Marking Controversy in Irish Open

[Pat Burke]

I'm always confused by these events.  I was borderline crazy about getting my ball marked properly.
If I had to move it for another player, I threw my ball to my caddy so I wouldn't forget to replace it, would pick a spot at the side of the green to line the putter up, but also try to find a mark on the green as a second reference point.  My personal nightmare was when I replaced a ball, and it wouldn't stay where I believed it was supposed to be.  I would get borderline OCD trying to get it back to what I thought was correct.


All of these "mistakes" don't mean cheating, but IMO should mean penalty.  Follow the damned rules.  He should have gotten the penalty, and owned it

[Jim_Coleman]

     This one is pretty obviously an accident.  He couldn't mark it directly behind the ball because there was already marker there.  When he replaced it, he forgot the odd circumstance and replaced the ball as he always does.  I suppose this is technically a penalty, as intent isn't part of the equation.
     Lexi, on the other hand, replaced her ball incorrectly in virtually the same motion as when she marked it. There was no forgetting or acting in a normal routine. It looked intentional to me, as she balked on her putt before marking mark her ball, apparently because she didn't like something about having to putt. 
    In the "palace of justice," it seems that a fair result was reached in both cases, putting aside the day later problem with Lexi.

[Rob Marshall]

As the size of your marker increases it goes without saying that your ball is more likely to remain in front of your mark no matter what your intent may be. I would therefore question the intent of anyone with a marker larger than a quarter. In simpler terms...Golfers use poker chip style markers with the intent of getting that extra 1/4 inch they can't get with a dime.

John, you're all wet on this one. Any good cheater knows that you want the thinnest marker possible. It allows you to slide it farther under the ball enabling you to pick up a few more millimeters towards the hole. Guy in my group used to joke that another was grinding down his quarters. Have to admit I'm addicted to the poker chip...

[John Connolly]

As the size of your marker increases it goes without saying that your ball is more likely to remain in front of your mark no matter what your intent may be. I would therefore question the intent of anyone with a marker larger than a quarter. In simpler terms...Golfers use poker chip style markers with the intent of getting that extra 1/4 inch they can't get with a dime.

Huh?

[John Kavanaugh]

John,


I would think it is perfectly clear that as the size of a mark nears infinity it becomes more difficult to locate the original position of the ball. Where in fact as the mark becomes smaller the location becomes more exact. These poker chip style marks are just a feel good way of returning the ball to an approximate location with a clear conscience.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Pat,

you weren't under the scrutiny of TV cameras. What would you have done if you had gone borderline crazy about getting it right and then a viewer calls in to say that the slow motion replay shows you still missed the spot by a few millimeters? Surely you would have accepted the penalty, had one been imposed on you, but if no penalty had been the decision, would you have contested it?

Ulrich

[Jerry Kluger]

I can distinctly remember Rickie Fowler at this year's US Open being asked to move his marker and he did so using his puttered.  However, I never saw him look up for a point of reference at the time that he moved it and at the time that he replaced it.  Seemed quite unusual to me as I have been told that the only way to properly do so is to look at some fixed object as a point of reference so you know where to put it back. 


As an aside, I remember Sergio allowing someone else to mark his ball - I believe it was at a US Open, and when he went to put it back the official told him that it was OK for him to do so provided the person who marked it told him how he had marked it - in that case he was told that the marker was directly behind the location of the ball. I had thought that the person who marked it had to replace it but apparently that is not the case.

[archie_struthers]

 




An easy answer to me seems that we should mark all balls with coin in front of ball. 


Replacement right behind !




Take temptations  from inchers

[David Cronheim]

I think it might be wise to step out of the echo chamber on this one. These sorts of "rules controversies" are exactly the sort of thing that turns off the casual fan and hurts the perception of the game. That said, I think a lot of the prior posts misstate the standard from Decision 34-3/10. A player simply is not required to put the ball back exactly in the same spot. In fact, the point of the Decision is precisely to abandon that approach. Rather, a player is required to use reasonable judgment to try and put the ball back in the same spot and it has to pass the "naked eye" test. Everyone agrees the ball is millimeters from where it was when marked. The rule was applied correctly.


I think a lot of the prior posts also miss a key part of the animating spirit of the Decision, which is that it is inherently inequitable to subject certain players to the heightened standard of intense video review when others are not. A player 4 groups ahead could have done the same exact thing, but since there were no cameras on him (or, expressed differently, the images weren't broadcast to hundreds of thousands of "amateur rules officials") the alleged breach would go unnoticed. If you want to talk about protecting the field, then subject everyone to the same level of scrutiny. In some groups, that's a rules official and fellow competitors with their naked eyes. In others, it's the foregoing plus video. Consequently, the Decision tries to level those to inherently different levels of scrutiny by using the "naked eye" standard that is applied in all the non-TV groups. I applaud the USGA and R&A for this welcome change that rids us of the "GOTCHA!" moments that have so plagued the sport because of HD video replay.

[archie_struthers]

 




good stuff


again


if we all started placing our marker in front of the ball .....wouldn't it make for less controversy and mistakes ??

