New "unofficial" golf rule needed

[Bill Shamleffer]

First, how does someone at home watching TV have the ability to get August National on the phone during the Masters?

But, primarily  -  all golf tournaments should cease accepting all phone calls per possible rule infractions!

[Carl Johnson]

Please, what's the situation that prompted this question?  I've been a little out of the loop the past couple of days.

[Ronald Montesano]

Carl needed multiple days of therapy after watching me butcher the Carolina Golf Club greens on Thursday...talk about the need for a designated putter!  Now there's an official golf rule that would certainly have helped me.

[JohnV]

Bill,

Explain why someone watching on television at home should be any different than someone watching live at the course or on TV in the grill room at the tournament.

[Joe Hancock]

Should anyone other than a competitor or their opponent be allowed to call an infraction?

Joe

[Dan Herrmann]

Bill,
I watched all day long.  What violation are you talking about?

[Bill Shamleffer]

I do not know all the facts, but per The Golf Channel, someone called in and said the saw McIlroy kick the sand in the bunker on 18 thus violating the rule against testing the sand.  If this was correct, he would have signed for an incorrect score (the 7 on 18 not including the penalty stroke) and thus would have been DQed.  Per The Golf Channel, the Masters officials finally ruled after reviewing the tape that there was no violation, and McIlroy stands at +1 after 36.

John,

I am very much interested in your opinion in this matter, and will grant much deference towards your opinion due to your greater experience in rules of golf situations.

However, I feel that one watching on TV can be too easily fooled or can too easily misinterpret what they have seen.  I feel that it is wrong for a player to suffer going through the process of re-reviewing what occurred on the course (maybe many hours earlier) just because someone THINKS they saw on TV a rule violation.

At least if someone in the crowed sees something wrong, #1 their perception is not that much different than the perception as other players and officials have (that is not viewing the situation through TV which does distort things); and #2 they can alert a rules official immediately and the situations can be dealt with either before completion of that hole or at least within the next few holes, or at worst hopefully before the scorecard is signed.

Finally, there is the threat that this is taken out against a player that fan or spectator does not like.  Perhaps a fan sees their most disliked player violate a rule accidently, but decides not to call it to the attention of rule officials until after he signs the scorecard hoping a DQ will occur.  The other players and rules officials have a code of ethics (some official, some unwritten), and know that they have an obligation to call attention any rules violation they see as soon as possible.  The fans do not have an obligation to this code of ethics.  Unless an outside individual sees blatent/intentional cheating, or can warn the player right before a rule is violated, ALL rules situations should be left to those involved officially in that event.

[Ronald Montesano]

1.. When did he purportedly kick the sand?  Was he already out of the bunker?

2.  Joe Hancock, the answer is "no."  It is what makes our sport/game great; we call our own penalties and we discipline on our own.  I symbolically hurl every time I read about Mike Bamberger or the Towel Assassin or some other interloper bearing influence on a golf tournament.

[Bill Shamleffer]

1.. When did he purportedly kick the sand?  Was he already out of the bunker?

Per CBSSPORTS.com. McIlroy had played a shot from the greenside bunker that stayed in the bunker.  I have not seen the event either live on TV or on any tape on TGC.

[Ronald Montesano]

What an irony!  How can he be penalized for testing the sand with a kick when he already played a shot from the same sand?  I understand that it would be a violation of the rule, but it is quite illogical when I consider it.

[Peter Pallotta]

John VB - I agree with Joe H, and I have always thought of it this way: Every player in the field can call a penalty on himself, or have one of his playing partners point one out -- which means that the rules are being applied equitably and enforced evenly. But as soon as you allow calls in from people watching on TV (or watching from outside the ropes) you change that equation -- the rules are still being applied equitably, but no more are they being enforced evenly, since those watching on TV are watching the leaders or most popular players disproportionately, and so are able to "spot" more infractions; meanwhile, no one is paying any attention to the back-markers (who could be getting away with murder for all I know).  So, to me that's the clear negative of the current system. If I could find one positive, I maybe wouldn’t mind so much, but I can't. Of course, I'd be very interested in your take.

Peter  

[John Moore II]

AUGUSTA, Georgia, April 10 (Reuters) - Teenager Rory McIlroy survived an anxious wait at the U.S. Masters on Friday before advancing into the third round right on the cut line of one-over-par 145.

A question had been raised over whether the 19-year-old from Northern Ireland had illegally tested the sand when he kicked out in disgust before playing a second shot from a greenside bunker at the par-four 18th.

