8 Shot Penalty for Ben Crane, Sabbatini Disqualified

[Vinsk]

36 minutes ago, iacas said:

I'd be on board with changing the rule to say that if you haven't used the club, fine. You're allowed to spit on your club or even use soap to clean your club, but you have to wipe it away completley before you hit a shot with it.

Ok. I'm good.

[Vinsk]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Dude you continue to be a douche about that

Rather unbecoming of you @iacas. My whole point which remains true is that it's way too grey as to whether the naked eye can determine if anchoring is taking place or not. It's based on integrity and the player's word which even as you stated (Lexi) has been questioned and cannot be the sole enforcing factor. 

I agree the player should not be penalized if the foreign substance is removed prior to using the club.

[Vinsk]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

@Vinsk the stickers could easily affect ball flight.

 

Along the outer edge of the face? Would be counterintuitive to using a monitor then. Prove it. I can't prove anchoring is taking place. And with a human hitting a club with those stickers along the outer edge, you can't prove that either.

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

However, that doesn't seem to be how the rule is currently written, so as it is, they really couldn't have done anything else about it other than apply the penalty and make a note to look into changing it in the future.

Yep.

1 hour ago, Vinsk said:

@iacas you repeatedly use examples that EVERYONE knows affect the ball flight. What is the purpose of putting stickers on your club face edges for ball monitoring if the stickers themselves affect the ball flight? 

Re-read what I wrote.

The stickers affect ball flight if you hit them. The rules cannot be written to say "OK, I just won't hit them even though they're on the clubface."

2 hours ago, Vinsk said:

Your anchoring experiment is worthless.

It's worth a lot more than your complete lack of evidence.

2 hours ago, Vinsk said:

The rule has the phrase "with the purpose of altering the ball flight." There is no common knowledge that those stickers outside the hitting face alter the ball flight. Sand paper and Vasoline are poor examples in this case period.

I already spoke to that. It could be worded better but is intended to allow spitting on, using soap, water, etc.

Water is not affixed to the clubface like stickers.

@Vinsk you seem to always want to rule based on how you think things should be but rules cannot and should nor work that way.

Stickers on the face can affect the movement of the ball. It doesn't matter that he did not use the club. I'd support changing the rule to say that. But you can't rule other than how it is now.

[Vinsk]

29 minutes ago, iacas said:

@Vinsk you seem to always want to rule based on how you think things should be but rules cannot and should nor work that way.

Yes I do tend to do that. I guess I see the rules as being there to prevent any unfairness, advantage, etc. to keep the field fair. I just think it's poor wording to have, "for the purpose of alternating the ball flight.' That makes the rule open for interpretation. The rule should allow no penalty if the foreign substance is removed prior to the club being used.

 

[Missouri Swede]

Update:  He's now been disqualified because he knew about the 6 iron. 

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golf-central-blog/crane-hit-two-four-shot-penalties-boise-open/?p=ya5nbcs&ocid=yahoo&yptr=yahoo

Quote

After further consultation with both Ben Crane and the USGA, Web.com Tour officials decided to disqualify Crane because he knowingly played with a non-conforming club for two holes.

According to a statement from Jim Duncan, vice president of rules and competition, Crane discovered that he had stickers on both his driver and 6-iron on the 11th hole. While he immediately took the driver out of play, he didn't pull the 6-iron from his bag until No. 14.

"He came back this morning and said he knew he had the 6-iron. He's got to make a declaration that that club is out of play," Duncan said. "Either to a member of the committee, which he could've told (rules official) Andrew Miller, or to one of his fellow playing competitors. When he didn't make that declaration, at the point he knew he had to take that club out of play, that's ultimately a disqualification penalty."

 

[iacas]

18 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Yes I do tend to do that. I guess I see the rules as being there to prevent any unfairness, advantage, etc. to keep the field fair. I just think it's poor wording to have, "for the purpose of alternating the ball flight.' That makes the rule open for interpretation. The rule should allow no penalty if the foreign substance is removed prior to the club being used.

It doesn't.

The rules are perfectly fair because they're the same for everyone.

