The Rose Ruling: What say ye?

[Kevin Lynch]

OK, I’ll be this morning’s moron.  This whole incident is so silly it illustrates why so many think golfers are nerds.  Grown men agonizing for hours over whether the ball moved a pixel or two.  Did he improve his lie?  Was the shot the same?  Was there any advantage gained?  Play it as it lays and get on with it.  This rule and the resulting character test about whether to call a penalty on yourself strikes me as some sort of self righteous act of faith to determine if you are a true believer.  I never understood how the spirit of the game depends on such a trivial test.  Nobody was trying to cheat.  Hit the ball and play golf.

+1  (I won't let you stand alone if the above is deemed moronic)

[Joe Bausch]

From Tom Paul:

Thank you Dave McCollum----I hope your post will put a punctuation mark on this particular thread, and even others like it to come! To me it is so sad to see so many constantly taking to task golf administrators, golf rules officials and others of that ilk, and sometimes including players involved in those kinds of rules situations. Calling them weak and weasels and such is definitely not in the spirit of the game and probably is, as you say, some misguided attempt at self-righteousness. 

I think it is also poignant and significant that this ruling involved Justin Rose. I saw I think most of his press interview on this ruling and I think he acquitted himself beautifully in what he said and the way he acted regarding the rules incident. I spent the week in the US Open Media Center at Merion last year and I was mightily impressed by that young man both inside and outside the ropes (I even went on record predicting on Friday at 4pm that he would win the tournament). I think he is a young man who represents the game just about as well as any golfer could.

[Rich Goodale]

The Rules are as clear as mud on this issue.  They say that if you touch the ball and it oscillates but does not "move" from its "original position" no foul has been comitted and you can play the ball as it lies without penalty.  However, if you exert enough force on a ball to make it oscillate you have started the purely innocent pelota on a Newtonian journey involving force, mass, acceleration and deceleration, friction and gravity and only rocket scientists know what other forces, all combining to absolutely make it impossible that the ball will not have ended up its journey in exactly the "same position" as it started.  It may look like the same place, but it ain't, surely on the molecular level and probably not either on whatever level current HD technology can record and measure.  The rule should be changed to "If you touch a ball with your club or any part of you or your clothing (even if just in adressing the ball), there is a one stroke penalty (or more simply 'you have played a stroke').  If the ball moves as a result, you MUST play it from there, as you have, in fact, taken a stroke.

Or something of that ilk.......

[MClutterbuck]

TD-thanks for taking my ribbing in the good-natured way it was intended.

Jack Nicklaus going to the extreme of hovering his club before all shots sounds better and better with each brush with a moving ball we read about or see.

Bill Campbell, not Jack Nicklaus initiated that technique.

If a ball oscillates or moves but returns to it's original position there is NO penalty.

MClutterbuck,

If the ball moves from it's original position, it is NOT replaced.

Just as the "hitter" knows, the "golfer" knows.

Patrick_Mucci,

Please explain why you state the ball does not have to be replaced? I believe you are wrong or I am not understanding your comment.

Rule 18-2b States the following:

b. Ball Moving After Address
If a player’s ball in play moves after he has addressed it (other than as a result of a stroke), the player is deemed to have moved the ball and incurs a penalty of one stroke.

The ball must be replaced, unless the movement of the ball occurs after the player has begun the stroke or the backward movement of the club for the stroke and the stroke is made.

Exception: If it is known or virtually certain that the player did not cause his ball to move, Rule 18-2b does not apply.

___

As an aside, in some of the years Nicklaus played, hovering the club instead of grounding did not make a difference if the ball moved, as it was deemed he had taken a stance and therefore had addressed the ball, even if he did not ground the club. That rule has now changed again.

[John Kavanaugh]

How thick was the rule book when Bobby Jones played.  As with most of society the rules of golf have become a power grab against those who can play by those who can't.  God forbid we watch a golf tournament without getting an ass shot of a fat white guy in a bad hat pointing a walkie talkie.

[Carl Johnson]

If the ball moves from it's original position, it is NOT replaced.

. . .
The only exception to these rules is when the movement of the ball occurs after the player has begun the stroke or the backward movement of the club for the stroke and the stroke is made.

Just learned something.  I called a 2-stroke penalty on myself the other day when the ball just moved (it was on a slope) when I was at the top of my backswing and I couldn't stop and hit the ball - and not well at all since it was still moving (I think) when I struck it.  So, I didn't need the penalty.  Let's say I was skilled enough to stop with out making the swing.  Would I replace, or just play the ball where it had settled?  As I read 18.1, I would not replace the ball, but go ahead an play it from where it had come to rest.

[Bill_McBride]

The words "I'm not sure if it moved" are the key to this situation.

