Modernized Rules Discussion: Player Behavior

[iacas]

This is for the discussion of this portion of the new Modernized Rules.

Player Behavior

Expected Standards of Player Conduct

Code of Player Conduct

Elimination of the Requirement to Announce the Player's Intent to Lift a Ball

Reasonable Judgment in Estimating and Measuring

[iacas]

The first two basically say… if you want to adopt a rule that says it's a two-stroke penalty for swearing, or for slamming your club into the ground, or throwing your club, that's allowable.

The third deals with the non-need to call over another player to let them observe you picking up the ball for identification, etc.

But you don't just get to pick it up whenever as there's still a penalty for doing so if you had no reason.

The fourth, honestly, I don't even feel is really a change. Players always had to use their best judgment. So what am I missing? What's really different? Something subtle? Admittedly I'm going pretty fast right now.

[dsc123]

These seem pretty reasonable to me. 

My only reservation is with the last one.  I hope that over time, it doesn't erode the honesty principles underlying the rule.  I agree that if someone gives their best effort to get it right, there should be no penalty.  I just worry that under the proposed rule, rather than giving their best effort to find the correct spot, players may start to choose the most advantageous spot that is not unreasonable. 

Edited March 1, 2017 by dsc123

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, dsc123 said:

I hope that over time, it doesn't erode the honesty principles underlying the rule.  I agree that if someone gives their best effort to get it right, there should be no penalty. 

I'm going quickly right now so not focusing on any one particular set… but what really changed about this? Don't we now just pick the spot we think is the right one and drop there (or whatever)?

[dsc123]

Just now, iacas said:

I'm going quickly right now so not focusing on any one particular set… but what really changed about this? Don't we now just pick the spot we think is the right one and drop there (or whatever)?

 

Under new Rule 1.3a(2), whenever required to estimate or measure a spot, point, line, area or distance, the player’s reasonable judgment would be accepted if:

• The player did all that could be reasonably expected under the circumstances to make a prompt and accurate estimation or measurement.
• This means that the player’s reasonable judgment would be upheld even if later shown to be wrong by other information (such as video technology).

 

They don't reference any particular current rule, and I'm no rules expert, so please correct me if I'm wrong.  I think of this in the context of replaying a shot that is lost.  Currently, you have to play from the same spot.  But practically speaking, unless you can find the divot or some marker, that's not possible in an absolute sense, so you're always just trying to make a reasonable estimate.  In that sense, there may be no difference.  But there may be a slight difference, psychologically even, in changing the focus from finding the "same spot" to finding a "reasonably close spot," as giving the player more leeway.  Just my slight hesitation in fully embracing the rule; I don't oppose it. 

[dsc123]

I think this clears up the slight concern that I had. http://www.usga.org/rules-hub/rules-modernization/major-proposed-changes/proposed-change-replacing-ball-when-original-spot-is-not-known.html

[iacas]

They said on Morning Drive this would have saved Tiger Woods at Augusta on the 15th hole… and I disagree. His spot was known and he didn't exercise judgment to drop as closely as possible to where he was originally.

So I think he still would have been found at fault there.

[Fourputt]

No problem with any of these.

[Hardspoon]

11 hours ago, iacas said:

The fourth, honestly, I don't even feel is really a change. Players always had to use their best judgment. So what am I missing? What's really different? Something subtle? Admittedly I'm going pretty fast right now.

The only thing I can think of is consistency, to make sure that any rule that involves judgement has the same language for "protection" from the high-definition-video review factor.

9 hours ago, iacas said:

They said on Morning Drive this would have saved Tiger Woods at Augusta on the 15th hole… and I disagree. His spot was known and he didn't exercise judgment to drop as closely as possible to where he was originally.

Agreed - especially since he said aloud that he just f--ked up the rule.

[mvmac]

@iacas does this mean you now have to take your hat off when shaking hands after a round?  (inside joke)

15 hours ago, iacas said:

Elimination of the Requirement to Announce the Player's Intent to Lift a Ball

Even though most of the time I would just give a "yep" when a competitor let me know I think it's a good thing that they had to do it.

[iacas]

7 hours ago, mvmac said:

@iacas does this mean you now have to take your hat off when shaking hands after a round?  (inside joke)

Ha! Those guys weren't wearing hats! Look at their hair!

