8 Shot Penalty for Ben Crane, Sabbatini Disqualified

[nevets88]

Haven't been following this very closely, thought the stickers were on the balls. Nope. Photos of offending stickers on clubs.

 

[colin007]

I think the solution to the problem would be a "no harm no foul" rule for the tour. Call in for a rules official, he takes a look at what's going on, and then makes a judgment call on the spot. If he thinks that no harm was done, he just says no harm no foul. End of story.

Effing stickers. FFS....

[NM Golf]

12 minutes ago, colin007 said:

I think the solution to the problem would be a "no harm no foul" rule for the tour.

Just for the Tour or would this "Rule" be open to interpretation for all golfers?

12 minutes ago, colin007 said:

Call in for a rules official, he takes a look at what's going on, and then makes a judgment call on the spot. If he thinks that no harm was done, he just says no harm no foul. End of story.

Rules are black and white you break them or you don't. You cannot leave the Rules of Golf up to interpretation like that. So if someone carries 15 clubs "accidentally" no harm no foul? In football do we now ask officials to only call penalties if they think it affected the play? its ridiculous to even consider.  

[onthehunt526]

The way Rule 4-2 is written is subjective. It is left open to too much interpretation. What effects the flight of the ball? Vaseline probably, HMT stickers? Probably not. The key is intent. Did Ben Crane leave the HMT stickers on the clubface? Yes. Was his intent to effect the movement of the ball? No.

The rule states, I'm paraphrasing, no foreign substance on the clubface with the intent of effecting movement of the ball.

The intent of those stickers is to measure what the clubhead is doing on a launch monitor, nothing more, nothing less.

[NM Golf]

8 minutes ago, onthehunt526 said:

The way Rule 4-2 is written is subjective. It is left open to too much interpretation. What effects the flight of the ball? Vaseline probably, HMT stickers? Probably not. The key is intent. Did Ben Crane leave the HMT stickers on the clubface? Yes. Was his intent to effect the movement of the ball? No.

The rule states, I'm paraphrasing, no foreign substance on the clubface with the intent of effecting movement of the ball.

The intent of those stickers is to measure what the clubhead is doing on a launch monitor, nothing more, nothing less.

While I agree its poorly worded, the more I think about it, how do you know those stickers didn't affect ball flight? How can you be sure? The USGA needs to clean up the wording a bit, but he still had a foreign substance on the face of his club. Thats a penalty.

[onthehunt526]

8 minutes ago, NM Golf said:

While I agree its poorly worded, the more I think about it, how do you know those stickers didn't affect ball flight? How can you be sure? The USGA needs to clean up the wording a bit, but he still had a foreign substance on the face of his club. Thats a penalty.

Barbara painted Jack Nicklaus' bullseye putter white before each round of the 1967 U.S. Open? You're trying to tell me Jack should have been DQ'ed?

[NM Golf]

25 minutes ago, onthehunt526 said:

Barbara painted Jack Nicklaus' bullseye putter white before each round of the 1967 U.S. Open?

Applying paint to a putter, since there are painted putters on the market, wouldn't be adding a foreign substance.

 

27 minutes ago, onthehunt526 said:

You're trying to tell me Jack should have been DQ'ed?

See above, no. I don't remember saying anything about Jack Nicklaus, I don't even know if that rule even existed at the time. You're grasping at straws.

[onthehunt526]

4 minutes ago, NM Golf said:

Applying paint to a putter, since there are painted putters on the market, wouldn't be adding a foreign substance.

 

See above, no. I don't remember saying anything about Jack Nicklaus, I don't even know if that rule even existed at the time. You're grasping at straws.

Ok maybe I am grasping at straws a little bit. But still there probably is a YouTube video that explains what those HMT stickers are used for.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, colin007 said:

I think the solution to the problem would be a "no harm no foul" rule for the tour. Call in for a rules official, he takes a look at what's going on, and then makes a judgment call on the spot. If he thinks that no harm was done, he just says no harm no foul. End of story.

That's a terrible idea.

1 hour ago, onthehunt526 said:

The way Rule 4-2 is written is subjective.

If you put anything foreign on the clubface, you'd better remove it or wipe it off (as much as possible). It's pretty straightforward, and the enforcement of it is pretty straightforward as well.

