[Jim Johnson]

So, Greg Norman is attacking the green on a par-5 this afternoon in the Seniors PGA...kind of a blind second shot, over a bit of a ridge coming down right front of the green...and he hits his shot, and ends up short of the green a bit.

But.........
the camera, from behind the green, panned back as his shot rolled to a stop, and showed a couple of guys blowing leaves and assorted junk off of the green.

So my question.......
If Norman's ball had traveled another 20 yards (or whatever distance it was), and rolled onto the green, and hit one of the guys in the foot, and bounced off the guy and rolled some more, right into the hole...

Would it have counted as a double eagle?
Would he have had to putt it from where it hit the guy?
Would he have had to play it from where it should have stopped (approximately) if it hadn't hit the guy?

I am assuming that it would have counted as a double eagle, but....

Those guys were "in play", they were on the green (unknowing to him), and thus weren't exactly "spectators" idly sitting around taking in the action, behind the ropes.

JJ

[Patrick_Mucci]

So, Greg Norman is attacking the green on a par-5 this afternoon in the Seniors PGA...kind of a blind second shot, over a bit of a ridge coming down right front of the green...and he hits his shot, and ends up short of the green a bit.

But.........
the camera, from behind the green, panned back as his shot rolled to a stop, and showed a couple of guys blowing leaves and assorted junk off of the green.

So my question.......
If Norman's ball had traveled another 20 yards (or whatever distance it was), and rolled onto the green, and hit one of the guys in the foot, and bounced off the guy and rolled some more, right into the hole...

Would it have counted as a double eagle?
Would he have had to putt it from where it hit the guy?
Would he have had to play it from where it should have stopped (approximately) if it hadn't hit the guy?

I am assuming that it would have counted as a double eagle, but....

Those guys were "in play", they were on the green (unknowing to him), and thus weren't exactly "spectators" idly sitting around taking in the action, behind the ropes.

What's the difference ?[/color]

JJ

[Jim Johnson]

About 3 strokes.

[Jim Johnson]

Or about $300,000.00 

[Jason McNamara]

As long as the guy on the green didn't deliberately try to alter the ball's path, it's a 2.  Rule 19, outside agency.  If the guy re-directs on purpose, then I think the rules guys establish a reasonably likely outcome ("in equity"), and Norman would play from there.

But whether Norman can see them is irrelevant to the ruling, as is who they are (as long as it's not his caddy... or partner in a team event).

And if any of this is off-base, someone will correct me -very- soon.   

Jason

ps.  Who was it that aced a par 4 in similar fashion about 6(?) years back?  Andrew Magee maybe?

[TEPaul]

Rule 19-1. By Outside Agency
If a player's ball in motion is accidently deflected or stopped by any OUTSIDE AGENCEY, it is RUB OF THE GREEN, there is no penalty and the ball must be played as it lies, except,

......

Def: Outside Agency
In stroke play, an outside agency is any agency other than the competitor's side and any caddie of the side at the hole being played or any equipment of the side.

Def: Rub of the Green
A "rub of the green" occurs when a ball in motion is accidentally defected of stopped by any OUTSIDE AGENCY.

[Dave_Miller]

So, Greg Norman is attacking the green on a par-5 this afternoon in the Seniors PGA...kind of a blind second shot, over a bit of a ridge coming down right front of the green...and he hits his shot, and ends up short of the green a bit.

But.........
the camera, from behind the green, panned back as his shot rolled to a stop, and showed a couple of guys blowing leaves and assorted junk off of the green.

So my question.......
If Norman's ball had traveled another 20 yards (or whatever distance it was), and rolled onto the green, and hit one of the guys in the foot, and bounced off the guy and rolled some more, right into the hole...

Would it have counted as a double eagle?
Would he have had to putt it from where it hit the guy?
Would he have had to play it from where it should have stopped (approximately) if it hadn't hit the guy?

I am assuming that it would have counted as a double eagle, but....

Those guys were "in play", they were on the green (unknowing to him), and thus weren't exactly "spectators" idly sitting around taking in the action, behind the ropes.

JJ

JJ
See Rule 19-1.  These guys are an outside agency the same as the spectators would be.
Best
Dave

[Adam Clayman]

Plus, if the ball had come to rest and the was blown or kicked (accidentally or intentionally) the ball is replaced where it came to rest.

