"Intent" in the 2019 Proposed Rules

[Lihu]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

@Lihu, c'mon.

Also, what if someone hits a ball and the ball hits you? There's a big difference if the ball hits you, or if you intentionally reach out to swat the ball. And if the ball is your partner's or your opponent's.

What other "accidents" have we been talking about?

Also, if by "accident" you mean "not intentional" then you're not saying the same thing as "intention should never be part of a rule." You're now arguing the opposite.

She moved the ball more than half an inch.

Bullshit, @Lihu. The ball rolled back very near to it, and at the time he tamped it down, it was possible for the ball to roll exactly back to that spot. That's probably why he tamped it down. He looked at the ball, saw it headed back there, and tamped it down.

What's confusing about determining whether someone intended to knock a ball 2" off the tee with their driver?

Yeah, sorry, that's just stupid. You may be the only person in the world who would say that.

Yeah, this is a stupid thread then if we're not actually arguing to remove intent from the rules.

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Yeah, this is a stupid thread then if we're not actually arguing to remove intent from the rules.

@Lihu, c'mon.

Intent can't be removed from ALL the rules. The 2019 rules (proposed) remove it from many.

The definition for "stroke" in the 2019 rules doesn't include the word "intent" but "intent" is still in there. A player has to intend to strike the ball with the forward movement of the club. Even though the wording is as you can read in the OP.

[David in FL]

5 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Yeah, this is a stupid thread then if we're not actually arguing to remove intent from the rules.

I think that most of us like to minimize the use of intent in the Rules, but there are a few places where it still is appropriate.  

[Fourputt]

13 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Yeah, this is a stupid thread then if we're not actually arguing to remove intent from the rules.

I think that this discussion is more about how much "intent" can be minimized while still retaining the meaning and fairness of a rule.  In a few cases, intent has to remain a part of the rules for continuity, as in the difference between a "stroke" and a "practice stroke".  Your suggestion about accidentally knocking the ball off the tee being a stroke (and then adding a penalty as well???) is simply too dictatorial to be reasonable.

As Erik well knows, I tend to stricter applications of some rules, maybe too much so, but even I find your idea to be over the top.

Edited December 5, 2017 by Fourputt

[bkuehn1952]

The proposed 2019 Rules have "intent" four times. Is there a consensus as to the number of times in the current Rules the word "intent" is used? I searched the current Rules for "intent" and most of the resulting 33 listings where for the word "intention" (e.g. the competitor declared his intention to lift ....). Anyone have a count for the current use of intent?

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, bkuehn1952 said:

The proposed 2019 Rules have "intent" four times. Is there a consensus as to the number of times in the current Rules the word "intent" is used? I searched the current Rules for "intent" and most of the resulting 33 listings where for the word "intention" (e.g. the competitor declared his intention to lift ....). Anyone have a count for the current use of intent?

It's more than 4.

1-2 has it twice, as Hideki may now know. It's now "deliberate" which we can see instead of "intent" which is in someone's mind.

Intent (the intention) is in the definition of "stroke" too.

[Lihu]

On 12/5/2017 at 8:00 AM, iacas said:

@Lihu, c'mon.

Intent can't be removed from ALL the rules. The 2019 rules (proposed) remove it from many.

The definition for "stroke" in the 2019 rules doesn't include the word "intent" but "intent" is still in there. A player has to intend to strike the ball with the forward movement of the club. Even though the wording is as you can read in the OP.

In my limited view of things here, I think it's possible to remove "intent" even with respect to teeing off.

As an example, if a ball moves when you are taking a practice swing with the ball in play, then that's a penalty. I think the same could hold for the tee box. If you take a swipe near the ball and it falls off the tee, it can be considered in play. The cause could be air swooshing by or even the ground moving underneath the feet, or even if the tee was wobbly.

Another place you can remove intent is if you tamp down on the divot you just made before the ball has come to rest, then that's a penalty. There's no intent there at all, just don't do anything to alter the ground after the swing is complete until the ball comes to rest.

