Vinsk

Lol. Yes ...hell that's how the rule should be written! Sums it up nice and tight.

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.

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

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.

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?

Extreme strong: Pretty solid but drew about 10' off flag Exteme weak: Less solid and faded gently. Classic: Posted this...went to do again just to see how I'd do: Shank. Shank. Golf is hard.

Sung Hyun Park really benefited from this. She was +6 thru 5 holes. Got that erased and then goes to fire -7 under with her fresh start. Just don't think that was fair at all. Certainly a poor way to handle a professional golf tournament especially a Major. Haven't heard Inkster comment on it.

@iacas This sounds like an awesome experiment! I'm gonna try this tomorrow if I get out to the practice tee. Curious, how did you do when you did it? Is this something you thought of? I don't believe I've ever come across this test.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yeah, it helped and screwed some. Jessica Korda was one leader, and a Korean player had 2 double bogies in first 4 holes. She gets a nice fresh set of mulligans now.

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.