USGA Announces Local Rule for 18-2 on Putting Green

[Pete]

2 minutes ago, krupa said:

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.

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. 

Do you understand that being dishonest is not taking advantage of the rule? It is cheating.

 

4 minutes ago, krupa said:

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. 

I get it. Some dishonest golfers cheat. And this rule allows them another avenue to cheat. If I saw the same player 'accidently' nudge their ball down a sloping green more than once, ever, I would call them up on it and I would report them to the club committee (assuming they were a member of a club).

[krupa]

2 minutes ago, Pete said:

Do you understand that being dishonest is not taking advantage of the rule? It is cheating.

Yes I do.  I also understand that you're advocating for a rule that doesn't penalize this because sometimes it's not cheating but an honest mistake.  

At the end of the day, the relevant questions are (I think):

1.  How often do people accidentally move their ball on the putting green?

2.  Is accidentally moving the ball reflective of their golfing ability?

3.  What is the overall affect of this rule on the game.

It's pretty clear where the two of us come down on these questions.  At this point, we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

[Pete]

2 minutes ago, krupa said:

It's pretty clear where the two of us come down on these questions.  At this point, we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Agreed

[Pete]

15 minutes ago, krupa said:

I also understand that you're advocating for a rule that doesn't penalize this because sometimes it's not cheating but an honest mistake.

The existing rules provides for a penalty if you intentionally cause the ball to move.

If you cheat and say you didn't intend to cause the ball to move, then you are applying this new rule where it should not apply.

It is only honesty that stops you from applying any rule you wan't, whenever you want. If you are playing with other golfers, some times it is harder for your playing partners to notice that you are cheating due to the nature of your dishonesty. It would be really sad if continue to penalise honest golfers just because a few are willing to cheat.

 

 

[krupa]

23 minutes ago, Pete said:

The existing rules provides for a penalty if you intentionally cause the ball to move.

If you cheat and say you didn't intend to cause the ball to move, then you are applying this new rule where it should not apply.

It is only honesty that stops you from applying any rule you wan't, whenever you want. If you are playing with other golfers, some times it is harder for your playing partners to notice that you are cheating due to the nature of your dishonesty. It would be really sad if continue to penalise honest golfers just because a few are willing to cheat.

 

 

Of course.  Cheaters will cheat.  Criminals break the law.  Boys will be boys.  Tautologies are always true.  The problem is that the local rule is all about intent and no one but the golfer knows his intent.  If he's dishonest, he'll be dishonest.  This is a quintessential example of one bad student spoiling it for the rest of the class.

You believe that a golfer should not be penalized for accidentally moving a ball and the majority of times a golfer says, "it was an accident" it will be the truth and nothing will be gained from the incident.  

I believe that if a golfer moves a ball-in-play, he should be charged a stroke because (a) the golfer is responsible for his ball at all times, (b) the golfer can gain an unfair advantage from "accidentally" moving his ball, and (c) you don't know when he's being honest or not about his intent . 

I feel like we've gone around enough times.  Don't take offense if I don't reply anymore, I just don't feel like we're making any progress.

Edited January 5, 2017 by krupa

[Pete]

4 minutes ago, krupa said:

Of course.  Cheaters will cheat.  Criminals break the law.  Boys will be boys.  Tautologies are always true.  The problem is that the local rule is all about intent and no one but the golfer knows his intent.  If he's dishonest, he'll be dishonest.  This is a quintessential example of one bad student spoiling it for the rest of the class.

You believe that a golfer should not be penalized for accidentally moving a ball and the majority of times a golfer says, "it was an accident" it will be the truth and nothing will be gained from the incident.  

I believe that if a golfer moves a ball-in-play, he should be charged a stroke because (a) the golfer is responsible for his ball at all times, (b) the golfer can gain an unfair advantage from "accidentally" moving his ball, and (c) you don't know when he's being honest or not. 

I feel like we've gone around enough times.  Don't take offense if I don't reply anymore, I just don't feel like we're making any progress.

None taken. This reply is really just for anyone still reading this thread so I won't expect or be offended if you don't reply. I have really enjoyed reading your point of view on this. Thank you.

Personally I think this new rule highlights an important point regarding the rules of golf. Golf rules assume people are honest and referees are not required.