 

On 12/5/2017 at 8:01 AM, David in FL said:

I think that most of us like to minimize the use of intent in the Rules, but there are a few places where it still is appropriate.  

Removing intent from most of the rules is definitely a good first step, but I think it's possible to remove all intent.

[iacas]

Just now, Lihu said:

As an example, if a ball moves when you are taking a practice swing with the ball in play, then that's a penalty. I think the same could hold for the tee box. If you take a swipe near the ball and it falls off the tee, it can be considered in play. The cause could be air swooshing by or even the ground moving underneath the feet, or even if the tee was wobbly.

It's not in play.

So why would you want to "consider it in play"?

1 minute ago, Lihu said:

Another place you can remove intent is if you tamp down on the divot you just made before the ball has come to rest, then that's a penalty. There's no intent there at all, just don't do anything to alter the ground after the swing is complete until the ball comes to rest.

And… what if there is intent there? Hideki's action did "alter the ground" before the ball came to rest.

BTW, "intent" is removed in the 2019 rules and Hideki would have been penalized under the more relaxed 2019 rules because his action was clearly deliberate. He didn't step on the divot in the act of walking away or something.

1 minute ago, Lihu said:

Removing intent from most of the rules is definitely a good first step, but I think it's possible to remove all intent.

I don't think it's possible to remove all intent, nor should we.

[Lihu]

10 minutes ago, iacas said:

So why would you want to "consider it in play"?

This is more of a personal thing actually.

First, I would have to wait for another pre-shot routine which sometimes takes a minute or more which buys the player more time to warm up for the shot. Second, it could be a means to make other players more irritable as a part of a "strategy". I'm not as affected by this as others, but I've played rounds where the perpetrator did this routine more than 5 times but only when there were carry overs. I can only conclude that it is a part of his strategy, since he never hit anything bad off the tee. I'm sure there are many other "he's" in the world.

 

Quote

And… what if there is intent there? Hideki's action did "alter the ground" before the ball came to rest.

It was most definitely a deliberate action, I just don't know to what end?

 

10 minutes ago, iacas said:

BTW, "intent" is removed in the 2019 rules and Hideki would have been penalized under the more relaxed 2019 rules because his action was clearly deliberate. He didn't step on the divot in the act of walking away or something.

I'm glad this rule is becoming less ambiguous.

Edited December 12, 2017 by Lihu

[Fourputt]

1 hour ago, Lihu said:

This is more of a personal thing actually.

First, I would have to wait for another pre-shot routine which sometimes takes a minute or more which buys the player more time to warm up for the shot. Second, it could be a means to make other players more irritable as a part of a "strategy". I'm not as affected by this as others, but I've played rounds where the perpetrator did this routine more than 5 times but only when there were carry overs. I can only conclude that it is a part of his strategy, since he never hit anything bad off the tee. I'm sure there are many other "he's" in the world.

 

Do you really play with someone who takes a minute or more to play after the peg is already in the ground?  I don't think I've ever seen anyone take more than about 10-15 seconds to play after accidentally bumping the ball off the tee, and most guys don't even restart their routine.

[Lihu]

Just now, Fourputt said:

Do you really play with someone who takes a minute or more to play after the peg is already in the ground?  I don't think I've ever seen anyone take more than about 10-15 seconds to play after accidentally bumping the ball off the tee, and most guys don't even restart their routine.

Quite a few people take outside of 30 seconds for sure, and they generally repeat the whole thing. Only a few embarrassed higher handicaps just walk up and hit after bumping the ball off the tee the replacing it.

Like I mentioned before, the couple players I'm talking about possibly with high probability use it as part of a sadistic strategy?

[iacas]

I think your experiences are not the norm, @Lihu.

Let's get back to the actual topic.

[Hardluckster]

Because intent is impossible to determine with complete certainty, the fewer uses of it in the rules the better as far as I'm concerned.

