that the rules changed and from reading this is does seem as though there is some butthurt from the rules are rules guys.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Shooting29
Hit send before I was done

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Shooting29 said:

In my 30 years of golf I have played thousands of casual rounds and hundreds of tournament rounds and have seen a ball move on the green in absence of a stroke only once that I recall. I think this will only affect the minute percentage of golfers who are filmed with ultra HD.

FWIW, Dustin Johnson didn't need HD video to see his ball moving.

1 hour ago, Shooting29 said:

there is some butthurt from the rules are rules guys.

I already responded to this. You've described, from what I can tell, zero people here.

[natureboy]

11 hours ago, iacas said:

most of the time the cause of the ball movement is known.

I totally agree with this and I'd add that most of the time a player will honestly volunteer that they caused the ball to move if they did.

11 hours ago, iacas said:

Jack Nicklaus didn't ground his club or even touch the grass much when his ball was precariously perched because of this same rule. Why couldn't DJ have done the same?

But he did ground his putter on the green and take practice strokes near the ball. Greens were a bit fuzzier in his day, though.

Personally I think it's reasonable to consider a ball on any normal green not to be a 'precarious lie'.

12 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

It makes no difference in the procedure, you're right, you still have to determine why the ball moved.  However, it DOES make a difference to the scorecard.  A player an inch off the green, who accidentally moves his ball, incurs a penalty.  The same action, accidentally moving a ball, when the player is two inches closer, but on the green, incurs no penalty.  That's a pretty major difference for the same action, the player inadvertently moving his ball, based on the ball's location

You had to determine the cause under the rule in effect and applied to DJ too. So the new rule doesn't add any extra determinations other than whether it's on the green or not. To me that's a no-brainer determination vs. where a ball crossed a hazard boundary and folks seem to sort that out okay for the most part. The current/extant rule for DJ vs. the new local rule seems to me to have leaned toward guilty unless exonerated by an obvious external cause.

A ball that an inch off the green is almost always in the fringe which is more likely to hold the ball still (vs high stimp green) even if you touch it and it oscillates. Golf has many demarcation lines in the rules. If you ground your club within a hazard it's a penalty vs. just outside the boundary.

One other unique aspect of the green is that it is a concentration point for players when the ball is in play and if you eliminate tee shots where the ball is not yet in play, a larger portion of strokes will usually be taken there (depending on player skill) so more accidents from players and caddies are likely to happen there vs elsewhere on the course.

Like I said earlier, I was surprised that accidental contact causing movement was eliminated on the putting green too. I personally viewed touching the ball and it moving as automatic penalty. Not sure yet about whether I like that aspect of the change. I'll wait to see how it plays out. Kind of makes the green a bit of a 'safe' zone vs. hazards, which might not be the worst thing given some of the above considerations.

10 hours 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 strongly agree with this. Which was the greater cause, his normal putting routine or the high stimp on a bit of slope?

Edited January 5, 2017 by natureboy

[iacas]

48 minutes ago, natureboy said:

But he did ground his putter on the green and take practice strokes near the ball. Greens were a bit fuzzier in his day, though.

Personally I think it's reasonable to consider a ball on any normal green not to be a 'precarious lie'.

As I've said, even greens stimping at 6 can have "precarious lies" with enough slope.

48 minutes ago, natureboy said:

One other unique aspect of the green is that it is a concentration point for players when the ball is in play and if you eliminate tee shots where the ball is not yet in play, a larger portion of strokes will usually be taken there (depending on player skill) so more accidents from players and caddies are likely to happen there vs elsewhere on the course.

That's just conjecture and guessing. I could say accidents are more likely to happen in the rough when the ball can easily shift in position, or you can accidentally step on or kick your ball, than on the green and neither of us would be able to prove it.

I also don't think it has much relevance here, particularly so given the lack of facts.

[Pete]

12 hours ago, Shooting29 said:

In my 30 years of golf I have played thousands of casual rounds and hundreds of tournament rounds and have seen a ball move on the green in absence of a stroke only once that I recall. I think this will only affect the minute percentage of golfers who are filmed with ultra HD.

This is a very good point. In the grand scheme of things, this change is going to make very little difference. It will eliminate a few penalties that, IMO, were unjustified. On the flip side it will add a few cases of players claiming they caused a ball to move when it is questionable that they did. These cases will be very few and far between.

I think the fear coming from some people is that it encourages golfers to be careless and they believe this is a fundamental part of the game. Which is a perfectly valid fear. Just not one that I share.