You accept that some people will always cheat. So regardless of how difficult you make it to cheat by applying rules, they will just simply cheat. I see the problem is that by applying rules to try to guarantee that you cannot cheat, you will punish more innocent people in the quest to eradicate the cheats. A sort of 'guilty until proven innocent' approach. It finds too many people guilty when they are innocent, given the number of guilty cases it catches or avoids.

I prefer an assumption of innocence. it is more in keeping with the spirit of golf. This new rule assumes that a golfer will be honest when assessing why a ball moved and if they intended it to. In fact an awful lot of the rules of golf assume that the golfer will self referee and be honest when doing so.

If we were to reject this rule because it relies on golfers being honest, then there are an awful lot more rules that we should be rejecting, that have been there for an awful long time.

[krupa]

3 minutes ago, Pete said:

None taken. This reply is really just for anyone still reading this thread so I won't expect or be offended if you don't reply. I have really enjoyed reading your point of view on this. Thank you.

Personally I think this new rule highlights an important point regarding the rules of golf. Golf rules assume people are honest and referees are not required.

You accept that some people will always cheat. So regardless of how difficult you make it to cheat by applying rules, they will just simply cheat. I see the problem is that by applying rules to try to guarantee that you cannot cheat, you will punish more innocent people in the quest to eradicate the cheats. A sort of 'guilty until proven innocent' approach. It finds too many people guilty when they are innocent, given the number of guilty cases it catches or avoids.

I prefer an assumption of innocence. it is more in keeping with the spirit of golf. This new rule assumes that a golfer will be honest when assessing why a ball moved and if they intended it to. In fact an awful lot of the rules of golf assume that the golfer will self referee and be honest when doing so.

If we were to reject this rule because it relies on golfers being honest, then there are an awful lot more rules that we should be rejecting, that have been there for an awful long time.

Wait a second, though... I only brought up cheating because I see it as a flaw in your position.  

Fundamentally, I think the new local rule violates one of the central principles of the game.  If you move a ball-in-play, you should be charged a stroke.  It's a shame if it was an accident but you should be careful around the ball.

You think the old rule unfairly penalizes accidents, but that position relies on knowing the intent of the golfer. 

The "flaw" in my position is that bad things will happen to well-meaning golfers.  The "flaw" in your position is two-fold.  First, to repeat, it violates a principle of the game and second that it relies on the word of the golfer which in most cases is honest, but it is also easy to lie when it gives the golfer an advantage.

I'm not going to say I won't reply.  This is  an interesting discussion.

[DaveP043]

22 minutes ago, Pete said:

Personally I think this new rule highlights an important point regarding the rules of golf. Golf rules assume people are honest and referees are not required.

The new local rule and the original rule both rely on the honest evaluations of the player, in way over 99% of circumstances.  In every case, under either rule, the player has to decide whether he was the cause of the movement or not.  The new rule does nothing to change that.  What the revised rule does is to change the motivation of a potential cheater to claim that he did (or didn't) cause the movement, depending on the results of the movement.  Under the old rule, the potential cheater would always be motivated to claim that he was not the cause of the movement.

[Pete]

2 minutes ago, krupa said:

Fundamentally, I think the new local rule violates one of the central principles of the game.  If you move a ball-in-play, you should be charged a stroke.  It's a shame if it was an accident but you should be careful around the ball.

I see your point completely and I can therefore see why you don't like the new local rule. This is the main difference of opinion I think. It's not a central principle of the game to me so I'm happy with the new rule.

 

7 minutes ago, krupa said:

You think the old rule unfairly penalizes accidents, but that position relies on knowing the intent of the golfer. 

Yes it does indeed. You are the golfer and you know your intent. IMO this is part of the game and underpins the rules of golf.

 

15 minutes ago, krupa said:

The "flaw" in my position is that bad things will happen to well-meaning golfers.  The "flaw" in your position is two-fold.  First, to repeat, it violates a principle of the game and second that it relies on the word of the golfer which in most cases is honest, but it is also easy to lie when it gives the golfer an advantage.

Yep. Good summary of our positions. I'm happy that accidentally moving the ball is not a violation of a principle of the game. See @DaveP043's reply above regarding how the new rule makes no difference regarding reliance on honesty of golfer. Thanks Dave.