Some people seem to be inserting the word "intent" when it doesn't appear. The only time the characters "inten" appear in Rule 4-1, Rule 4-2, or either of their Decisions is when the rules state in the Decisions what the intent of the rule is.

The stickers render the clubs non-conforming. 4-2 is more about putting something on the face to affect the flight of the ball. This may not really even be a 4-2 issue - it's probably a 4-1 issue. But anyway, if you're wondering, 2019's Proposed Rules rewrite the rule as:

Quote

• By applying any substance to the clubhead (other than in cleaning it) to affect how it performs in making a stroke.

They also changed the penalty slightly in that you can knowingly carry a non-conforming club so long as you do not use a non-conforming club.

• PENALTY FOR MAKING STROKE WITH CLUB IN BREACH OF RULE 4.1a: The player is disqualified.

  But there is no penalty under this Rule for merely carrying (but not making a stroke with) a non-conforming club or a club whose playing characteristics were deliberately changed during the round (but such a club would still count towards the 14-club limit in (b)).

1 hour ago, onthehunt526 said:

Vaseline probably, HMT stickers? Probably not. The key is intent. Did Ben Crane leave the HMT stickers on the clubface? Yes. Was his intent to effect the movement of the ball? No.

No, the key is not at all "intent." Read the rule. There's no "intent" piece.

1 hour ago, onthehunt526 said:

The rule states, I'm paraphrasing, no foreign substance on the clubface with the intent of effecting movement of the ball.

If paraphrasing is the same as "I'm changing the rule to conform to what I think it says, not what it actually says" then yeah, you paraphrased.

And you may not even have the right rule if you're talking about 4-2. It's a 4-1 issue, I think. Look at the Decision below.

1 hour ago, onthehunt526 said:

The intent of those stickers is to measure what the clubhead is doing on a launch monitor, nothing more, nothing less.

In actuality, they can and do affect the movement of the ball. The club was non-conforming. Ben Crane knowingly carried a non-conforming club.

@onthehunt526 and everyone else… consider this one:

4-1/5 - Adhesive Bandage or Tape Applied to Clubhead to Reduce Glare or for Protection

Q.May a player put an adhesive bandage or tape on the clubhead to reduce glare or to protect the club from being damaged?

A.An adhesive bandage or tape added to the clubhead is considered an external attachment, rendering the club non-conforming (see Appendix II, Rule 1a but see also Decision 4-1/4). However, material attached to the clubhead that does not affect the performance of the club and is semi-permanent, durable, not easily removable and conforms to the shape of the clubhead may be permitted by exception, but an adhesive bandage or tape does not fall under that exception because such items are temporary in nature and easily removable. See "A Guide to the Rules on Clubs and Balls," Section 1a, for detailed criteria regarding permissible external attachments, such as alignment markings, protective coverings or decorative decals.

Additionally, adding such an attachment during the stipulated round would change the club's playing characteristics in breach of Rule 4-2.

---

The "intent" there is to reduce glare. But intent doesn't matter. The club is rendered non-conforming.

7 minutes ago, onthehunt526 said:

Ok maybe I am grasping at straws a little bit. But still there probably is a YouTube video that explains what those HMT stickers are used for.

We know what the main purpose of "adhesive bandages" is, but they still render a club non-conforming.

42 minutes ago, onthehunt526 said:

Barbara painted Jack Nicklaus' bullseye putter white before each round of the 1967 U.S. Open? You're trying to tell me Jack should have been DQ'ed?

No: http://www.ruleshistory.com/rules1964.html.

[onthehunt526]

Well @iacas in that case he should taken the HMT stickers off his clubface, then...

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, onthehunt526 said:

Well @iacas in that case he should taken the HMT stickers off his clubface, then...

Pretty much.

[chspeed]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

That's a terrible idea.

If you put anything foreign on the clubface, you'd better remove it or wipe it off (as much as possible). It's pretty straightforward, and the enforcement of it is pretty straightforward as well.

Some people seem to be inserting the word "intent" when it doesn't appear. The only time the characters "inten" appear in Rule 4-1, Rule 4-2, or either of their Decisions is when the rules state in the Decisions what the intent of the rule is.