[Dave_Miller]

Plus, if the ball had come to rest and the was blown or kicked (accidentally or intentionally) the ball is replaced where it came to rest.

Adam:
Correct however that is Rule 18
Best
Dave

[Jon Nolan]

Plus, if the ball had come to rest and the was blown or kicked (accidentally or intentionally) the ball is replaced where it came to rest.

Kicked yes but wind is not an outside agency.  If a ball moves due to wind it must not be replaced.  If it is the player falls afoul of 20-7.

[John Sheehan]

ps.  Who was it that aced a par 4 in similar fashion about 6(?) years back?  Andrew Magee maybe?

Yes, it was Magee at the 16th hole, TPC Scottsdale.  His tee shot hit another player's putter (Tom Byrum?),  ricocheted off it and into the hole. "It's good, no foul, it counts!" -- that's for any Bill King fans in the treehouse. 

[Adam Clayman]

In this case I was referring to the blowing that was from the guys using the mechanized blowers. Surely, that has to be considered an outside agency and not "the wind".

[Jon Nolan]

In this case I was referring to the blowing that was from the guys using the mechanized blowers. Surely, that has to be considered an outside agency and not "the wind".

Gotcha.  I didn't connect those dots.  I agree with you.  Mechanized, outside agency generated "wind" is not wind as defined by the ROG.  I should think it would be considered an OA in its own right.

Hmmmm.  But how to determine if the blowers were responsible for the movement or not?

[TEPaul]

"Hmmmm.  But how to determine if the blowers were responsible for the movement or not?"


Jon:

That's what rules officials are there to do---use their judment with all the available facts of a particular situation to make a decision in the context of the rules. Golfers on their own without Rules officials just need to so the same.

[JohnV]

Magee ace was on 17 at TPC Scottsdale.

There is a new decision this year that says that "Blown Air" is an outside agency:

18-1/2 Status of Air When Artificially Propelled
 
Q. What is the status of air from a blower operated by an outside agency or from a fan?
 
A. Although the Definition of “Outside Agency” states that wind is not an outside agency,
in this case the artificially-propelled air is considered to be an outside agency.   
 
If such artificially-propelled air moves a ball at rest, Rule 18-1 applies. (New)

Therefore the ball would be replaced if it was at rest and moved by a blower.

[Patrick_Mucci]

About 3 strokes.

If Norman's ball had traveled another 20 yards (or whatever distance it was), and rolled onto the green, and hit one of the guys in the foot, and bounced off the guy and rolled some more, right into the hole...

Would it have counted as a double eagle?
Would he have had to putt it from where it hit the guy?
Would he have had to play it from where it should have stopped (approximately) if it hadn't hit the guy?

I am assuming that it would have counted as a double eagle, but....

Those guys were "in play", they were on the green (unknowing to him), and thus weren't exactly "spectators" idly sitting around taking in the action, behind the ropes.



The question, which you didn't understand, asked "what the difference is between maintainance guys, spectators and competitors still putting on the green ?[/color]

JVB, TEPaul and others,

The question wasn't about the effect of blowers, it was about the ball in motion being inadvertantly deflected by the foot of the maintainance worker.

[Jim Johnson]

Pat, I understood your question completely. I asked mine because I wasn't 100% on the answer to where the ball is allowed to finish, given the circumstance that I suggested.

[JohnV]

Patrick,

I know what the question was.  There were other questions which I chose to answer at that point.  So, to answer the orginal questions.

The definition of Outside Agency which will tell you that someone who is appointed by the Committee for some task is an Outside Agency just as a spectator is.

The definition of "Rub of the Green", which is a ball in motion accidentally deflected by an outside agency and will tell you to see Rule 19-1.

Reading Rule 19-1 tells you that a ball in motion accidentally deflected by an outside agency will be played as it lies unless the stroke was from the putting green and the OA was moving or animate (except for insects, worms or the like), in which case it is replayed.

So, if Greg's second shot hit the person with the blower and went in the hole the ball would be holed and he would have made a double eagle.

[Jon Nolan]

"Hmmmm.  But how to determine if the blowers were responsible for the movement or not?"


Jon:

That's what rules officials are there to do---use their judment with all the available facts of a particular situation to make a decision in the context of the rules. Golfers on their own without Rules officials just need to so the same.