[bkuehn1952]

I am ambivalent about the removal of the need to announce when one is lifting the ball. Frankly, a lot of players lift their ball to identify it without announcing it and/or when it is not really necessary.  I don't think they should be penalized for the inadvertent failure to announce. The USGA got that right.  On the other hand, there are some members of our club that are pretty consistently handling their ball.  While I know they are not consciously seeking an advantage, the replacement of their ball is, in virtually all cases, better than when they picked it up.  Also, lots of golfers are hazy about when one can clean the ball. 

At least in the past, when these guys got ready to lift and they remembered to announce it, I had a chance to say, "Hold on, I will be over in a sec."  Now, when I turned around he is going to have his ball in his hand, getting ready to replace it.

[iacas]

36 minutes ago, bkuehn1952 said:

On the other hand, there are some members of our club that are pretty consistently handling their ball.  While I know they are not consciously seeking an advantage, the replacement of their ball is, in virtually all cases, better than when they picked it up.

Yup. And if the old rule didn't thwart them… the new one's just gonna let them feel freer to do it more. That's part of why the USGA is emphasizing the "honor" part. Hopefully people show that honor a bit more sometimes. (I doubt you're talking about formal competitions much there… no?)

36 minutes ago, bkuehn1952 said:

Also, lots of golfers are hazy about when one can clean the ball.

One of the easier things to look up and know. Basically, if it's a penalty or you're on the green, go ahead. Otherwise, don't. That's the simplest form. The new proposed rules are similar to the current ones:

Quote

A ball lifted from the putting green may always be cleaned (see Rule 13.1).

A ball lifted from anywhere else may always be cleaned except when it is lifted:

• To See if It is Cut or Cracked. Cleaning is not allowed (see Rule 4.2b).
• To Identify It. Cleaning is allowed only as much as is needed to identify it (see Rule 7.2).
• Because It Interferes with Play. Cleaning is not allowed (see Rule 15.3a(2)).
• To see if It Lies In Condition Where Relief is Allowed. Cleaning is not allowed, unless the player takes relief under a Rule (see Rule 16.4). 

Pretty straightforward.

36 minutes ago, bkuehn1952 said:

At least in the past, when these guys got ready to lift and they remembered to announce it, I had a chance to say, "Hold on, I will be over in a sec."  Now, when I turned around he is going to have his ball in his hand, getting ready to replace it.

If he doesn't have a reason to have done so, he can be penalized. Call them on THAT a few times, even without actually assigning the penalties, and they'll figure it out.

Maybe.

[Lefty-Golfer]

the rule IMO won't change much, if the guy was going to handle before he still will now, with a free conscience...assuming they ever cared in the first place!

[iacas]

On 3/1/2017 at 9:07 AM, iacas said:

Player Behavior

Elimination of the Requirement to Announce the Player's Intent to Lift a Ball

http://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules-hub/rules-modernization/major-proposed-changes/proposed-change--elimination-of-the-requirement-to-announce-the-.html

Still not a fan of this one.

This almost never happens. You almost never need to lift your ball to identify it because you can almost always see your mark. Most players mark both sides of the ball, further reducing the odds of this happening.

If this rule is put into place, though, you'll have players putting their hands on their ball more frequently. Then they'll be unlikely to re-create the lie or replace their ball, and anyone who wanted to take advantage of this could.

I understand and support the USGA/R&A's desire to treat golfers as trustworthy, but this situation doesn't beg for an extension of that, due to the infrequency by which it is necessary to identify your ball by lifting it.

[boogielicious]

14 minutes ago, iacas said:

http://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules-hub/rules-modernization/major-proposed-changes/proposed-change--elimination-of-the-requirement-to-announce-the-.html

Still not a fan of this one.

This almost never happens. You almost never need to lift your ball to identify it because you can almost always see your mark. Most players mark both sides of the ball, further reducing the odds of this happening.

If this rule is put into place, though, you'll have players putting their hands on their ball more frequently. Then they'll be unlikely to re-create the lie or replace their ball, and anyone who wanted to take advantage of this could.

I understand and support the USGA/R&A's desire to treat golfers as trustworthy, but this situation doesn't beg for an extension of that, due to the infrequency by which it is necessary to identify your ball by lifting it.

Agree. What does it take, 10 seconds?

[Hardspoon]

20 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

Agree. What does it take, 10 seconds?

Right.  It's not like you have to wait for them to come over and observe.

And, since nobody has to actually observe your procedure, I don't think this contradicts the ideal of "trust".  All it does is make you announce when you're taking an action that is (effectively) contrary to the principle of playing the ball as it lies.

I think it's the same as playing a provisional ball.  The announcement is a good requirement.

[Dannyhansen88]

If the first 2 are adopted I won't break 150