After reviewing television footage of the incident, consultation with McIlroy and lengthy deliberations, the competition committee cleared the teenager.

“No violation of the rules had occurred,” competition committee chairman Fred Ridley said in a statement.



That is the news statement I read on Yahoo!. I would have to say, that based on the information at hand, I have to agree with their decision (and not because they are the rules officals and I am not). My first thought was that if he kicked the sand in a bunker he had been in previously and was still in, he no more tested the sand with that kick than he did digging his feet in for the first shot or playing the shot. To me, the rules in this situation are a bit odd. A player is allowed to take a stance in a bunker, digging the feet in and everything and then back away, pick a club, etc., then come back to the ball to play the shot. Is that not testing the hazard? (yes I know how the decision reads)

But my first thought with the information at hand was that I would not have called any penalty on him. It was not his intent to test the condition of the sand; he all ready knew the condition. (On the thought of intent however, please lets not bring up Harrington, his situation was defined exactly in the rules. McIllroy's situation is not as clearly defined, though Exception 2 to Rule 13-4 and Decision 13-4/36 give some guidance on how to proceed)

[TEPaul]

PeterP and BillS:

The Rules of Golf provide that the collection of information on the actual "facts" of any Rules situation is one of the keys to any and all rulings and Rules resolutions. See Dec. 27/12 and 34/3/9 (perhaps the longest decision answer in the book and ironically the last decision in the book) as to how the Decisions (which are part of the Rules of Golf) treat information from spectators or even Television viewers. That's the way the Rules are written and interpreted now, and have been for quite some time. Maybe they will change it someday but that's the way they are now.

Various key words are extremely important and determinative in the Rules of Golf such as "may" (an option) or "must" (a Rule's requirement) so when you see them in a Rule of Golf or Decision on the Rules of Golf consider them as essential determinatives as to various courses of action on a ruling. In the case of Dec. 34-3/9 as it applies to spectator and TV information and the "Committee" in charge of the Competition it's actually a MUST, believe it or not.

Of course the "Committee" is only REQUIRED to ACCEPT "testimony" from spectators and TV viewers if they elect to give it. The Rules do not attempt to tell the "Committee" how to resolve any particular Rules situation for fairly obvious reasons that no Rules situation is ever likely completely identical to another one.

[Ronald Montesano]

And to muddy the waters of Rae's Creek even darker, the competitor may not switch clubs once the bunker stance has been taken/built.  If he/she does, a penalty is incurred.

[Chris Cupit]

I certainly understand the frustration with the TV rules "nazis" who seem to thrive on being able to call in and have an impact but what would you have a committee in charge of a competition do with information they receive (unsolicited) that may impact the competition?

For example, what if TV captures a competitor flat out cheating.  The cheater is good enough not to get caught and the only way this situation is caught is by a viewer on TV calling in.  The committee reveiws the tape, brings the competitor in to question his actions and rules based on information they would never have received without the TV and the caller.

TV and witnesses in the crowd can often help identify where balls were prior to being moved by outside agencies or other situations and this is considered quite helpful.  We can be more exact and accurate in those cases.



Peter,  being a leader and on TV may subject one to more scrutiny but that argument can lead anywhere--the leaders have larger galleries and fewer lost balls, more chances to bounce off galleries and back into play, must deal with more noise and movement due to a larger crowd.  

Golf's not fair and the Rules can seem unfair in many ways--I'm fat and can draw up casual water easier than my skinny opponent whose ball may lie in the exact same spot  I may get relief and he won't.

Again, I never had much affection for the "tattle tale" but once given information that is confirmable, how do you ignore it?

[John Moore II]

And to muddy the waters of Rae's Creek even darker, the competitor may not switch clubs once the bunker stance has been taken/built.  If he/she does, a penalty is incurred.

No, no penalty is incurred.
13-4/26  Taking Stance in Bunker and Then Changing Clubs

Q. A player takes his stance in a bunker and firmly places his feet in the sand. He then leaves his position to change clubs and thereafter takes his stance a second time. Is the player considered to have tested the condition of the hazard, contrary to Rule 13-4?

A. No. Rule 13-3 allows a player to place his feet firmly in taking his stance in a bunker or elsewhere. There is nothing in the Rules to prohibit changing clubs or taking a stance twice in a bunker.

[Ronald Montesano]

AAAAHHHHHHH!  Why do I remember it as a penalty from my youth?  Was this rule changed?