 

2 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

The new local rule and the original rule both rely on the honest evaluations of the player, in way over 99% of circumstances.  In every case, under either rule, the player has to decide whether he was the cause of the movement or not.  The new rule does nothing to change that.  What the revised rule does is to change the motivation of a potential cheater to claim that he did (or didn't) cause the movement, depending on the results of the movement.  Under the old rule, the potential cheater would always be motivated to claim that he was not the cause of the movement.

Good point. It doesn't change the reliance on honesty at all. This whole cheating business is kind of irrelevant with regard to this new rule isn't it. As @krupa said, cheaters will cheat. This rule just changes how they will cheat.

[Asheville]

Dishonest golfers (and dishonest people, in general) soon run out of other players who will play with them.

[Golfingdad]

1 hour ago, krupa said:

Fundamentally, I think the new local rule violates one of the central principles of the game.  If you move a ball-in-play, you should be charged a stroke.  It's a shame if it was an accident but you should be careful around the ball.

Good point. :)

1 hour ago, krupa said:

The "flaw" in my position is that bad things will happen to well-meaning golfers.  The "flaw" in your position is two-fold.  First, to repeat, it violates a principle of the game and second that it relies on the word of the golfer which in most cases is honest, but it is also easy to lie when it gives the golfer an advantage.

@DaveP043 already addressed this in his response to @Pete, but I disagree with the second part.  The current rule already relies on the word of the golfer, all this new rule would do is it would change the position of the dishonest golfers claim from "I didn't cause it to move" to "I did cause it to move" in certain cases.  Either way, it's still on the golfer.

[krupa]

1 hour ago, DaveP043 said:

The new local rule and the original rule both rely on the honest evaluations of the player, in way over 99% of circumstances.  In every case, under either rule, the player has to decide whether he was the cause of the movement or not.  The new rule does nothing to change that.  What the revised rule does is to change the motivation of a potential cheater to claim that he did (or didn't) cause the movement, depending on the results of the movement.  Under the old rule, the potential cheater would always be motivated to claim that he was not the cause of the movement.

 

6 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

@DaveP043 already addressed this in his response to @Pete, but I disagree with the second part.  The current rule already relies on the word of the golfer, all this new rule would do is it would change the position of the dishonest golfers claim from "I didn't cause it to move" to "I did cause it to move" in certain cases.  Either way, it's still on the golfer.

Thanks for the clarifications!

I revise my opinion of the new local law to just violating the principle of the game. 

[iacas]

5 hours ago, Pete said:

This is a very good point. In the grand scheme of things, this change is going to make very little difference.

I think it could come up more frequently now that there's no penalty. Golfers no longer need to be careful when bending over to mark their ball, walking near their ball, addressing the ball, taking practice strokes near their ball, etc.

5 hours ago, Pete said:

It will eliminate a few penalties that, IMO, were unjustified.

That is your opinion, but I think they were wholly justified. Again, one of the foundational elements of the game is that you advance your ball only by making a stroke at it. Particularly so for a ball in play.

5 hours ago, Pete said:

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.

"Not being careless" is not the fundamental part of the game of which we speak.

5 hours ago, Pete said:

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.

Then why is "ball at rest moved" an entirely separate rule from, say, improving your lie, testing the condition of hazards or grounding your club, etc.?

5 hours ago, Pete said:

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.

You keep talking about an advantage, and I don't know that the rules care about an advantage here. I also presented a case whereby a player could be totally honest, yet now "gain an advantage." The rule hasn't fixed that at all, and only tipped the scales in that direction: before there was no advantage because you got a penalty stroke. Now you can get an advantage and it costs you nothing. You were mum to that point, as you have been to a few others.

5 hours ago, Pete said:

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.

13-4 has broken those things out into separate bits. There's still a line about testing the condition of the hazard, even though you can touch the hazard (with various things). The rule IS actually written like you said it wasn't. There's even an important Decision (you know it is important as it is a 0.5 decision) that speaks to what "testing" is.

Here they are:

Quote

a. Test the condition of the hazard or any similar hazard;

b. Touch the ground in the hazard or water in the water hazard with his hand or a club; or

c. Touch or move a loose impediment lying in or touching the hazard.

Separate items.

Because golfers are certainly allowed to touch the sand. They get in it. They might have to stop themselves from falling. They can throw clubs down in it. Etc.

3 hours ago, Pete said:

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.