Unless the people involved can say "I'm sure it did not move" you can't have any confidence the situation was handled correctly.

The PGA Tour is run by the human equivalent of a weasel, so what can you expect?

Jack Tuthill and Gordy Glenz, both longtime PGA officials, were great guys and members of my club in Pensacola.  Either would have happily punched you in the nose for that comment!   No weasels those two.  Maybe it's changed, but administering the rules requires firmness and sound judgment, certainly not the hallmarks of a weasel. 

[MClutterbuck]

If the ball moves from it's original position, it is NOT replaced.

. . .
The only exception to these rules is when the movement of the ball occurs after the player has begun the stroke or the backward movement of the club for the stroke and the stroke is made.

Just learned something.  I called a 2-stroke penalty on myself the other day when the ball just moved (it was on a slope) when I was at the top of my backswing and I couldn't stop and hit the ball - and not well at all since it was still moving (I think) when I struck it.  So, I didn't need the penalty.  Let's say I was skilled enough to stop with out making the swing.  Would I replace, or just play the ball where it had settled?  As I read 18.1, I would not replace the ball, but go ahead an play it from where it had come to rest.

Had you stopped, a stroke was not made, you have 1 shot penalty and you must replace. The exception is for the case you actually continue the swing and hit the ball, there is no penalty for having not replaced.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

So in essence a ball can rotate around its centre of rotation as as long as it returns to its original position...no penalty.
That then means it could feasibly move about just over half an inch and return to its original place.
That based upon the radius of a golf ball, which if not exceeded will allow for the centre of mass to return to its original position.

[MClutterbuck]

TD-thanks for taking my ribbing in the good-natured way it was intended.

Jack Nicklaus going to the extreme of hovering his club before all shots sounds better and better with each brush with a moving ball we read about or see.

Bill Campbell, not Jack Nicklaus initiated that technique.

If a ball oscillates or moves but returns to it's original position there is NO penalty.

MClutterbuck,

If the ball moves from it's original position, it is NOT replaced.

Golf is a game of integrity.
Tom Doak's reference to Bobby Jones is an example of the personification of integrity..

Just as the "hitter" knows, the "golfer" knows.

Patrick_Mucci

No coment on 18-2b rule? Either you have been in violation of the rules, or I have, or you have never encountered the situation. I would not want that to happen again.

See my previous response where i posted 18-2b, requiring the ball to be replaced.

Marcos

[Chris Cupit]

It is correct that if you cause your ball to move it is a 1 stroke penalty and you replace the ball.  With rare ex exceptions once you have addressed your ball, if it moves you are penalized a stroke and you must replace the ball.

By definition a ball has not "moved" unless it "leaves its position AND comes to rest in any other place".  In theory this does mean that if you somehow KNEW the exact position of your ball, kicked it and it somehow miraculously returned to the EXACT postion even after traveling twenty feet or so, it did not "move" and there is no penalty.   

[Ricardo Ramirez Calvo]

As an aside, in some of the years Nicklaus played, hovering the club instead of grounding did not make a difference if the ball moved, as it was deemed he had taken a stance and therefore had addressed the ball, even if he did not ground the club. That rule has now changed again.

Marcos,

You are right regarding rule 18-2 b, but your statement about Nicklaus is incorrect. At that time, the rule said that a player addressed the ball when taking his stance and grounding the club, except in a bunker, where taking the stance was enough to address the ball. Thus, Nicklaus did not ground the club to avoid addressing the ball and incurring in penalty if it moved. The rule did change a few years ago, to eliminate the reference to taking the stance.

Kind regards,

[MClutterbuck]

As an aside, in some of the years Nicklaus played, hovering the club instead of grounding did not make a difference if the ball moved, as it was deemed he had taken a stance and therefore had addressed the ball, even if he did not ground the club. That rule has now changed again.

Marcos,

You are right regarding rule 18-2 b, but your statement about Nicklaus is incorrect. At that time, the rule said that a player addressed the ball when taking his stance and grounding the club, except in a bunker, where taking the stance was enough to address the ball. Thus, Nicklaus did not ground the club to avoid addressing the ball and incurring in penalty if it moved. The rule did change a few years ago, to eliminate the reference to taking the stance.

Kind regards,

Ricardo,

We are both thinking about the change in definition in 2012, when the reference to taking a stance was eliminated. We agree post 2012 and the years leading to 2012.

I thought I recalled a period of time where the definition did not include grounding the club, and I belive I got assessed penalty strokes when I was a kid (and copying Nicklaus I did not ground my club). A quick check of the 1960, 1970, and 1980 USGA Rules did not turn up any support for my statement, so I believe you are right Ricardo and I was wrong.