The stickers render the clubs non-conforming. 4-2 is more about putting something on the face to affect the flight of the ball. This may not really even be a 4-2 issue - it's probably a 4-1 issue. But anyway, if you're wondering, 2019's Proposed Rules rewrite the rule as:

They also changed the penalty slightly in that you can knowingly carry a non-conforming club so long as you do not use a non-conforming club.

• PENALTY FOR MAKING STROKE WITH CLUB IN BREACH OF RULE 4.1a: The player is disqualified.

  But there is no penalty under this Rule for merely carrying (but not making a stroke with) a non-conforming club or a club whose playing characteristics were deliberately changed during the round (but such a club would still count towards the 14-club limit in (b)).

No, the key is not at all "intent." Read the rule. There's no "intent" piece.

If paraphrasing is the same as "I'm changing the rule to conform to what I think it says, not what it actually says" then yeah, you paraphrased.

And you may not even have the right rule if you're talking about 4-2. It's a 4-1 issue, I think. Look at the Decision below.

In actuality, they can and do affect the movement of the ball. The club was non-conforming. Ben Crane knowingly carried a non-conforming club.

@onthehunt526 and everyone else… consider this one:

4-1/5 - Adhesive Bandage or Tape Applied to Clubhead to Reduce Glare or for Protection

Q.May a player put an adhesive bandage or tape on the clubhead to reduce glare or to protect the club from being damaged?

A.An adhesive bandage or tape added to the clubhead is considered an external attachment, rendering the club non-conforming (see Appendix II, Rule 1a but see also Decision 4-1/4). However, material attached to the clubhead that does not affect the performance of the club and is semi-permanent, durable, not easily removable and conforms to the shape of the clubhead may be permitted by exception, but an adhesive bandage or tape does not fall under that exception because such items are temporary in nature and easily removable. See "A Guide to the Rules on Clubs and Balls," Section 1a, for detailed criteria regarding permissible external attachments, such as alignment markings, protective coverings or decorative decals.

Additionally, adding such an attachment during the stipulated round would change the club's playing characteristics in breach of Rule 4-2.

---

The "intent" there is to reduce glare. But intent doesn't matter. The club is rendered non-conforming.

We know what the main purpose of "adhesive bandages" is, but they still render a club non-conforming.

No: http://www.ruleshistory.com/rules1964.html.

I don't think this it's quite so cut and dried, and while one of the decisions seems to implicate the clubs, I can see how this could have gone the other way.

In terms of 4-2:

While the word "intent" does not appear, Rule 4-2 does state: "Foreign material must not be applied to the club face for the purpose of influencing the movement of the ball." The second part of the sentence clearly points to intent, and I think because of that, 4-2 shouldn't be used here. There is no way that those stickers had an intent of affecting the movement of the ball. The pictures posted above show the stickers are nowhere near the impact area of the club. Seems to me like this is not a 4-2 issue.

For 4-1: Referring to Appendix II, Decision 4-1/5 which @iacas pointed out, is the relevant section. This Decision addresses an "Adhesive Bandage or Tape Applied to Clubhead to Reduce Glare or for Protection". I'll put this decision in it's entirety here, and then address each point.

An adhesive bandage or tape added to the clubhead is considered an external attachment, rendering the club non-conforming (see Appendix II, Rule 1a but see also Decision 4-1/4). However, material attached to the clubhead that does not affect the performance of the club and is semi-permanent, durable, not easily removable and conforms to the shape of the clubhead may be permitted by exception, but an adhesive bandage or tape does not fall under that exception because such items are temporary in nature and easily removable. See "A Guide to the Rules on Clubs and Balls," Section 1a, for detailed criteria regarding permissible external attachments, such as alignment markings, protective coverings or decorative decals.

Additionally, adding such an attachment during the stipulated round would change the club's playing characteristics in breach of Rule 4-2."

a. The first sentence refers to Appendix II - Rule 1a. This rule's relevant section appears to be the following: "All parts of the club must be fixed so that the club is one unit, and it must have no external attachments. Exceptions may be made for attachments that do not affect the performance of the club." I read the second sentence as clearing said stickers from this rule. I think it would be a real stretch to claim that those stickers affect the performance of the club. To me, "Exceptions may be made" allows a rules committee latitude to interpret this rule.

