Reasonable Estimates (Modernized Rules + Lexi Thompson)

[iacas]

http://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules-hub/rules-modernization/major-proposed-changes/proposed-change--reasonable-judgment-in-estimating-and-measuring.html

The proposed rule says:

Quote

Proposed Rule: 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).

In talking with a few USGA folks, they've said this is mostly for estimating where a ball crossed the margin of a penalty area or GUR or whatever, or for measuring 20" or whatever (i.e. if they measure but the stick is half an inch from the ball, and they drop at the 20" mark, that's fine) on drops.

But then in the "reasons for change" they specifically say this:

Quote

The Rules generally rely on the integrity of the player, and this is a natural and appropriate extension of this trust in the player.

There are many times when the Rules require a player to estimate or measure a spot, point, line, area or distance, such as when the player:

• Uses a ball-marker to mark a ball’s spot, and then replace the ball, or
• Needs to find a reference point or reference line for taking relief (such as the nearest point of complete relief or the line from the hole through the spot of an unplayable ball), or to determine the extent of a relief area (such as measuring a fixed distance from a reference point or reference line).

Such judgments need to be made promptly, and players often cannot be precise in doing so.

So long as the player did all that could be reasonably expected under the circumstances:

• The player gets no penalty for any small inaccuracies, irrespective of any advantage gained.

Accepting a player’s reasonable judgment would limit “second-guessing” that can arise from the use of enhanced technology (such as video review when golf is televised).

Does 0.7" count as a "small inaccuracy"?

To me, for a well-sighted athletic young woman, "reasonable" is a pretty small window. I don't think placing the ball 0.7" away is at all "reasonable." Especially when she did nothing but lift the ball a few inches and put it right back down. She didn't walk away and forget that she'd marked the ball to the side.

That's why I still don't think that rule would have saved her. It would have simply led to more controversy.

Wayne likely doesn't feel it was "reasonable" either:

 

I think she's at fault of more than a "small inaccuracy," particularly when you consider that she lifted the ball only a few inches and was staring down at it the entire time. If you ignore Wayne's talking, you'll see many replays in a row of her lifting and replacing the ball… poorly. Unreasonably.

[mdl]

I still feel like maybe it's unfair she lost the tourney over it, since it doesn't look from the video like there was any advantage to it – I don't see any spike marks she's trying to get around or anything.

But I feel like it's not a reasonable replacement because she didn't even replace it exactly next to the marker, but on the wrong side.  She put the coin down very close to the ball, as pretty much everyone does, and then put the ball back not all that close to the ball.  Again, it doesn't seem from the video like she was seeking advantage, and I guess I've never been leading in a major (!) so I don't know the mental state that puts you in, but it seems like even for amateurs it's pretty much automatic to just put the ball down exactly next to or in front of the marker unless you've moved your mark, and then there's the whole process for moving the mark back.  

[iacas]

17 minutes ago, mdl said:

I still feel like maybe it's unfair she lost the tourney over it, since it doesn't look from the video like there was any advantage to it – I don't see any spike marks she's trying to get around or anything.

That's not really relevant, though. The rules are written such that the penalties outweigh any potential advantage. Playing from a wrong place could lead to a 1+ stroke advantage.

17 minutes ago, mdl said:

But I feel like it's not a reasonable replacement because she didn't even replace it exactly next to the marker, but on the wrong side.

That's all I'm asking here. I don't think she'd have been able to escape penalties if the 2019 proposed rule is adopted.

[DaveP043]

I agree with @iacas, and I like the illustration from another thread, the ball was moved about 1/2 of its diameter, something like 0.8 inches.  To me, she wasn't "estimating" anything, its easy to know pretty much exactly where the ball was in relation to the mark.  Whether she was flustered due to the pressure, or careless, or moved it intentionally, its just too far to fall under the proposed rule, in my opinion.

[Golfingdad]

23 minutes ago, mdl said:

But I feel like it's not a reasonable replacement because she didn't even replace it exactly next to the marker, but on the wrong side.  She put the coin down very close to the ball, as pretty much everyone does, and then put the ball back not all that close to the ball.

First off, I'm with you and I vote "unreasonable."

However, I don't think the above is accurate.  I think the distance between the ball and coin is the same (or at least pretty close to the same) before and after, but she just brought it "around" the coin closer to her body.  It's closer to the Chella Choi thing than I previously cared to admit, but I think part of the difference is still a lack of clarity (more sun glare, a less pinkish ball) and a less obvious camera angle.