At the time I also recall reading Nicklaus tips where he mentioned not grounding the club was to promote a smooth take away, but it might have served both purposes.

Best,

[Dan Herrmann]

I THINK golf may be the only sport who's calls are not guarded by the "no harm, no foul" paradigm.  That may be the cause of these goofy rulings against players where NO advantage was gained.

[Michael Moore]

this is a universal problem in pro golf today

Tom -

I did not want to believe this (and I still don't believe that the behavior of golfers playing for millions can be used to draw large conclusions about society), but damn, look at what John Cook failed to call on himself with dozens of people standing there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hN3xw1hank

You are correct. Kids watching are going to think that you play a round, then you go to the tent to see if someone thinks you broke any rules, then you have a brief debate, then you sign your scorecard. Big problem.

[John Kavanaugh]

Golfers now believe that rules are there to improve your score not punish you.  When they are punishment it is like pulling teeth.  We have created a nation of cheaters who don't even know they are guilty.  The sad truth is that old fat white guys would have to give up their power over the game to right this wrong.

I can simply no longer stomach playing in tournaments where I complete against people outside my group.  My group may not play by the rules, because it is impossible, but at least we play by the same rules.

How about that green pocketed flap douche in the Champions tour event that dropped his ball before it was revealed only to be hiding.  It was the second worst mistake of his day.

[Carl Johnson]

If the ball moves from it's original position, it is NOT replaced.

. . .
The only exception to these rules is when the movement of the ball occurs after the player has begun the stroke or the backward movement of the club for the stroke and the stroke is made.

Just learned something.  I called a 2-stroke penalty on myself the other day when the ball just moved (it was on a slope) when I was at the top of my backswing and I couldn't stop and hit the ball - and not well at all since it was still moving (I think) when I struck it.  So, I didn't need the penalty.  Let's say I was skilled enough to stop with out making the swing.  Would I replace, or just play the ball where it had settled?  As I read 18.1, I would not replace the ball, but go ahead an play it from where it had come to rest.

Had you stopped, a stroke was not made, you have 1 shot penalty and you must replace. The exception is for the case you actually continue the swing and hit the ball, there is no penalty for having not replaced.

Interestingly, upon looking at the rules and decisions further I discovered a further exception in 18-2b.  "Exception: If it is known or virtually certain that the player did not cause his ball to move, Rule 18-2b does not apply."  So, I would not have to move the ball back, even if I did not complete my swing if "it is known or virtually certain that" I did not cause the ball to move.  That seemed like the case, to me.  However, even further research uncovered decision 18-2b/1:

Ball Moves After Address; Movement May Have Been Due to the Effects of Gravity

Q. A player addressed his ball and it subsequently moved. It is uncertain what caused the ball to move as the conditions at the time were calm, there were no outside agencies present and the player did nothing obvious to cause the ball to move. The player believed that, as he did not cause his ball to move, it must have moved as a result of the effects of gravity and, therefore, the Exception to Rule 18-2b should apply. What is the ruling?

A. The player incurs a penalty of one stroke under Rule 18-2b and the ball must be replaced.

The effects of gravity do not satisfy the Exception to Rule 18-2b. The Exception only applies when it is known or virtually certain that the player did not cause his ball to move. In order to meet this standard, it must be known or virtually certain that some other observable factor (e.g., wind, water or an outside agency) caused the ball to move. Otherwise, the player is deemed to have caused the movement and Rule 18-2b applies. (New)

Thus, it seems to me, the decision sort of guts the exception and turns the turns the wording of the rule on its head.  Rather than "it must be known or virtually certain that the player did not actually cause the ball to move," it must be known or virtually certain that something else, like wind or water, caused it to move.  And, gravity does not count!  So, in my case the ball was on a slope and it was held in place by grass, which eventually gave way, and then as a result of gravity the ball moved.  And I lose.  However, no penalty if I finish the stroke in progress.  Seems a little strange, except maybe the idea is that hitting a moving ball might be enough of a penalty.

In any case, accepting the rule and the decision as the law, I'd like to think the USGA would revise the wording of the rule itself to make the intended outcome clearer.

[Michael Moore]

So, in my case the ball was on a slope and it was held in place by grass, which eventually gave way, and then as a result of gravity the ball moved.  And I lose.  However, no penalty if I finish the stroke in progress.  Seems a little strange, except maybe the idea is that hitting a moving ball might be enough of a penalty.

You still get a one-stroke penalty for causing your ball to move, but you don't have to replace it, so you don't risk the second one-stroke penalty for failure to replace. When I wrote "The only exception to these rules" I was talking about the rules that discuss the replacement of the ball after it having been moved by something other than an outside agency.