Jon Rahm Thread

[26point2]

He got a lucky no penalty call.  His ball replacement was a lot more obvious than Lexi's.  I guess that's part of the "did not intend" rule change.

Craig

[Vinsk]

8 minutes ago, 26point2 said:

He got a lucky no penalty call.  His ball replacement was a lot more obvious than Lexi's.  I guess that's part of the "did not intend" rule change.

Craig

I don't think 'intent' is a criteria in that rule. The silly anchoring nonsense has it, but you either improperly marked your ball or not. The only criteria IIRC is if it's visible to the naked eye. This was.

[Golfingdad]

39 minutes ago, 26point2 said:

He got a lucky no penalty call.  His ball replacement was a lot more obvious than Lexi's.  I guess that's part of the "did not intend" rule change.

Craig

Penalty would've been 1 or 2 strokes and he won by 6.

[26point2]

11 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Penalty would've been 1 or 2 strokes and he won by 6.

It would have been a 2 stroke penalty.  He was up by 5 at the time, up by 3 w/the penalty.  And who knows what would have happened in his head after.  He wasn't exactly driving the ball well.

Plus the guys behind him might have picked it up if they saw they were only 3 back.

[Golfingdad]

2 hours ago, 26point2 said:

It would have been a 2 stroke penalty.  He was up by 5 at the time, up by 3 w/the penalty.  And who knows what would have happened in his head after.  He wasn't exactly driving the ball well.

Plus the guys behind him might have picked it up if they saw they were only 3 back.

So you're suggesting that the guys behind him weren't trying their hardest?  That's ridiculous.

[26point2]

11 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

So you're suggesting that the guys behind him weren't trying their hardest?  That's ridiculous.

Ok, you are absolutely correct, a mid-round 2 stroke penalty would not have made any difference for any of the players. 

[weekend hacker1]

Very good player, obviously, but comes across as a spoilt brat. And he needs to learn how to shout fore.

[krupa]

17 hours ago, Vinsk said:

I don't think 'intent' is a criteria in that rule. The silly anchoring nonsense has it, but you either improperly marked your ball or not. The only criteria IIRC is if it's visible to the naked eye. This was.

It may not be part of the rule, but that's how the official justified it:

Quote

After speaking with Rahm, rules official Andy McFee determined Rahm might not have returned his ball to the exact location, but it was "millimeters" closer and there was no intent to break the rule.

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golf-central-blog/watch-rahm-ruling-sparks-another-controversy

Pretty pathetic, in my opinion.  Rahm should have been penalized.  He could have been winning by 20 on the final hole and he still should be penalized.  Hell, he should have penalized himself!  

I hate this intent bullshit.  You break a rule, you incur the penalty.  Oh, you didn't mean to break the rule?  Well be more f-ing careful next time; you're a professional playing for millions of dollars, ffs.

[Vinsk]

Yeah I guess next time I slice a tee shot in the water I'm just gonna say, "Wait, wait....I didn't mean to do that."

Edited July 10, 2017 by Vinsk

[Groucho Valentine]

Meh. Even if Rahms ball was closer to the hole, it was no more than a dimple width. The golf world isnt going to end because Rahm putted 1/4 of a inch out of position.  Im sure you all do that at least once a round every single time you play and dont notice it.

[DeadMan]

I wish he would have taken the penalty/called it on himself anyway. But, in the end, the rules officials said it wasn't a penalty, so it's not a penalty. I think he just got a little sloppy and I hope this will wake him up to be a little more careful (unlike, say, Lexi...).

[krupa]

2 hours ago, Groucho Valentine said:

Meh. Even if Rahms ball was closer to the hole, it was no more than a dimple width. The golf world isnt going to end because Rahm putted 1/4 of a inch out of position.  Im sure you all do that at least once a round every single time you play and dont notice it.

Are you kidding?  I don't even mark my ball when I rotate it to use the little arrow for aiming!  But then again, I don't compete or even carry a handicap so it doesn't matter what I do (except that I'm getting into bad habits in case I ever want to compete (I will never want to compete.)).  Lest you think I'm holding them to a different standard, I do compete in pool leagues (for money) and I've called numerous fouls on myself that no one else saw or realized were fouls (new players don't always understand our rule set.)

I was looking at the other thread about this and there as an attempt at overlaying two images.  It really doesn't look like a foul when you do that.   So I retract my previous post.

Had he replaced the ball to the side the marker instead of in front, it probably wouldn't have been noticed.  My issue was that based on replay alone, he put the ball in front of his marker rather than to the side.  Different place = rule broken.  The argument of "it wasn't moved that much" doesn't fly with me because it means rules get applied differently for different people:  Someone has to interpret when a ball has moved too far and that will change every time they do it.  And yes, there's no way to exactly place it exactly where it was originally, I get that, but there's a clear difference between side of marker and front of marker.

[Groucho Valentine]

1 hour ago, krupa said:

Are you kidding?  I don't even mark my ball when I rotate it to use the little arrow for aiming!  But then again, I don't compete or even carry a handicap so it doesn't matter what I do (except that I'm getting into bad habits in case I ever want to compete (I will never want to compete.)).  Lest you think I'm holding them to a different standard, I do compete in pool leagues (for money) and I've called numerous fouls on myself that no one else saw or realized were fouls (new players don't always understand our rule set.)

I was looking at the other thread about this and there as an attempt at overlaying two images.  It really doesn't look like a foul when you do that.   So I retract my previous post.

Had he replaced the ball to the side the marker instead of in front, it probably wouldn't have been noticed.  My issue was that based on replay alone, he put the ball in front of his marker rather than to the side.  Different place = rule broken.  The argument of "it wasn't moved that much" doesn't fly with me because it means rules get applied differently for different people:  Someone has to interpret when a ball has moved too far and that will change every time they do it.  And yes, there's no way to exactly place it exactly where it was originally, I get that, but there's a clear difference between side of marker and front of marker.

Sloppy and absent minded by Rahm, yes. But the officials ruled no foul and i agree with them. Rahm could have misplaced his ball by the same amount even if he put it in front of his mark and he or nobody else would have noticed. We're talking fractions of an inch, here. 

[krupa]

8 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

Rahm could have misplaced his ball by the same amount even if he put it in front of his mark and he or nobody else would have noticed. We're talking fractions of an inch, here. 

The reason there was any question at all is that Rahm put his mark down next to his ball and then we he replaced the ball, put the ball in front of his mark.  It happens that by replacing his mark and putting his ball in front of it, he put the ball back in the original spot.  

If he hadn't had to move his mark, and simply marked his ball to the side, but then put his ball back down in front of the marker, would you still support the ruling? 

[Groucho Valentine]

22 minutes ago, krupa said:

The reason there was any question at all is that Rahm put his mark down next to his ball and then we he replaced the ball, put the ball in front of his mark.  It happens that by replacing his mark and putting his ball in front of it, he put the ball back in the original spot.  

If he hadn't had to move his mark, and simply marked his ball to the side, but then put his ball back down in front of the marker, would you still support the ruling? 

I dont know why he would do that, but if the officials say no foul then its not a foul. If there was a spike mark or something in front he was clearly trying to avoid, then i would support a penalty. 

[Golfingdad]

24 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

I dont know why he would do that, but if the officials say no foul then its not a foul. If there was a spike mark or something in front he was clearly trying to avoid, then i would support a penalty. 

He did it because the other players marker was sitting there, I believe.

I can only assume that this is a topic of conversation simply because of the Lexi thing.  We're a little too focused on something that is quite trivial, especially considering that there is evidence (at least in the thread that is specifically about this) that he replaced his ball in the correct spot.