But, if you're talking about a 12-16" long putt, and you're (both generic "you'res") suggesting that it was nefarious, then moving it laterally is even worse, because the player is not gaining much from getting 1/2" closer to the hole from that distance, whereas she could be gaining a lot if she's moving to the side to avoid an imperfection in the green.

6 minutes ago, iacas said:

I don't think she'd have been able to escape penalties if the 2019 proposed rule is adopted.

She would definitely have been able to escape the penalties if the 2019 rules are adopted because ....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

she would have never bothered to mark it, and instead would have just banged it against the flagstick. 

Edited April 5, 2017 by Golfingdad

[GolfLug]

Not reasonable at all. Marker-ball-hole: straight line. It is not that hard to do. IMO anything over quarter a ball off in any direction even for a weekender should raise eye-brows.

OT: I don't know why didn't she just fix the damn depression? It was not a spike mark if the ball was sitting IN it. Tells me that this is usual practice for her and she didn't even think that this was not marking the ball properly.

 

 

[mdl]

30 minutes ago, iacas said:

That's not really relevant, though. The rules are written such that the penalties outweigh any potential advantage. Playing from a wrong place could lead to a 1+ stroke advantage.

I understand that.  And I'm sympathetic to that argument to some degree.  But I think of it sort of like political corruption.  Though the majority of our current supreme court thinks political corruption doesn't actually exist without a signed contract stating the politician will give legislation for a massive personal payment and stating knowledge that this is illegal, historically the idea has been that you want to make laws to avoid the appearance of or legitimate concern for corruption, regardless of whether there was corrupt intent in a particular case.  But then we have judges and juries that, in some cases, are allowed to interpret the law with some laxity so that terribly unjust punishments aren't meted out in cases clearly without corruption but that perhaps can be interpreted as against the letter of the law.  

That's why I feel like maybe the punishment was unjust in this case.  You're already talking about a somewhat fuzzy situation, where you're allowed to mark and pick up your ball and put it back more or less where it started.  It's not like improving a lie where you're just never allowed to touch or move your ball so the line is 100% clear.  So yes, I agree that in this case it doesn't look like a super reasonable movement.  But it was less than an inch away and doesn't appear to have given her an advantage, so likely didn't have nefarious intent.  So I'd argue maybe this is a case where the rules are right, but they also allow for judgement of the rules officials, and they should have ruled that this was not an illegal move of the ball since it was iffy but offered no advantage and doesn't appear to have been intentional and was still a very small move, and the penalty was so severe.

[WestKyGolfer]

I think reasonable judgment would allow 1/8th to maybe 1/4 of an inch, especially when replacing the ball after someone else has putted. I think the allowable error narrows considerably if you are just picking the ball up and setting it right back down. 

[iacas]

13 minutes ago, mdl said:

That's why I feel like maybe the punishment was unjust in this case.

Two strokes for moving your ball 3/4"? Yeah, probably too severe. But again, they're trying to simplify the Rules of Golf, not add long lists under "Playing from a Wrong Place" that lists the different penalties for different situations. So sometimes the penalty is a little too severe.

13 minutes ago, mdl said:

You're already talking about a somewhat fuzzy situation, where you're allowed to mark and pick up your ball and put it back more or less where it started.

It's really not all that fuzzy. She didn't put the ball back and played from a wrong place. I've only seen like one or two people saying she didn't deserve the "wrong place" penalty.

13 minutes ago, mdl said:

So I'd argue maybe this is a case where the rules are right, but they also allow for judgement of the rules officials, and they should have ruled that this was not an illegal move of the ball since it was iffy but offered no advantage and doesn't appear to have been intentional and was still a very small move, and the penalty was so severe.

If she moved it away from a spike mark or out of a hole, she gained an advantage.

Just now, WestKyGolfer said:

I think reasonable judgment would allow 1/8th to maybe 1/4 of an inch, especially when replacing the ball after someone else has putted. I think the allowable error narrows considerably if you are just picking the ball up and setting it right back down. 

I'm hesitant to put a number on it, but gun-to-my-head-scenario, those feel about right.

[Shooting29]

I don't really get the "didn't gain an advantage" argument.  If a ball is in the fairway should we allow someone to kick it into the weeds and play from there because they "aren't gaining an advantage"?

[No Mulligans]

I voted unreasonable.  But I don't see that an estimate is involved in this situation.  You mark the ball and you put it back were you mark it.  Any variance isn't a result of an estimate, no one is saying to themselves "let me make an estimate of where I should place this".  Any unintentional variance is due to the imprecision of being human not due to some judgement or estimate... or due to a 'brain fart' which I know about all to well.

