USGA Announces Local Rule for 18-2 on Putting Green

[krupa]

What possible justification can there be for letting golfers and especially professional golfers off the hook for moving their ball?  

[iacas]

Just now, krupa said:

What possible justification can there be for letting golfers and especially professional golfers off the hook for moving their ball?  

Over-reacting to the bad press they got this summer?

I still think the on-the-spot official made a huge gaffe.

[krupa]

16 minutes ago, iacas said:

Over-reacting to the bad press they got this summer?

I still think the on-the-spot official made a huge gaffe.

I guess so, and I agree that mistakes were definitely made.  I don't see how this rule will help most of those mistakes in the future though.  If a ball moves and the player says "wind" and putts from the new position, couldn't he get hit with a penalty if video review shows he actually tapped his ball and thus should have put it back in its original location?

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, krupa said:

I guess so, and I agree that mistakes were definitely made.  I don't see how this rule will help most of those mistakes in the future though.  If a ball moves and the player says "wind" and putts from the new position, couldn't he get hit with a penalty if video review shows he actually tapped his ball and thus should have put it back in its original location?

Yeah, but if they do tap their ball, since there's no penalty if it's accidental, most will just say "oops, I moved my ball accidentally" and put it back.

And not every group playing golf everywhere is on TV.

[natureboy]

Here's a link to a Q&A on the topic with Mike Davis.

http://www.golfchannel.com/media/breaking-rules-new-dustin-johnson-rule-usga/

I was definitely in favor of cleaning up the rule for the mystery cause = fault the player on fast sloped greens. But I was very surprised by the pass for accidentally touching the ball and causing it to move.

I guess the USGA anticipates that they will continue to need hard, fast greens for future U.S. Opens and want to head off at the pass any apparently silly penalties (guy sneezes while at address & putter lightly brushes ball e.g.).

I like that there will be less need for tiptoeing around the ball on the green, which I don't consider an 'essential golf skill' while being able to hold a hard, fast green through shot skill and/or strategy definitely is.

I agree with @saevel25 that potential abusers of the exceptional latitude granted can still get slammed for two strokes by the rule against testing the green, but they might want to add a 'serious breach' DQ option there to head off anyone thinking about getting creative with the letter vs. the intent.

On 12/9/2016 at 10:16 AM, DaveP043 said:

Now, the difference in location of just a couple of inches (on the fringe vs. on the green) makes a difference in the rule.

I don't think this brings in any new issue. This same determination would have to be made if a player is entitled to mark, lift, & clean right?

[Pete]

I am really pleased that this local rule has  been created.

DJ was not being careless, or clumsy, or boneheaded. He was doing what millions of us all do every time we putt, and he got penalised for it. This change eliminates that penalty.

The biggest issue will be the few cases where a ball moves due to nature but a player claims they caused it to move because they don't like the new location. Or vice versa.

But I'm still happy that this change brings the rules a small step closer to reflecting the objective that the best golfer (golf skill, not most careful, not luckiest, not cleanest shoes) on the day, should win.

[Pete]

On 16/12/2016 at 6:18 PM, krupa said:

What possible justification can there be for letting golfers and especially professional golfers off the hook for moving their ball?  

You think DJ should have been penalised for moving his ball? What could he have done to avoid moving the ball? Lose weight? Have smaller feet?

[krupa]

17 minutes ago, Pete said:

You think DJ should have been penalised for moving his ball? What could he have done to avoid moving the ball? Lose weight? Have smaller feet?

I honestly don't remember the exact details of The Event.  However, if DJ was in control of his body at the time i.e., he didn't trip or someone shoved him, then hell yeah he should be penalized for moving his ball.  

What could he have done to avoid moving the ball?  I don't know... how about not make contact with it until he wanted to?  It's pretty easy to not move a golf ball.  

[DaveP043]

12 hours ago, natureboy said:

I don't think this brings in any new issue. This same determination would have to be made if a player is entitled to mark, lift, & clean right?

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

[Pete]

5 minutes ago, krupa said:

What could he have done to avoid moving the ball?  I don't know... how about not make contact with it until he wanted to?  It's pretty easy to not move a golf ball.  

He didn't make contact with it.

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, Pete said:

He didn't make contact with it.

He didn't, but under the Rules, they determined that he caused the ball to move.

One wonders whether this new Local Rule would exist if they had determined that he had not caused the ball to move. It would have seen little more discussion than the brief video showing the rules official stepping in.

[Pete]

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

He didn't, but under the Rules, they determined that he caused the ball to move.