[rehmwa]

33 minutes ago, Hardluckster said:

Because intent is impossible to determine with complete certainty, the fewer uses of it in the rules the better as far as I'm concerned.

I'm more absolute here.  People seem to believe they can determine someone else's intent just based on their observations and personal bias.  These end up being the most vitriolic and pointless discussion here - with negative personal commentary on posters and about pros and complete strangers.  if those rules create that much churn, then they are flawed.

If 'intent' is required in a single rule, then they need to rework the rule until it's gone.  Actions, not intent should rule 100%.  I don't believe it's impossible to remove it 100%.

Hideki's is a great example - just change the rule that you don't do anything to the grounds until the ball comes to rest.  Intent doesn't play into that - you accidently clean up a lie, you still get pinged.  It sucks less.

Edited December 13, 2017 by rehmwa

[Fourputt]

14 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

I'm more absolute here.  People seem to believe they can determine someone else's intent just based on their observations and personal bias.  These end up being the most vitriolic and pointless discussion here - with negative personal commentary on posters and about pros and complete strangers.  if those rules create that much churn, then they are flawed.

If 'intent' is required in a single rule, then they need to rework the rule until it's gone.  Actions, not intent should rule 100%.  I don't believe it's impossible to remove it 100%.

Hideki's is a great example - just change the rule that you don't do anything to the grounds until the ball comes to rest.  Intent doesn't play into that - you accidently clean up a lie, you still get pinged.  It sucks less.

In Hideki's case, intent had really nothing to do with it.  As long as his act had the possibility of affecting where the ball came to rest, then it was inappropriate and contrary to the rule.  It didn't matter if he was doing to repair the course or if he was doing to improve a potential lie.  The ball didn't make it up the hill and was rolling back toward the same general area where he fixed the divot.  

Had he been playing some other direction than straight up the hill, there probably would have been no chance of the ball returning to the same spot, and thus, no penalty should have been given.  The question is whether his actions could potentially have affected the movement of the ball.  1-2/0.7:

Quote

a player generally may attempt to tidy up the course by repairing divot holes and/or replacing divots that do not affect play of the hole by a player in the player's group or match 

Since he took his action in disgust after seeing that his ball was headed back down  the hill toward him, he was in breach for improving the possible movement of the ball, regardless of his actual intent.

[rehmwa]

32 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

In Hideki's case, intent had really nothing to do with it.  As long as his act had the possibility of affecting where the ball came to rest, then it was inappropriate and contrary to the rule.  It didn't matter if he was doing to repair the course or if he was doing to improve a potential lie.  The ball didn't make it up the hill and was rolling back toward the same general area where he fixed the divot.  

Had he been playing some other direction than straight up the hill, there probably would have been no chance of the ball returning to the same spot, and thus, no penalty should have been given.  The question is whether his actions could potentially have affected the movement of the ball.  1-2/0.7:

Since he took his action in disgust after seeing that his ball was headed back down  the hill toward him, he was in breach for improving the possible movement of the ball, regardless of his actual intent.

I wasn't so much talking about that incident other than as an example where intent could be eliminated and the rule be more direct (in terms of a general philosophy opposing any idea of including 'intent' in any rule).  Yet:

I agree totally with your statement of - "intent had nothing to do with it", "it didn't matter", "regardless of his actual intent"  (or this is how the rule should be constructed anyway)

My issue is even with those clear positions, people still say irrelevant comments like- "in disgust after seeing that his ball...."   which then attributes some form of intent....which you've stated doesn't matter in that case....yet the tournament felt differently since they made a ruling based on asking him what his intent was.....so what's the point of attributing an emotional state unless you are subtly implying something?

