8 Shot Penalty for Ben Crane, Sabbatini Disqualified

[iacas]

4 hours ago, Vinsk said:

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.

You're being ridiculous.

4 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

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

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?

I'll answer it quickly and from memory… Clubs have a shaft and a clubhead designed to strike the ball. They may or may not have a grip (they're allowed to).

An Orange Whip is not a club. A shaft is not a club. An Orange Whip wedge is a non-conforming club.

4 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

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.

Not clubs.

4 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

Many carry around Orange Whips and those are a teeny bit more club like because they have a head.

It's not a clubhead. It is unusual equipment and they should be careful not to use it during the round.

4 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

Then you start getting into your weighted clubs.

Most of those are clubs. They may even be conforming.

4 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

and one of those contoured grips and I can easily see how that would be deemed illegal.

That's a non-conforming grip, yes.

4 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

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.

That's not a clubhead. It's not designed to strike a golf ball.

33 minutes ago, Alx said:

Most of the non-golfers Ive talked to bring up complex rules and etiquette.

I doubt that. But that's not the topic here, so…

[14ledo81]

31 minutes ago, billchao said:

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.

I think at that point it was possible he wanted to be DQed. He probably didn't feel like playing from 8 shots back.

[billchao]

11 minutes ago, 14ledo81 said:

I think at that point it was possible he wanted to be DQed. He probably didn't feel like playing from 8 shots back.

He didn't get DQed until the next day.

http://golfweek.com/2017/09/15/ben-crane-now-dqd-from-web-tour-finals-event-after-penalty-situation-update/
 

Quote

Crane said he noticed the driver decal standing on No. 11 tee (his second hole of the round), and at that point he was assessed a four-shot penalty (two for each hole he had a non-conforming club in his bag, per Rule 4-1). Crane said he then noticed the 6-iron decal on No. 14, and he was issued another four-shot penalty, the max for this infraction.

Thus, eight penalty shots.

But Crane told a rules staffer Friday that the story was actually slightly different from that. Crane notified the staffer that he had been aware of the 6-iron decal at the time he noticed the driver decal on No. 11 tee rather than on No. 14.

As Crane failed to declare the 6-iron out of play as soon as he noticed it was non-conforming, he earned a disqualification.

Jim Duncan, the Web.com Tour’s vice president of rules, competition and administration, explained in full why this new information meant a DQ:

“(On Thursday) between the 12th and the 13th holes, (rules official) Andrew Miller confirmed with (Crane) that the driver, that was made aware to us, had to be taken out of play; then he played 13 and part of 14 (carrying) the 6-iron.

“Then he came back (Friday) morning and said he knew he had the 6-iron … he’s got to make a declaration that that club is out of play, either to a member of the committee, which he could’ve told Andrew Miller, or to one of his fellow 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.”

So he played 11 after giving up the driver, 12, 13, and part of 14 before he came out about the 6i. He was only DQed the following day when he came clean about knowing about the 6i.

Like I said, I'm not sure of his motives behind it, but the possibility that he wanted hide the 6i on the chance that he could play well enough to overcome the 4 stroke penalty for the driver is in my mind.

[Vinsk]

35 minutes ago, iacas said:

You're being ridiculous.

Yes it is ridiculous. And IMO just as ridiculous to think that sticker would alter the ball flight. It makes no sense to use stickers on a clubface if it alters the ball flight. That defeats the very purpose of using the monitor. I see no reason based on the WORDING OF THE RULE, not your interpretation, but the language of the rule that couldn't have allowed the ruling to deem the stickers negligible and just remove them with no penalty. Rules officials , players discuss individual cases all the time. IMO this ruling was over the top. 

[iacas]

18 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Yes it is ridiculous. And IMO just as ridiculous to think that sticker would alter the ball flight.

Now you're well beyond ridiculous. Now you're being willfully obtuse.

18 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

It makes no sense to use stickers on a clubface if it alters the ball flight.

I don't know what you mean by "if." They do. Simple physics.

18 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

That defeats the very purpose of using the monitor.

One more time…

• The stickers don't appreciably affect the ball flight if you don't hit the stickers. So, during a training session, who cares?
• The Rules cannot say "well, this player is a pro, so they probably won't hit a sticker out on the toe most of the time… right?" They have to be a lot clearer than that.

18 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

I see no reason based on the WORDING OF THE RULE, not your interpretation, but the language of the rule that couldn't have allowed the ruling to deem the stickers negligible and just remove them with no penalty.

It's not "my interpretation." It's the interpretation. The club(s) were non-conforming.

19 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Rules officials , players discuss individual cases all the time. IMO this ruling was over the top. 

This isn't a matter of opinion. How you're reading and applying the rule is wrong. The club was made non-conforming.

[mvmac]

8 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

 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.

The Orange Whip is a training device, not a club, and may be carried during a stipulated round.  Swinging it during a stipulated round would be a breach of Rule 14-3

Yeah I have a fairway wood shaft I use for sticking my phone holder rod in. I typically take it out when I play, mostly to lighten the bag a bit. I'm pretty sure I can carry it during a round, @iacas can you confirm?

According to the rules "A club is an implement designed to be used for striking the ball....   composed of a shaft and a head". I'm thinking the shaft (which isn't even functional because the tip is outdated and won't fit on any of my woods) falls into the "rod" category.