The rules strive to be equitable as well.

---

In thinking about this more, I'm not certain anymore I would support changing the rule. As it is right now, you're not even allowed to carry a non-conforming club. That is simple and direct. It has a stiff penalty. Maybe that's just fine.

[DaveP043]

4 hours ago, Grinde6 said:

I dont like this call at all.  For a guy that is trying to make a living, ......

 

3 hours ago, Ernest Jones said:

....... it's an Idiot Tax.

For me, making my living, I do my best to know and understand the rules that govern my profession.  Ben realized he'd blundered, he knew the rules, he simply forgot to remove the stickers.  I find it completely amazing that he didn't check the rest of his clubs immediately, but instead found the second club with stickers a few holes later.  But he obviously knew the rules, realized he'd screwed up.

I do agree with some of the others, I think the rule would be cleaner if it simply banned a player from putting anything on the face of the club, without regard to the purpose, with the current exemptions for spit and other "cleaners" intact.  I also dislike the penalty for a hole on which he hadn't started play.  If you remove the sticker before your first tee shot, there's no penalty.  If you finish hole 1, and the stickers are still there, you get a penalty on the second hole as well as on the first.  I don't like that, the penalty for hole 2 should only come into effect if you've put the ball in play on hole 2, in my opinion.  I understand the rule says different, but I think that should be reviewed.

[Vinsk]

18 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

 

For me, making my living, I do my best to know and understand the rules that govern my profession.  Ben realized he'd blundered, he knew the rules, he simply forgot to remove the stickers.  I find it completely amazing that he didn't check the rest of his clubs immediately, but instead found the second club with stickers a few holes later.  But he obviously knew the rules, realized he'd screwed up.

I do agree with some of the others, I think the rule would be cleaner if it simply banned a player from putting anything on the face of the club, without regard to the purpose, with the current exemptions for spit and other "cleaners" intact.  I also dislike the penalty for a hole on which he hadn't started play.  If you remove the sticker before your first tee shot, there's no penalty.  If you finish hole 1, and the stickers are still there, you get a penalty on the second hole as well as on the first.  I don't like that, the penalty for hole 2 should only come into effect if you've put the ball in play on hole 2, in my opinion.  I understand the rule says different, but I think that should be reviewed.

Well...he did know about the 6i having them too. So now he's disqualified. Appropriate, he was dishonest and deserves to be DQ'd.

[iacas]

21 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I don't like that, the penalty for hole 2 should only come into effect if you've put the ball in play on hole 2, in my opinion.  I understand the rule says different, but I think that should be reviewed.

Work through the reasoning in your mind. Consider the similarly penalized offenses. Remember how seriously the Rules treat nonconforming equipment.

[Vinsk]

Oil effects the ball flight. When a player wipes his putter face to clear it, he is leaving oil residue from his skin on the putterface. Should be penalized.

[Golfingdad]

41 minutes ago, iacas said:

In thinking about this more, I'm not certain anymore I would support changing the rule. As it is right now, you're not even allowed to carry a non-conforming club. That is simple and direct. It has a stiff penalty. Maybe that's just fine.

Feel free to not answer since this is OT, but ...

Spoiler

where is the line drawn between an illegal "non-conforming" club and something that is not a club at all and is allowed in the bag?  You are allowed to carry alignment sticks.  Some people I've seen will carry around club shafts without heads on them (I think @mvmac does this sometimes ;)) to use, presumably, as alignment aids during practice.  Is that allowed?  Many carry around Orange Whips and those are a teeny bit more club like because they have a head.  Then you start getting into your weighted clubs.  I used to have one that had a normal clubhead on it, with a weighted shaft, and one of those contoured grips and I can easily see how that would be deemed illegal.  However, I've also seen the ones where the "clubhead" is a tubular piece of metal in an outline of a clubhead but with no midsection - like a donut sort of.  Nobody would ever mistake that for a club and try and use it.

 

[Ernest Jones]

14 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Feel free to not answer since this is OT, but ...