"Possibility of affecting" is also ambiguous.  You could really go non-linear with stupid examples (it's super windy and the ball comes to rest on the green.  he cleans up his divot.  2 minutes later a gust of wind blows the ball back - does he get penalized for course maintenance?  Clearly he knew it was windy, it was POSSIBLE that the wind could have blown the ball back - MAYBE he was potentially improving his lie. - note I said 'stupid' example.  But this is the type of thing people progress to)  Just draw a line in the sand.  "Wait until the ball comes to rest"

A simple change to the rule to eliminate the need to ask him why he did that - then he gets the penalty, we avoid zero-value-added  "liar, cheater" pointless commentary that so many love to spew.  And we move on.  Intent content of any kind written into any rule makes the rules ambiguous for those trying to enforce them, spectators, etc.  ONLY the player knows his intent, and likely not even all the time there - despite so many mind readers in the world.  Why have a single rule that relies on that.  Let alone 4 or 16 or whatever.

(aside - I'm really enjoying your commentary lately.  thanks for giving me stuff to think about)

On 05/12/2017 at 10:07 AM, Fourputt said:

 but even I find your idea to be over the top.

BTW - this comment gave me a lot of joy when I read it

Edited December 13, 2017 by rehmwa

[Lihu]

1 hour ago, Hardluckster said:

Because intent is impossible to determine with complete certainty, the fewer uses of it in the rules the better as far as I'm concerned.

Agree, it would be easier to enforce rules equally, and eliminate any possibility of conflicting opinions of breaches based upon personal bias.

 

1 hour ago, rehmwa said:

I'm more absolute here.  People seem to believe they can determine someone else's intent just based on their observations and personal bias.  These end up being the most vitriolic and pointless discussion here - with negative personal commentary on posters and about pros and complete strangers.  if those rules create that much churn, then they are flawed.

If 'intent' is required in a single rule, then they need to rework the rule until it's gone.  Actions, not intent should rule 100%.  I don't believe it's impossible to remove it 100%.

Hideki's is a great example - just change the rule that you don't do anything to the grounds until the ball comes to rest.  Intent doesn't play into that - you accidently clean up a lie, you still get pinged.  It sucks less.

Agree.

 

32 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

In Hideki's case, intent had really nothing to do with it.

Intent had everything to do with it. Exception 2 of rule 1-2.

Although there is no question in my mind that his act of pushing down the divot was absolutely deliberate, the question comes into if he was waiting for it to be obvious that the ball was not going to go back before tamping it down to fix the divot or if he saw that it was going exactly to where he thought it would fall into the divot and altered the play of the hole?

It looked like his action happened immediately after the ball changed direction, and, of course, it didn't end up near the divot. I think this is what the officials also determined to be the case, they didn't just "take his word" on it.

I have no idea why anyone can be so certain that he cheated for his own benefit for something like a stroke loss on the hole had it actually fallen into the divot?

 

Quote

1-2. Exerting Influence on Movement of Ball or Altering Physical Conditions

A player must not (i) take an action with the intent to influence the movement of a ball in play or (ii) alter physical conditions with the intent of affecting the playing of a hole.

Exceptions:

1. An action expressly permitted or expressly prohibited by another Rule is subject to that other Rule, not Rule 1-2.

2. An action taken for the sole purpose of caring for the course is not a breach of Rule 1-2.

*Penalty for Breach of Rule 1-2:

Match play - Loss of hole; Stroke play - Two strokes.

*In the case of a serious breach of Rule 1-2, the Committee may impose a penalty of disqualification.

Note 1: A player is deemed to have committed a serious breach of Rule 1-2 if the Committee considers that the action taken in breach of this Rule has allowed him or another player to gain a significant advantage or has placed another player, other than his partner, at a significant disadvantage.

Note 2: In stroke play, except where a serious breach resulting in disqualification is involved, a player in breach of Rule 1-2 in relation to the movement of his own ball must play the ball from where it was stopped, or, if the ball was deflected, from where it came to rest. If the movement of a player's ball has been intentionally influenced by a fellow-competitor or other outside agency, Rule 1-4 applies to the player (see Note to Rule 19-1).

 

[iacas]

@Lihu you’ve been wrong about this from the start. The ball doesn’t have to roll exactly back to that spot for a player to be penalized.