Quote

14-3/10.3

Use of Rod During Round for Alignment or as Swing Aid

Q. During a stipulated round, a player uses a rod to check his alignment or his swing plane. What is the ruling?

A. The player is disqualified under Rule 14-3 as the rod is unusual equipment and such use, during the stipulated round, is not permitted.

Carrying the rod is not, of itself, a breach of a Rule.

 

[iacas]

@mvmac you're good to go with the shaft. No club head means it's not a club.

My players carry around yardsticks too.

[Zekez]

Gotta agree with iacas on this matter.  The rules are the rules.  They have to be strictly followed.  No room for  arguments. 

[Vinsk]

12 minutes ago, Zekez said:

Gotta agree with iacas on this matter.  The rules are the rules.  They have to be strictly followed.  No room for  arguments. 

I actually agree. It's the poor choice of language that makes it a cluster f***. I asked a reasonable question I believe. I don't know the technology of ball flight monitors. If those stickers alter the ball flight then why would a player so accurate want to use them? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the data? And "For the purpose of altering the ball flight" is not what those stickers are used for correct? If a player spits on his clubface but doesn't wipe if off is that a penalty? 

[Lihu]

34 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

I actually agree. It's the poor choice of language that makes it a cluster f***. I asked a reasonable question I believe. I don't know the technology of ball flight monitors. If those stickers alter the ball flight then why would a player so accurate want to use them? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the data? And "For the purpose of altering the ball flight" is not what those stickers are used for correct? If a player spits on his clubface but doesn't wipe if off is that a penalty? 

I think the question is "How much?"

It probably alters the flight just enough to violate the rule "affect ball flight", but not enough to alter it in a meaningful manner? Let's use 0.5% for example. . .

[DaveP043]

1 hour ago, Vinsk said:

I actually agree. It's the poor choice of language that makes it a cluster f***. I asked a reasonable question I believe. I don't know the technology of ball flight monitors. If those stickers alter the ball flight then why would a player so accurate want to use them? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the data? And "For the purpose of altering the ball flight" is not what those stickers are used for correct? If a player spits on his clubface but doesn't wipe if off is that a penalty? 

I agree in a way, the phrase

Quote

for the purpose of influencing the movement of the ball

  seems to allow some wiggle room for the player's intention, the rule would be clearer if that phrase was removed.  The way its being enforced, any foreign substance (including the little stickers) breaches the rule, no matter the intention.  

As to your last question, you could have looked this up at:

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-04

 

Quote

4-2/4

 Applying Saliva to Face of Club

Q.A player spat on the face of his club and did not wipe the saliva off before playing his next stroke. Is this permissible?

A.If the purpose of doing this was to influence the movement of the ball, the player was in breach of Rule 4-2b as saliva is "foreign material."

In this case, the player's intention is clearly a factor to be considered.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Vinsk said:

If those stickers alter the ball flight then why would a player so accurate want to use them? 

I've answered this about four times.

1 hour ago, Vinsk said:

If a player spits on his clubface but doesn't wipe if off is that a penalty? 

Yes.

And no it's not really the intent @DaveP043. It's more his actions. If he spits and uses the club right away, he's penalized. If he spits and uses it later on he's probably okay. It probably dried.

I've seen a player penalized for taking practice swings to get grass/water on his clubface to influence the ball. His actions made his intent clear and the committee agreed.

Intent and purpose have meaningfully different definitions. This rule isn't really about intent.

[Vinsk]

44 minutes ago, iacas said:

've answered this about four times.

Not really. But let me re-phrase. Being that these stickers obviously alter the ball flight, I find it strange that a tour pro would use them for monitoring their shots. I've seen discussions with numbers that vary by 1 degree, minute changes that apparently matter. I would think as expensive as some of this equipment is that would be unacceptable at a tour pro level as it is obviously skewing their data. I've seen stickers you can buy for balls that plainly state, 'no profile to these  stickers so they do not alter ball flight' and I thought these were of the same nature.

Edited September 16, 2017 by Vinsk

[iacas]

@Vinsk I have.

If you hit the sticker the ball flight is altered.

Most of the time in measuring when using the launch monitor they don't hit the sticker.

That's no way to write a rule though.

[Vinsk]

6 minutes ago, iacas said:

@Vinsk I have.

If you hit the sticker the ball flight is altered.

Most of the time in measuring when using the launch monitor they don't hit the sticker.

That's no way to write a rule though.

Ok gotcha. Sorry for the mess..I see now. I've never seen these stickers before.

[mvmac]

Good example of how technology is hurting players  #justkidding

Was playing with our group today and someone said the caddy was to blame. Sure to some small degree but at the end of the day it's mostly the player's responsibility to take care of that kind of stuff. Unless Crane told his caddy "make sure all those stickers are off my clubs". Even then he's the player, kind weird he didn't notice it when he was warming up on the range.

 

[Runnin]

On 9/16/2017 at 2:01 AM, Grinde6 said:

I dont like this call at all.  For a guy that is trying to make a living, assessing him 8 shots worth of penalty strokes for something that isn't going to/didn't give him an advantage since he hadn't even used those 2 clubs is completely ridiculous. 

A guy trying to make a living at the game should know the rules and also have a caddie who knows them and who will check his clubs before starting, especially if they've recently been putting illegal stickers on some of the irons.

[billchao]

7 hours ago, mvmac said:

Was playing with our group today and someone said the caddy was to blame.

Yea sure, blame the employee. It's never the boss's fault