  Hide contents

where is the line drawn between an illegal "non-conforming" club and something that is not a club at all and is allowed in the bag?  You are allowed to carry alignment sticks.  Some people I've seen will carry around club shafts without heads on them (I think @mvmac does this sometimes ;)) to use, presumably, as alignment aids during practice.  Is that allowed?  Many carry around Orange Whips and those are a teeny bit more club like because they have a head.  Then you start getting into your weighted clubs.  I used to have one that had a normal clubhead on it, with a weighted shaft, and one of those contoured grips and I can easily see how that would be deemed illegal.  However, I've also seen the ones where the "clubhead" is a tubular piece of metal in an outline of a clubhead but with no midsection - like a donut sort of.  Nobody would ever mistake that for a club and try and use it.

 

All the more reason why the rule needs to be strictly applied. Otherwise it invites endless debate - see "divots as GUR". 

[billchao]

I'm fine with the ruling and I'd also be fine if they changed it so the player isn't penalized if he/she hasn't used the illegal club before they declared it out of play.

I'm a little curious about the DQ though. If he knew the driver was deemed non-conforming and he knew he had stickers on his 6i also, why didn't he just declare it out of play right there? Was he hoping he would get away with it because he felt he probably needed it more than the driver? Kind of brings his integrity into question.

5 hours ago, Alx said:

Nonsense like this is the reason golf has an uptight and elitist image...

Ok lets be honest with ourselves, rules aren't the reason golf has an uptight and elitist image. Every sport has tons of rules governing small details than may not even have any effect on the actual performance of the athletes.

Golf has an uptight and elitist image because of very exclusive private clubs.

[Alx]

1 hour ago, billchao said:

Kind of brings his integrity into question.

Oh please. Its not like he was actually getting any benefit from those stickers.

 

1 hour ago, billchao said:

Ok lets be honest with ourselves, rules aren't the reason golf has an uptight and elitist image. Every sport has tons of rules governing small details than may not even have any effect on the actual performance of the athletes.

Golf has an uptight and elitist image because of very exclusive private clubs.

Sure they are. Atleast a big part of it. Most of the non-golfers Ive talked to bring up complex rules and etiquette. Reading something along the lines of "Golfer get 8 shots penalty for a sticker on his club" in the sports news is just going to reinforce that image.

I cant remeber a non-golfer ever mentioning exclusive clubs.

[billchao]

23 minutes ago, Alx said:

Oh please. Its not like he was actually getting any benefit from those stickers.

At that point it's irrelevant. He knew the driver was no good because of the stickers and he knew he had the same stickers on his 6i. He failed to bring that to somebody's attention for whatever reason and was DQed.

[Buckeyebowman]

4 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

 

For me, making my living, I do my best to know and understand the rules that govern my profession.  Ben realized he'd blundered, he knew the rules, he simply forgot to remove the stickers.  I find it completely amazing that he didn't check the rest of his clubs immediately, but instead found the second club with stickers a few holes later.  But he obviously knew the rules, realized he'd screwed up.

I do agree with some of the others, I think the rule would be cleaner if it simply banned a player from putting anything on the face of the club, without regard to the purpose, with the current exemptions for spit and other "cleaners" intact.  I also dislike the penalty for a hole on which he hadn't started play.  If you remove the sticker before your first tee shot, there's no penalty.  If you finish hole 1, and the stickers are still there, you get a penalty on the second hole as well as on the first.  I don't like that, the penalty for hole 2 should only come into effect if you've put the ball in play on hole 2, in my opinion.  I understand the rule says different, but I think that should be reviewed.

And it's not just the player. How about his caddie? Does he know the rules, and doesn't he counsel his man as to what is what?

As for those who think the Rules of Golf are a little labyrinthine, have you ever read the rules of NFL football? Hell! Those people have trouble describing what a catch is!

[Hardspoon]

The quality of a rule cannot be judged by the quality (or "fairness") of individual rulings.

Does this result seem sort of arbitrary?  Sure.  Did he gain an advantage with the infraction he was penalized for?  No.

Is the rule still a good one, because it is absolute, black-and-white, and prevents all sorts of potential cheating?  YES.

Edited September 16, 2017 by Hardspoon