I consider treating a ball in play with care to be very important.

Also, as I said earlier, every sport has procedural type rules that seem to have nothing to do with the "skill" directly, but which are still necessary to conduct a game.

3 hours ago, Pete said:

Why would you want unjust penalties in your sport if you could eradicate them?

I don't agree that it's unjust. I think the penalty was completely just. If you caused your ball to move without making a stroke at it, that's contrary to the principles and foundation of the game, and you should be penalized.

I wrote before that I could maybe see re-wording it to include touching or obvious causes, to get the threshold up a little bit, but that is about it.

3 hours ago, Pete said:

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.

It's possible to accidentally move your ball - accidentally - and gain an advantage. I outlined an example above.

2 hours ago, krupa said:

Why? Because there's no way to know what my intention was.

I too prefer rules that don't ask people to be mind readers. Rules based on the actual events, not what someone was thinking, seem to be clearer to me. I don't care if you were targeting the head, Mr. Cornerback, you hit him helmet to helmet, and you'll be penalized.

2 hours ago, krupa said:

As you admit, the rule when applied honestly will not come up much.

Again I think it will come up more often now that there's no penalty for being careless and moving your ball.

1 hour ago, krupa said:

I believe that if a golfer moves a ball-in-play, he should be charged a stroke because (a) the golfer is responsible for his ball at all times, (b) the golfer can gain an unfair advantage from "accidentally" moving his ball, and (c) you don't know when he's being honest or not about his intent.

I'm leaning more on a, and don't care too much about golfers being dishonest, but there's going to be incentive now for them to convince themselves that it was an accident, and there will be more accidents, I think, since there's now no longer a penalty (in events with this Local Rule, which I would guess will be implemented far more often than not, especially casually since golfers don't understand what Local Rules really are).

1 hour ago, krupa said:

Fundamentally, I think the new local rule violates one of the central principles of the game.  If you move a ball-in-play, you should be charged a stroke.  It's a shame if it was an accident but you should be careful around the ball.

Yes, that's the major sticking point for me. I don't care much about actual cheaters.

1 hour ago, krupa said:

The "flaw" in my position is that bad things will happen to well-meaning golfers. The "flaw" in your position is two-fold.  First, to repeat, it violates a principle of the game and second that it relies on the word of the golfer which in most cases is honest, but it is also easy to lie when it gives the golfer an advantage.

To be clear, though the second is reality, I'm still back on the first for the most part.

But the second will happen, too. Even an honest guy can say "yeah, maybe what I did caused the ball to roll back into that water hazard. I mean, the wind wasn't that strong."

It provides an incentive to admit an accident. Even an honest man can be swayed slightly by that. But that's not the main thrust of my opposition.

52 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

The new local rule and the original rule both rely on the honest evaluations of the player, in way over 99% of circumstances. In every case, under either rule, the player has to decide whether he was the cause of the movement or not. The new rule does nothing to change that.

I don't fully agree with that.

Say what happens to DJ happens to someone else but the ball rolls three inches sideways, or two inches backward on a 20 foot putt or something. Before, there'd be a discussion and a determination. Now, I think it's far more likely since nothing serious happened, the golfer will just say "oops" and put the ball back.

And I get what @krupa is saying too. A ball is perched on a tier above a hole. A golfer drops his marker on the ball, and the ball rolls down the hill and shows the golfer the line. Before, the advantage gained was probably more than offset by the one-stroke penalty. Now, you have to basically prove that it wasn't an accident, and even if it truly was an accident, the golfer is given an advantage for being clumsy.

How often were people accidentally moving their balls - but causing them to move - on the putting green anyway? This part of why I feel like this entire Local Rule is reactionary. It's a reaction to one event. Had the rules official on the scene asked more questions and gotten details and concluded that it was not DJ's fault, we'd likely not have this new Local Rule, IMO.

@krupa dropped the second part of his argument while I was typing this up. I still think it applies, but it's a distant second point to the main point. Where as before the golfer could not, even unintentionally, gain an advantage, now they can without penalty. And it only has to be an accident, whether it really was or they just say it was.

[Pete]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

And I get what @krupa is saying too. A ball is perched on a tier above a hole. A golfer drops his marker on the ball, and the ball rolls down the hill and shows the golfer the line. Before, the advantage gained was probably more than offset by the one-stroke penalty. Now, you have to basically prove that it wasn't an accident, and even if it truly was an accident, the golfer is given an advantage for being clumsy.