The first sentence also points to Decision 4-1/4, which simply clears lead-tape as an exception, and is irrelevant to this case.

b. The second sentence is critical. It explains that "exceptions may be allowed for materials that don't affect performance," but only if the materials are "semi-permanent, durable, not easily removable and conforms to the shape of the clubhead". It goes on to explain that an adhesive band-aid or tape "does not fall under that exception because such items are temporary in nature and easily removable."

If I was in the rules committee, this is where I would have hung my hat, and argued that those stickers are "temporary in nature and easily removable", and therefore according to Decision 4-1/5, render the clubs non-conforming even though they don't affect performance.

This seems pretty strong, but I think that whether the said stickers apply here is arguable. As a first step, you could argue that said stickers are not "temporary in nature and easily removable". And while the rules committee may have placed this exception explanation to apply to decorative decals that do not affect performance, those are actually covered elsewhere  - Appendix II.5(d). So this begs the question as to what materials would fit under the definition of "semi-permanent, durable, not easily removable", and could the offending stickers fall under that definition?

 

Edited September 18, 2017 by chspeed

[iacas]

1 hour ago, chspeed said:

While the word "intent" does not appear, Rule 4-2 does state: "Foreign material must not be applied to the club face for the purpose of influencing the movement of the ball." The second part of the sentence clearly points to intent, and I think because of that, 4-2 shouldn't be used here.

It does not "point to intent" let alone "clearly." When the Rules of Golf wish to say "intent" they use the word "intent" for that. "Purpose" != "Intent".

And I've come to the conclusion that 4-2 is kind of irrelevant to this discussion. This isn't a 4-2 issue.

1 hour ago, chspeed said:

There is no way that those stickers had an intent of affecting the movement of the ball. The pictures posted above show the stickers are nowhere near the impact area of the club.

They're stickers. They're not capable of thought, let alone intent.

And yes, stickers on the clubface can and would influence the movement of the golf ball if struck. The Rules cannot assume that a player will strike the ball in an area away from the center of the clubface.

But as you said, and as I agree, it's not a 4-2 issue.

1 hour ago, chspeed said:

a. The first sentence refers to Appendix II - Rule 1a. This rule's relevant section appears to be the following: "All parts of the club must be fixed so that the club is one unit, and it must have no external attachments. Exceptions may be made for attachments that do not affect the performance of the club." I read the second sentence as clearing said stickers from this rule.

Stickers on the clubface are not cleared. The clubface on a golf club is highly regulated for surface roughness, groove depth, smoothness/flatness, etc.

It's not a stretch at all.

1 hour ago, chspeed said:

If I was in the rules committee, this is where I would have hung my hat, and argued that those stickers are "temporary in nature and easily removable", and therefore according to Decision 4-1/5, render the clubs non-conforming even though they don't affect performance.

The need to do this was not there, because the stickers render the clubs non-conforming, period. They do affect performance, and they are temporary in nature and easily removable." Both are true.

1 hour ago, chspeed said:

As a first step, you could argue that said stickers are not "temporary in nature and easily removable".

Of course they are. Both.

1 hour ago, chspeed said:

And while the rules committee may have placed this exception explanation to apply to decorative decals that do not affect performance, those are actually covered elsewhere  - Appendix II.5(d).

Alignment stickers aren't on the clubface. They're on the crown of the driver. For example, the since-folded "TRUE AIM" stickers, I think they were called. Perfectly legal, even though they were stickers… because they were on the top of the driver or 3-wood or whatever. Not on the striking face of the club.

---

This whole thing is really that simple: the stickers rendered the clubs as non-conforming, and as Ben knew that he still had the other non-conforming club, he was DQed simply for carrying it.

It's a 4-1 issue, not a 4-2 issue. And no, this wouldn't be the first time the reporting led a discussion down the wrong path.

[onthehunt526]

30 minutes ago, iacas said:

It does not "point to intent" let alone "clearly." When the Rules of Golf wish to say "intent" they use the word "intent" for that. "Purpose" != "Intent".

And I've come to the conclusion that 4-2 is kind of irrelevant to this discussion. This isn't a 4-2 issue.