I can understand up to a 1/2" to far forward or back, after all the marker will be a bit blocked from view as you place and/or pick up the ball.  But side to side, any able bodied young person could place a ball 100 times in a row and get the ball within 1/4" side to side.  Heck, I'm 59 and I'd bet I can do that.  0.7"+ is way out of range of reasonableness, jeez that's almost the entire width of a standard ball marker.

But... is reasonable defined by the culture.  It seems that Phill Mickelson feels that it is customary for PGA/LPGA golfers to move their balls a little bit on the green.  Phil's position kind of floored me though.

[iacas]

15 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

I voted unreasonable.  But I don't see that an estimate is involved in this situation.  You mark the ball and you put it back were you mark it.  Any variance isn't a result of an estimate, no one is saying to themselves "let me make an estimate of where I should place this".

I don't either. I'm not sure why marking and replacing a ball (ostensibly on the putting green, at least around 99% of the time…) is included as an example.

16 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

0.7"+ is way out of range of reasonableness, jeez that's almost the entire width of a standard ball marker.

FWIW, a penny is 3/4" in diameter. A quarter is almost a full inch across. A pencil eraser is about 0.2".

[406pat]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

The player did all that could be reasonably expected under the circumstances to make a prompt and accurate estimation or measurement.

I voted No, mostly based on the bolded statement. Under the circumstances it is reasonable to expect a player to mark in line with the hole and replace the ball on that line. There was no condition that prevented her from marking the ball from behind. There was a ball marked to the side, but a player could very reasonably have approached the ball from behind without stepping on the other players line or mark. The circumstances also include that only seconds passed between marking and replacing. 

20 minutes ago, iacas said:

I don't either. I'm not sure why marking and replacing a ball (ostensibly on the putting green, at least around 99% of the time…) is included as an example.

I agree. The only big scenario I could think of where this rule would clarify is if a ball is marked and the mark is moved. It could be very difficult to replace the mark so that when the ball is replaced it's exactly where it was before. This rule could defend a player replacing the marker as near as possible if reviewing video evidence showed that they were off. Really reaching on finding examples though.

[coachjimsc]

I did this at my desk just to see what 3/4" actually looks like.

[Image Missing]

Yeah that's not reasonable at all. IMO she did two things wrong.

1. She marked the ball from the side and not behind it.

2. SHE MARKED THE BALL AT ALL!

Knock the damn thing in Lexi. 

[gatsby47]

I was thinking about the reasonableness factors today as I returned home from my snow filled golf course. ( We did have an executive meeting 1st of the the season so that's progress ).  I always use a 1949 Ben Franklin Silver Half Dollar as my marker in Canada and a two dollar Toonie while playing in the States. Others here have purchased or kept a poker style chip and use that.  They are, comparatively, large. I'm not sure how far you mark your ball, lift, and replace while still touching the ball to the edge of the marker but it is , in the miniature world of micrometres quite different. But I would say to you, that if placed back on the marker's edge it would be reasonable. Not to try convincing you nor try to sway anyone.  I have stated before, that Lexi's penalty was warranted but the idea of reasonableness is something that will not be easily resolved. Especially in light of Professionals' comments that they are not speaking out against questionable remarking. One might have to be able to defend some re-marks though, with more than just witty repartee, on some of the courses and with some of the golfers with whom I have played in my delightful journey through the golfing world. Interesting times indeed.  We can always call the Augusta joint and tell them what we saw.

[mvmac]

I also voted unreasonable. 0.7" may not seem like much but it noticeable IMO when I did it myself. As much as she's played and at the level she play Lexi should be able to recognize how off she was. Bad judgement on her part, I hope she's being honest with herself so she can learn from it.

[Jack Watson]

I also voted unreasonable.

I discussed it with a playing partner and we agreed in our games and even 'tournaments' we play in we simply don't care as long as the ball is replaced within an inch or so on any given putt.  

You still have to make it.

However for pro golf for lots of money that's unacceptable.  

They absolutely must do it right.

[DrvFrShow]

What it looks like to me was that she was careless in placing the marker, but careful in placing the ball. Now that would be the only thing that would make sense. That would be perhaps why in her mind she placed the ball in the correct location in line with the ball marker. Now why she would place the ball marker incorrectly? Anyone's guess - stress, brain fart, a mental lapse of some sort, we all have them. I wouldn't go so far as to call her a "cheater!" because there's no proof that it was intentional. 

But I voted unacceptable simply because there's a shit ton of money on the line. In our weekend or weekday games there's nothing on the line except our pride which is usually gone by the time we've taken a breakfast ball on the first tee. And "winter rules" are still in play until mid-June. Courses up here right now are pretty bad.