Yeah this is a good point actually. I know you made it before but I'm only just seeing what you mean. Sorry for being slow. 

If it is a true accident, you can't negate the advantage gained from seeing the ball roll toward the hole as you say. 

Hmm, what would happen under existing rules if I simply marked the ball and as I was cleaning the ball, I dropped it and it rolled toward the hole, showing me the line? I need to check the rules on that. If there is no penalty there, then I guess we've always had the possibility of gaining an advantage from being clumsy/careless.

[Golfingdad]

34 minutes ago, Pete said:

Yeah this is a good point actually. I know you made it before but I'm only just seeing what you mean. Sorry for being slow. 

If it is a true accident, you can't negate the advantage gained from seeing the ball roll toward the hole as you say. 

Hmm, what would happen under existing rules if I simply marked the ball and as I was cleaning the ball, I dropped it and it rolled toward the hole, showing me the line? I need to check the rules on that. If there is no penalty there, then I guess we've always had the possibility of gaining an advantage from being clumsy/careless.

Don't apologize for being slow.  Yesterday when I saw that post I typed up a "clever" response basically pointing out how he was wrong because, "duh!  He has to replace the ball so he doesn't gain any advantage" and was very near clicking submit before it dawned on me. (#facepalm)

Your question is interesting.  I'm curious as to the response.

[Pete]

22 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Your question is interesting.  I'm curious as to the response.

I know if you drop the ball as part of the action of marking it, it does not incur a penalty. So in this case at least, you can already accidently see the ball roll toward the hole and replace it after seeing the line of the putt, for no penalty. I guess the fact that I've never seen this happen, gives me a bit of comfort that it shouldn't start happening with new rule although you might predict that it will happen more often.

 I'm now seeing the point that carelessness can give you an advantage,  and more so after this new local rule. 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

Yeah this is a good point actually. I know you made it before but I'm only just seeing what you mean. Sorry for being slow.

No worries. I type a lot. Shit gets lost in my posts that I think many people just scroll past.

1 hour ago, Pete said:

Hmm, what would happen under existing rules if I simply marked the ball and as I was cleaning the ball, I dropped it and it rolled toward the hole, showing me the line? I need to check the rules on that. If there is no penalty there, then I guess we've always had the possibility of gaining an advantage from being clumsy/careless.

That ball you're cleaning has the advantage, from a rules standpoint, of not being in play. It also has the highly likely disadvantages that a ball dropped is unlikely to hit the same spot or have the same physics as a ball that rolls as a putt would.

Either way, even if you marked it and "cleaned" it from essentially the same spot, the previous rule allowed for an advantage gained accidentally in only one situation, now we have an advantage in two types of situations.

8 minutes ago, Pete said:

I know if you drop the ball as part of the action of marking it, it does not incur a penalty.

Generally, unless you're believed to have done so on purpose, sure.

8 minutes ago, Pete said:

although you might predict that it will happen more often.

I'm now seeing the point that carelessness can give you an advantage,  and more so after this new local rule. 

Yeah. The Local Rule allows golfers to be more careless around their golf balls. Why do we want to encourage that? The position and lie of your ball is important and should be regarded as such, IMO.

If people get to be careless around their golf balls, what was once a very rare occurrence (someone accidentally moving their ball in play) is almost surely to become more common. It may not become "common" but I would bet it will become "more common" for sure.

For example I've seen AimPointers walk up to get their read, and then walk back to their ball taking a WIDE berth so as not to touch their ball. Now they can just walk back to their ball without any worry at all. Kick it 30 feet? No big deal. Just say "oops" and put it back.

[Golfingdad]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

No worries. I type a lot. Shit gets lost in my posts that I think many people just scroll past.

That ball you're cleaning has the advantage, from a rules standpoint, of not being in play. It also has the highly likely disadvantages that a ball dropped is unlikely to hit the same spot or have the same physics as a ball that rolls as a putt would.

Either way, even if you marked it and "cleaned" it from essentially the same spot, the previous rule allowed for an advantage gained accidentally in only one situation, now we have an advantage in two types of situations.

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.

Like you already pointed out, the current scenario involves a ball that is out of play so that would still be OK.  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?