They're stickers. They're not capable of thought, let alone intent.

And yes, stickers on the clubface can and would influence the movement of the golf ball if struck. The Rules cannot assume that a player will strike the ball in an area away from the center of the clubface.

But as you said, and as I agree, it's not a 4-2 issue.

Stickers on the clubface are not cleared. The clubface on a golf club is highly regulated for surface roughness, groove depth, smoothness/flatness, etc.

It's not a stretch at all.

The need to do this was not there, because the stickers render the clubs non-conforming, period. They do affect performance, and they are temporary in nature and easily removable." Both are true.

Of course they are. Both.

Alignment stickers aren't on the clubface. They're on the crown of the driver. For example, the since-folded "TRUE AIM" stickers, I think they were called. Perfectly legal, even though they were stickers… because they were on the top of the driver or 3-wood or whatever. Not on the striking face of the club.

---

This whole thing is really that simple: the stickers rendered the clubs as non-conforming, and as Ben knew that he still had the other non-conforming club, he was DQed simply for carrying it.

It's a 4-1 issue, not a 4-2 issue. And no, this wouldn't be the first time the reporting led a discussion down the wrong path.

Ok I agree that the stickers render the club non-conforming now that I've read the rule. And the wording is "with the purpose of" not "with the intent of".

 

[Vinsk]

I led myself down the wrong path because I saw it as:

The sticklers as any reasonable person knows even if placed on the sweet spot (they weren't) have a negligible effect on the ball flight. I know this can't be interpreted as it causes too much of a mess when the rule is brought to issue. I just saw it as, for example, one must place the ball as humanly close to possible as its original position. Now, does the ball get replaced  exactly where it was? No. But the difference is negligible just as I believe the effect of those stickers is. But I get it now. It's the rule and was applied as it needed to be.

[chspeed]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

They're stickers. They're not capable of thought, let alone intent.

And yes, stickers on the clubface can and would influence the movement of the golf ball if struck. The Rules cannot assume that a player will strike the ball in an area away from the center of the clubface.

But as you said, and as I agree, it's not a 4-2 issue.

Bad grammar, should have written, "Ben's use of stickers...".

True that Purpose != Intent, but I could have just has easily used "purpose." The purpose of using those stickers is not "for the purpose of influencing the movement of the ball."

The rule does not require that the stickers can or would influence the movement of the golf ball if struck, but rather requires that the they have the purpose of influencing the movement of the ball. Again, that's not the case here.

Finally, in other places, the rules do differentiate between the target area of the clubface, and other areas. For example, Appendix II - 5(d).

2 hours ago, iacas said:

Stickers on the clubface are not cleared. The clubface on a golf club is highly regulated for surface roughness, groove depth, smoothness/flatness, etc.

The impact area is highly regulated, but other areas on the clubface can have exceptions (see above).

This specific rule claims that "Exceptions may be made for attachments that do not affect the performance of the club." IMO, claiming these stickers affect the performance of the club is a tough argument.

2 hours ago, iacas said:

The need to do this was not there, because the stickers render the clubs non-conforming, period. They do affect performance, and they are temporary in nature and easily removable." Both are true.

We'll just have to disagree here. I think that the performance argument is weak, but that the "temporary and easily removable" is strong.

Either way, for what's it worth, if I was a rules official (which I most certainly am not) I would also have ruled against Ben.

A little OT, but I just think that the rules are not as clear as they would first appear, and think that many rules of golf are open to interpretation. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but can lead to some very strange rule situations (e.g. Sergio's ordeal on 18 yesterday). Maybe we need to have a fast-acting rules center (like the NFL does) that can make live, fast, decisive calls.

Edited September 18, 2017 by chspeed

[iacas]

@chspeed, three things really.

1. Stickers influence the movement of the ball if struck. That's not really up for debate. The club face is kinda sacred. Don't put shit on it.
2. The while sticker thing is 4-2. This is 4-1.  Why continue to talk about 4-2?
3. There is a hotline. And Tour officials have their own hotline. That's not the issue here.

[NM Golf]

4 hours ago, iacas said:

The club face is kinda sacred. Don't put shit on it.

And that little tidbit ends the discussion, I mean how are you going to argue with that?

NEXT!