Agreed TEPaul.  But whether one is an official or a player and depending on the situation it could really be tough to nail down the facts.  Such as if there is a breeze present AND guys are blowing leaves.  Which of the two (or both) moved the ball at rest?  Could make for a real head scratcher.

While I think the decision quoted (thanks John Vander Borght) is consistent and correct it sure doesn't help clear the murky waters.  I suppose 1-4 comes into play if the parties involved flat out can't determine the facts. 

As an aside, we also need to keep in mind that the actions of an OA can just as easily send a ball into a less favorable position. 

[JohnV]

Jon,

I think there would need to be strong evidence that the outside agency (leaf blower) moved the ball and not the wind.  In other words, the leaf blower should have been pointed in that direction from a fairly short distance and there should have been nowhere near enough wind to have caused the ball to move.

Decision 18-2b/4 talks about how the ball moved after the player grounded his club, but before he completed his stance.  He would be penalized for causing his ball to move unless there was strong evidence that something else moved the ball.

This is not equity, there are rules for a ball moved by an outside agency.  It is just a question of fact whether that agency moved the ball or not.  Without evidence that the agency moved it, the ball will be played from where it came to rest, good or bad.

[Adam Clayman]

Here's one obtuse thought for our resident physicists.
 Does an object in motion come to rest, even for a nano second, if it's vector is altered to the exact opposite direction? Does it have to be an exact reversal of direction to postulate that it may have come to rest (zero velocity)?

[Jon Nolan]

This is not equity, there are rules for a ball moved by an outside agency.  It is just a question of fact whether that agency moved the ball or not.  Without evidence that the agency moved it, the ball will be played from where it came to rest, good or bad.

Hi John.

Isn't it damn near impossible to prove one way or another that a leaf blower moved a ball?  I should think if the operator walked right up to the ball and started it rolling there would be clear evidence but short of that...  If the ball crawls over a ridge, almost stopping, and on down to the hole (or away from it) while a worker is blowing leaves 15 feet away would we be able to find evidence either way?  I get what you're saying about proximity but why didn't they allude to that in the decision? 

I should think 1-4 potentially plays a role here as obtaining the facts simply might not be possible.  Not necessarily in favor of the player of course.  Is it possibly a bit like 1-4/7 regarding the status of a ball lost in either a hazard or casual water?

In the vast majority of situations there's probably no way to prove artificial wind helped, hindered or had no effect on a ball yet they felt the need to write the decision.  Why did they do so and what's the thought process?  Was it just to address egregious situations such as the blower inches away from the ball?  I'd love to know the contributing scenario behind 18-1/2 if there is one.

I suspect you're quite qualified on this stuff and probably know better than I so I'd love to hear your thoughts.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JVB,

That was my point, that it didn't matter who the individual was, a maintainance worker, spectator or fellow competitor in the group in front, the results are still the same, ..... eagle.

[John_Cullum]

This is not equity, there are rules for a ball moved by an outside agency.  It is just a question of fact whether that agency moved the ball or not.  Without evidence that the agency moved it, the ball will be played from where it came to rest, good or bad.

Hi John.

Isn't it damn near impossible to prove one way or another that a leaf blower moved a ball?  ....

I should think 1-4 potentially plays a role here as obtaining the facts simply might not be possible.  Not necessarily in favor of the player of course.  Is it possibly a bit like 1-4/7 regarding the status of a ball lost in either a hazard or casual water?

In the vast majority of situations there's probably no way to prove artificial wind helped, hindered or had no effect on a ball yet they felt the need to write the decision.  Why did they do so and what's the thought process?  Was it just to address egregious situations such as the blower inches away from the ball?  I'd love to know the contributing scenario behind 18-1/2 if there is one.

Rule 1-4 is not used to resolve questions of fact.

Sometimes the decisions give some guidance on resolving factual issues by stating whether the player gets the benefit of the doubt or not.

Generally, the strong prference in the rules is to play the ball as it lay. In this case, it would seem that if there is doubt, the ball is presumed not to have been influenced by an outside agency.

The decision was likely adopted to address an increasing problem caused by fans located very near to putting greens

[JohnV]

Jon,

I agree with John.  If the facts aren't there that an outside agency moved the ball, it should be played where it finally came to rest.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()