Exactly. My point is, what could he have done to avoid moving the ball? If the argument is that there is no justification for letting a player off the hook for moving their ball, I am asking what Dustin Johnson could have reasonably be expected to do to avoid this penalty? 

 

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

One wonders whether this new Local Rule would exist if they had determined that he had not caused the ball to move. It would have seen little more discussion than the brief video showing the rules official stepping in.

I totally agree. It probably wouldn't. Perhaps rather than admit that determination was a mistake, they are changing the rule. I do agree with the change though.

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, Pete said:

Exactly. My point is, what could he have done to avoid moving the ball? If the argument is that there is no justification for letting a player off the hook for moving their ball, I am asking what Dustin Johnson could have reasonably be expected to do to avoid this penalty?

I don't know. I wasn't any closer than about 40 yards. He definitely touched the green with his putter awfully close to the ball.

Kind of beside the point at this time. I think that most of the time the cause is known. It's not in the grey areas between, oh, 30 and 70%.

4 minutes ago, Pete said:

I totally agree. It probably wouldn't. Perhaps rather than admit that determination was a mistake, they are changing the rule. I do agree with the change though.

I don't. The cause still has to be determined.

 And that.

[Pete]

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

I don't know. I wasn't any closer than about 40 yards. He definitely touched the green with his putter awfully close to the ball.

You think he should have avoided grounding his putter anywhere near the ball, just in case it caused it to move?

 

6 minutes ago, iacas said:

Kind of beside the point at this time. I think that most of the time the cause is known. It's not in the grey areas between, oh, 30 and 70%.

I don't understand what this means.

 

My point is simple and in response to this:

On 16/12/2016 at 6:18 PM, krupa said:

What possible justification can there be for letting golfers and especially professional golfers off the hook for moving their ball?  

If we accepted that he caused the ball to move by touching the ground near the ball or practicing his putting stroke near the ball, then this is EXACTLY the justification. It is what almost all golfers do. It is totally normally and generally acceptable to do this. No one thinks DJ did anything incorrect or risky or against the rules or even the principles of golf. So there is a justification for letting him off the hook. All golfers should be let off the hook in this situation. 

[krupa]

1 minute ago, Pete said:

My point is simple and in response to this:

On 12/16/2016 at 1:18 PM, krupa said:

What possible justification can there be for letting golfers and especially professional golfers off the hook for moving their ball?  

If we accepted that he caused the ball to move by touching the ground near the ball or practicing his putting stroke near the ball, then this is EXACTLY the justification. It is what almost all golfers do. It is totally normally and generally acceptable to do this. No one thinks DJ did anything incorrect or risky or against the rules or even the principles of golf. So there is a justification for letting him off the hook. All golfers should be let off the hook in this situation. 

And I disagree.  Golfers should be held accountable for their actions.  If their action results in the ball moving, then it's a stroke or penalty. That's the point of the game, isn't it?

In DJ's case it sounds like a bad ruling.  However you don't change the rules because they are poorly applied; you change the rules official or the process of reviewing and deciding on possible infractions.

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, Pete said:

You think he should have avoided grounding his putter anywhere near the ball, just in case it caused it to move?

Read what I wrote, please. He grounded the putter very close to the ball, not "anywhere near" the ball.

4 minutes ago, Pete said:

I don't understand what this means.

It means that most of the time the cause of the ball movement is known. Dustin's case is only controversial because it's in the grey area.

4 minutes ago, Pete said:

If we accepted that he caused the ball to move by touching the ground near the ball or practicing his putting stroke near the ball, then this is EXACTLY the justification. It is what almost all golfers do. It is totally normally and generally acceptable to do this. No one thinks DJ did anything incorrect or risky or against the rules or even the principles of golf. So there is a justification for letting him off the hook. All golfers should be let off the hook in this situation. 

I don't think that's accurate (the bold). Golfers should take care around their golf ball. If you accept that he caused the ball to move, then he did not take care.

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?

Edit: see, not accurate, as two people have now "thought" the opposite of what you said.

2 minutes ago, krupa said:

In DJ's case it sounds like a bad ruling.  However you don't change the rules because they are poorly applied; you change the rules official or the process of reviewing and deciding on possible infractions.

Right. This feels too reactionary.

[Pete]

4 minutes ago, iacas said:

Golfers should take care around their golf ball. If you accept that he caused the ball to move, then he did not take care.

Thanks for all the explanations. Your point of view is much clearer now.

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.

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.

[DaveP043]

16 minutes ago, Pete said:

Thanks for all the explanations. Your point of view is much clearer now.

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.

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 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, to me, is common sense.  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.