[Peter Pallotta]

TE, Chris - thanks. Yes, once the infomation is confirmed and a violation identified, it's hard to argue that a penalty should not be levied (especially since, as TE points out, the Committee must "accept" the testimony from outsiders but is not obliged to take that testimony as gospel truth.)  But that the testimony can come from anyone at all seems to me not to heighten the integrity of the game/golfer, but to diminish it (somehow, and in ways that I can't quite articulate). 
Peter

[John Moore II]

AAAAHHHHHHH!  Why do I remember it as a penalty from my youth?  Was this rule changed?

I don't know if the rule has been changed over the years. However, (depending on the 'prestige' of the event) the offical may have gotten the ruling wrong. I have gotten rulings wrong in tournaments before (nothing major done wrong, mind you) and once was told I didn't get relief for ground-under-repair, even though the soil had obviously been tilled with a rotary tiller just days before because "thats just a bad shot and shouldn't get relief." Those were the words exactly out of the offical's mouth. Your penalty may have come from a similar situation, if not as blantantly ignorant.

[Doug Siebert]

Why is the view of TV cameras considered to be worse than the view of spectators?  TV cameras probably have a better view of what is happening nearly all cases, what with them being hand-held in the fairways or up in towers 30 feet above the action.

What I'd like to know is what happened with Harrington when he got that penalty on the 15th for his ball moving.  They said he'd taken his stance but it didn't look to me like he'd placed his club behind the ball.  So if you put your feet in the position you intend them to be but not your club that's your stance?  What if you do like me and you take your stance, take a practice swing next to the ball, then move your feet perhaps 1" forward and then ground the club behind the ball?

Given that scenario when would a ball movement cause a penalty for me?  When I've taken my initial practice swing stance and take a practice swing near the ball?  When I've moved my feet an inch forward but not yet grounded the club behind the ball?  Or not until I've grounded my club behind the ball in preparation for my putt?

The more I learn about the rules the less sense they make.  If the wind is blowing hard and I'm standing several feet away from my ball upwind (thus shielding it from the wind) and then I move, in the process exposing my ball to the wind at which point it moves due to the wind, in any real sense I'm the one who caused my ball to move.  But per the rules I didn't cause it to move.  But if I happen to put my feet in position to putt without actually grounding my club behind it if it moves having nothing whatsoever to do with me then I'm penalized?  What a load of crap!

[Philip Gawith]

What about the Harrington incident? As I saw it on TV - he addresses the ball with his putter (on 15th green) and is then subject to a heavy gust of wind, so he withdraws from the address position (but the ball is unmoved). He then starts to readress the ball but before he has done so, the ball moves x feet, clearly on account of the wind( his putter at this stage is not grounded and he has clearly not "re-addressed" the ball).

So Harrington is penalised a shot because the ball moved after he addressed it. But surely when he withdrew from the ball after he addressed it, he ceased to address it?

It seems very unfair that he was penalised in these circumstances when it is 100% clear that the ball moved because of the wind - and when it happened he was not addressing the ball?

Is there really no room for discretion in these circumstances?

[Brian_Ewen]

Must have been someone watching the BBC feed .

As according to my American friends , they got no coverage of Rory aking a hash of the 18th yesterday .

[Brian_Ewen]

On the Harrington incident .

Surely we all know this rule ...... ? , and Harrington admitted in a interview later that he knew the rule .

So why did it take two referees to convince him , he was correct ?

[Mike McGuire]

On the Harrington incident .

Surely we all know this rule ...... ? , and Harrington admitted in a interview later that he knew the rule .

So why did it take two referees to convince him , he was correct ?

If Harrington knew the rule (and you would think he would) why didn't he do the only thing that would protect him and MARK the ball.

[Cliff Hamm]

John VB - I agree with Joe H, and I have always thought of it this way: Every player in the field can call a penalty on himself, or have one of his playing partners point one out -- which means that the rules are being applied equitably and enforced evenly. But as soon as you allow calls in from people watching on TV (or watching from outside the ropes) you change that equation -- the rules are still being applied equitably, but no more are they being enforced evenly, since those watching on TV are watching the leaders or most popular players disproportionately, and so are able to "spot" more infractions; meanwhile, no one is paying any attention to the back-markers (who could be getting away with murder for all I know).  So, to me that's the clear negative of the current system. If I could find one positive, I maybe wouldn’t mind so much, but I can't. Of course, I'd be very interested in your take.

Peter  

Peter hits the nail on the head.  If the rules of golf are to make the game fair than applying them unevenly defeats the purpose.  Not every player on every shot is shown on television.  Therefore the 'misfortune' for those that are if a viewer sees a supposed infraction.  This is absolutely the crux of the issue.