Personally, I think the rules were NOT written to ensure players were careful not to move their ball accidentally, or careful not to accidentally brush the sand in a bunker. I think they were written to make sure players didn't cheat (advance the ball, improve the lie, test the sand) in order that your score accurately reflects your golfing ability. The penalty is there to disincentivise the golfer from intentionally moving the ball or testing the sand or to negate any advantage gained from a non golfing ability occurrence. Rather than write the rule as 'Golfer shall not test the sand', they wrote it as 'Golfer shall not TOUCH the sand' to avoid the need for judgment and assessment of intention every time a golfer touches the sand for example. I get this. I completely understand this. It is necessary. 

However, I think there is room to improve the rules in order that your score better reflects your golfing ability. I see this change, as flawed as it may be technically, as a small step (in principle at least) towards this. It is a tiny step towards a more principle based set of rules, that recognise and not penalise, incidents happening despite good intentions, that can be rectified easily that have nothing to do with golfing ability, and I really like that.

You guys have made so many perfectly presented cases of where this rule will fall down or be exploited and I can only agree with you.

It is the principle of the change that I am defending.

Improve the rules to ensure scores more accurately reflect golfing ability. Surely we all want this don't we? 

[krupa]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

Improve the rules to ensure scores more accurately reflect golfing ability. Surely we all want this don't we? 

Sure but we then have to agree on what actions on the course reflect "golfing ability."  For me, not moving a ball in play when you don't intend to is on that list.  

2 hours ago, Pete said:

incidents happening despite good intentions

Bad penalties happen to good people.  The problem with any rule that is meant to protect the well-intentioned golfer is that it also protects the golfers who's intentions aren't so noble.  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. 

[Pete]

13 minutes ago, krupa said:

Sure but we then have to agree on what actions on the course reflect "golfing ability."  For me, not moving a ball in play when you don't intend to is on that list.

I don't consider that part of golfing ability. It looks like (with regard to this new local rule anyway) the R&A and USGA don't consider it to be on that list either. At least not on the putting green.

 

13 minutes ago, krupa said:

Bad penalties happen to good people.

This acknowledgement of reality is what I am glad the governing bodies are doing something about. This is what I agree with eliminating. Why would you want unjust penalties in your sport if you could eradicate them?

 

13 minutes ago, krupa said:

The problem with any rule that is meant to protect the well-intentioned golfer is that it also protects the golfers who's intentions aren't so noble.  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. 

I guess you are one of the golfers with not so noble intentions then if you would love to take advantage of this rule by intentionally nudging the ball and claiming it was accidental. Edit: Sorry, this is not taking advantage of this rule. It is intentionally causing the ball to move. Incurring a penalty. You cannot take advantage of this rule. You know if you intended to move the ball or not. The problem with the rule only occurs when the golfer in question is dishonest about their intentions.

Edited January 5, 2017 by Pete

[krupa]

2 minutes ago, Pete said:

This acknowledgement of reality is what I am glad the governing bodies are doing something about. This is what I agree with eliminating. Why would you want unjust penalties that in your sport if you could eradicate them?

Because it's only unjust if my intentions are honest.  What about the people whose intentions aren't so noble?  In my barroom pool league, if I nudge the cue ball half an inch while taking a practice stroke, my opponent gets to put it anywhere on the table he wants ("ball-in-hand.")  That applies if I meant to make a quick jab stroke or if I was just careless.  Why?  Because there's no way to know what my intention was.

As you admit, the rule when applied honestly will not come up much. I will also admit that it probably won't come up much when applied dishonestly.  However, the net effect of this rule is, in my opinion, a negative because the advantage gained from dishonesty is greater than the benefit when used honestly.

4 minutes ago, Pete said:

I guess you are one of the golfers with not so noble intentions then if you would love to take advantage of this rule by intentionally nudging the ball and claiming it was accidental.

Of course I'd love to take advantage of the rule.  #7 is a short par three with a ridiculously sloped green.  After 3-4 years of playing I have one fluke, chip-in birdie and countless bogies, doubles, and worse.   I'd also love to drive 100 MPH everywhere I went and rob a bank so I'd be rich.  Just because I see an advantage in being dishonest or unlawful doesn't mean I would be dishonest or break the law.  

My point as you so neatly evaded is that even in a small village in upstate NY there will be situations where this new rule could easily be taken advantage of.