Tour Players and 2019 Rules (Running Topic)

[iacas]

2 hours ago, DeadMan said:

Woah:

What’s “woah” about it? Geoff read the message incorrectly, too.

The rule will still be applied.

[mvmac]

50 minutes ago, iacas said:

What’s “woah” about it? Geoff read the message incorrectly, too.

The rule will still be applied.

It seems like a reaction to the bad press? 

According to the wording of the ruling I think he was taking his stance, even though he backed away.

[iacas]

6 hours ago, mvmac said:

It seems like a reaction to the bad press? 

According to the wording of the ruling I think he was taking his stance, even though he backed away.

I’m inclined to agree.

I fear the USGA and the R&A are going to wimp out though.

The wording on the Rule, with the Interpretation, is fine. Caddies, don’t stand there when your guy is near the ball.

It’s that simple. I know it’s a change, but CHANGE.

[RemyM]

I don't think he was taking his stance. He was standing to the side of his ball picturing the shot.  If you watch the video you can see something on the ground, his foot is even with it. When he does step in to hit the shot, his feet are closer to the ball.  It was right to remove the penalty and clarity will be provided in a few days.

[phillyk]

24 minutes ago, RemyM said:

I don't think he was taking his stance. He was standing to the side of his ball picturing the shot.  

Same idea though. He’s taking practice swings at a specific target near his ball with his caddy on the line. Serves the same purpose, of helping align players even if they have yet to fully address the ball. 

Caddies should just learn to stand to the side instead of behind. It should be pretty easy.

[iacas]

28 minutes ago, RemyM said:

I don't think he was taking his stance. He was standing to the side of his ball picturing the shot.  If you watch the video you can see something on the ground, his foot is even with it. When he does step in to hit the shot, his feet are closer to the ball.  It was right to remove the penalty and clarity will be provided in a few days.

Look, at best, he was awfully close to the position from which he was going to hit. I said above (I think) a foot away… he wasn't even that far away. The clubhead was inches from the ball.

The simpler solution here is being ignored by the whiny babies on the Tour: when you move forward to play a shot or stand near your ball, make sure your caddie moves out of the way.

It's that simple.

1 minute ago, phillyk said:

Caddies should just learn to stand to the side instead of behind. It should be pretty easy.

Yes.

Re-tweet and like if you're on Twitter (and agree).

[iacas]

 

[drmevo]

I could imagine tour players pushing back on this whole thing and saying, hey, I thought we’re supposed to make an effort to speed things up and this is making our shot process take longer. Not saying that’s right but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s brought up. 

[Vinsk]

1 hour ago, drmevo said:

I could imagine tour players pushing back on this whole thing and saying, hey, I thought we’re supposed to make an effort to speed things up and this is making our shot process take longer. Not saying that’s right but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s brought up. 

Hopefully they won’t say that and make themselves look even dumber than they already have.

They all have pre-shot routines to a tee. Get one with your caddie AWAY FROM THE F****** target line. Yeah, real tough to abide by. This whole issue is ridiculous. 

[Missouri Swede]

14 hours ago, DeadMan said:

Woah:

 

I’m confused by “the rule will be interpreted whereby the two aforementioned situations as well as future similar situations will not result in a penalty.”

I didn’t see the Justin Thomas “situation.” But are they saying the Dennis McCarthy situation was not a violation of the rule as written? Or that they aren’t going to enforce the rule as written?

[Rulesman]

They accept that the McCarthy & Thomas situations were not violations of the rule and they will enforce it now and in the future.

 

They are just waiting for someone to teach them to read grammatically correct English

Edited February 3, 2019 by Rulesman

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Rulesman said:

They accept that the McCarthy & Thomas situations were not violations of the rule and they will enforce it now and in the future.

They are just waiting for someone to teach them to read grammatically correct English

The problem is the USGA and the R&A said similar things.

I really hope the ruling bodies stick to their guns.

[iacas]

Well, thud.

http://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/2019/rules/Clarifications of the Application of Rule 10.2b(4) - February 6 2019 (2).pdf

They clarified two things. The second of which didn't really need clarification, except to people who thought "deliberate" had to do with alignment, not where the caddie was standing.

The first clarification isn't really a clarification, it's a reversal or a change:

Meaning of “Begins Taking a Stance for the Stroke”

Rule 10.2b(4) does not allow a player to have his or her caddie deliberately stand on or close to an extension of the line of play behind the ball for any reason when the player begins takinga stance for the stroke. Reference to “the stroke” means the stroke that is actually made.

The player begins to take the stance for the stroke that is actually made when he or she has at least one foot in position for that stance.

If a player backs away from the stance, he or she has not taken a stance for the stroke that is actually made, and the second bullet point in Rule 10.2b(4) does not apply.

Therefore, if a player takes a stance when the caddie is deliberately standing on or close to an extension of the line of play behind the ball, there is no penalty under Rule 10.2b(4) if the player backs away from the stance and does not begin to take a stance for the stroke that is actually made until after the caddie has moved out of that location. This applies anywhere on the course.

Backing away means that the player’s feet or body are no longer in a position where helpfulguidance on aiming at the intended target line could be given. (Added 2/2019)

Hrm.

In other words, the "exception" that was needed to allow someone to "back out" on the putting green is now no longer needed because they changed their stance (no pun intended) on this.

This raises issues that I put in tweet form:

 

[DeadMan]

Seems like they're almost changing the point that standing behind a player is a problem to when the player is addressing the ball. Except it's not even that, it's some weird combination of taking a stance and addressing the ball (I know addressing the ball isn't in the rules).

Feels like this could easily be a problem on the LPGA.

But yeah, it feels like they're just deleting this bullet point in the rule:

• If the player takes a stance. in breach of this Rule, he or she cannot avoid penalty by backing away.

[drmevo]

16 minutes ago, iacas said:

Well, thud.

http://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/2019/rules/Clarifications of the Application of Rule 10.2b(4) - February 6 2019 (2).pdf

They clarified two things. The second of which didn't really need clarification, except to people who thought "deliberate" had to do with alignment, not where the caddie was standing.

The first clarification isn't really a clarification, it's a reversal or a change:

Meaning of “Begins Taking a Stance for the Stroke”

Rule 10.2b(4) does not allow a player to have his or her caddie deliberately stand on or close to an extension of the line of play behind the ball for any reason when the player begins takinga stance for the stroke. Reference to “the stroke” means the stroke that is actually made.

The player begins to take the stance for the stroke that is actually made when he or she has at least one foot in position for that stance.

If a player backs away from the stance, he or she has not taken a stance for the stroke that is actually made, and the second bullet point in Rule 10.2b(4) does not apply.

Therefore, if a player takes a stance when the caddie is deliberately standing on or close to an extension of the line of play behind the ball, there is no penalty under Rule 10.2b(4) if the player backs away from the stance and does not begin to take a stance for the stroke that is actually made until after the caddie has moved out of that location. This applies anywhere on the course.

Backing away means that the player’s feet or body are no longer in a position where helpfulguidance on aiming at the intended target line could be given. (Added 2/2019)

Hrm.

In other words, the "exception" that was needed to allow someone to "back out" on the putting green is now no longer needed because they changed their stance (no pun intended) on this.

This raises issues that I put in tweet form:

 

It seems to me that it's at least less ambiguous than it was before.  Before it was basically, "we can't really define when you are starting to take your stance, but we'll know it if we see it!" Yes, they provided two examples but as far as we knew they were just that, examples, and any official could've decided something else was "beginning to take a stance," as we indeed saw happen.  I do tend to agree, even more clarity would be better, but I don't see this as worse. There was always some degree of interpretation/judgement as a factor in this rule.

 

Question - wouldn't all of your backing out concerns still have applied on the green even if they didn't change that part of the rule so it was allowed everywhere?

Edited February 6, 2019 by drmevo

[iacas]

15 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

But yeah, it feels like they're just deleting this bullet point in the rule:

• If the player takes a stance. in breach of this Rule, he or she cannot avoid penalty by backing away.

They're basically deleting that bullet point, yes.

I encourage people here to read this, as it says what I think pretty clearly (I think):

USGA/R&A “Clarify” 10.2b(4) | Rules Geeks

---

WToday the USGA and R&A issued a “clarification” on 10.2b(4) – the “caddies cannot stand behind the player when the player begins taking his stance” rule. The PDF …

Check that out.

15 minutes ago, drmevo said:

It seems to me that it's at least less ambiguous than it was before.

I don't think it is.

How would this situation be ruled:

• A player takes a stance near the ball. His caddie is on or near an extension of the line of play.
• He takes some practice swings inside the ball.
• The caddie moves out of the way.
• The player shuffles his feet forward (toward the ball) an inch or two and hits the ball.

Was he in his stance? What if the player steps toward the ball six inches? Twelve?

We still don't really have clarification on when a player has "begun to take his stance," do we?

15 minutes ago, drmevo said:

Question - wouldn't all of your backing out concerns still have applied on the green even if they didn't change that part of the rule so it was allowed everywhere?

Not really.

[Rulesman]

19 minutes ago, drmevo said:

It seems to me that it's at least less ambiguous than it was before.  

Question - wouldn't all of your backing out concerns still have applied on the green even if they didn't change that part of the rule so it was allowed everywhere?

1) I agree

2) That's the way I see it

[drmevo]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

I don't think it is.

How would this situation be ruled:

• A player takes a stance near the ball. His caddie is on or near an extension of the line of play.
• He takes some practice swings inside the ball.
• The caddie moves out of the way.
• The player shuffles his feet forward (toward the ball) an inch or two and hits the ball.

Was he in his stance? What if the player steps toward the ball six inches? Twelve?

We still don't really have clarification on when a player has "begun to take his stance," do we?

No, he wasn't in his stance, according to this definition. He moved. It's undoubtedly more defined than it was, is my point. Not sure if you would remember but I have nit-picked over "what-if" scenarios on other rules with you in the past and as I recall (can't find my activity going back that far) your response was basically that they simply can't address every single scenario one can imagine when creating the rules.

9 minutes ago, iacas said:

Not really.

Well I really can't understand that, care to explain?