[Joe Bausch]

As some snarky fan yelled at a player 'inching' the ball:  "Mark it again.  It might go in!"

[Steve Wilson]

Not that I'm ever going to be subject to the level of scrutiny Rahm and others play under, but the idea of marking my ball in front seems to make a lot of sense.  Of course, after doing it the other way for sixty years I might forget...  Just establishing the purity of my motives in the event of any marking controversy in the upcoming BUDA. 

[Niall C]

David
 
It might be inherently unfair to subject some individuals to more scrutiny than others but as some might say if they obey the rules then they have nothing to worry about. I’d also point out it is mainly the better players under scrutiny which is no different to other sports, for example how often do top athletes get drug tested relative to the also rans.


But fundamentally how equitable is it to the field if you don’t penalize a breach of the rules as and when it occurs, irrespective of who the culprit is and how it was reported ? I mean, do you give the player a free pass because he’s on the TV more often than most and if so what would you do with a breach by a player who is never on the TV but was reported by his two playing partners ?
The rules are the rules, surely they should be applied irrespective of who’s involved and whether the ruling will make any difference.
 
Archie


I really don’t see how marking the ball in front will make any difference at all. There’s still scope to put the ball down in the incorrect place when replacing the ball. Taking the Lexi Thomson as an example, she allegedly and “inadvertently” managed to avoid a blemish or spike mark by replacing her ball in the wrong place.
 
Niall

[Terry Lavin]

Sorry for the thread-jack, but when I first read the title of this thread I thought it was about a "marketing" controversy at the Irish Open, which makes a measure of sense when one considers that it was the "Dubai Duty Free Irish Open".

Anyway, back on to where to place the penny.

[MClutterbuck]

I don't mean for any of this to sound holier than thou; we've ALL done what Lexi Thompson did when the is an old ball mark or an aeration hole, or the like.  We have NOT all done what Rahm did, though, whether he gained advantage or not.

Sorry if I am misreading this statement. If you are implying that we have all knowingly moved our ball to one side to avoid an old ball mark or hole, my answer is NO, not only I have never done that, nor any of my friends, but we would (and have) expelled anybody proven to be doing that from the club, as well as reported it to the Golf Association for appropriate suspension from the game of golf.


On the other hand, forget to replace a ball marker moved, or misplaced the ball unknowingly by milimeters, yes, that happens to all of us, even the most paranoid can make a mistake.


In that regard, I think what Rahm did is a lot more defensible than what Lexi did, even if at this point I give both the benefit of the doubt. Both are clear penalties to me.

[Tony_Muldoon]

An easy answer to me seems that we should mark all balls with coin in front of ball. 


Replacement right behind !




Take temptations  from inchers

I love this idea.





 
Recently had the deep joy of playing our Captains Day with a complete dickhead. (All my fault I decided to enter late.).
Part of my team in Texas Scramble 9 holes in AM and he’s took maximum advantage of the tee peg parallel to the marker on the greens. I thought about calling him out but we were put out with two rookies. I did explain to them about the need for a marking tee, more than once.
 
IN the main comp in the pm on the first green he pulls a small  dog biscuit out of his pocket and places it next to his ball, at right angles and picks up! Then a few seconds later he announces ‘found it’ and puts his proper maker where the ball had been.  I point out his error and refer to the Lexi ruling.  He is clearly annoyed by this.
 
At the next hole, a downhill Par 3 my ball misses left and it takes me a while to find it in the long grass at the base of one of the half dozen new trees. No one had helped me.
 
Before I find the ball he announces my 5 minutes are up.
 
I informed the powers that be that I wouldn’t play if ever put out with him again. I’m not the first.

[A.G._Crockett]

I don't mean for any of this to sound holier than thou; we've ALL done what Lexi Thompson did when the is an old ball mark or an aeration hole, or the like.  We have NOT all done what Rahm did, though, whether he gained advantage or not.

Sorry if I am misreading this statement. If you are implying that we have all knowingly moved our ball to one side to avoid an old ball mark or hole, my answer is NO, not only I have never done that, nor any of my friends, but we would (and have) expelled anybody proven to be doing that from the club, as well as reported it to the Golf Association for appropriate suspension from the game of golf.


On the other hand, forget to replace a ball marker moved, or misplaced the ball unknowingly by milimeters, yes, that happens to all of us, even the most paranoid can make a mistake.


In that regard, I think what Rahm did is a lot more defensible than what Lexi did, even if at this point I give both the benefit of the doubt. Both are clear penalties to me.

I was referring to casual play after an aeration, or something like that.  I wasn't accusing the masses of cheating; sorry if it came across that way.

As to Rahm's mismarking being "more defensible", that all comes down to intent, doesn't it?  Depending on what Rahm did or did not intend to do, it may be significantly worse than what Lexi did; Rahm may have avoided an imperfection in the green AND moved his ball closer.  I don't think anybody has said that Lexi got closer to the hole by her version of mismarking, have they?

But we agree that both should have been a penalty.  That Rahm's was not is one of the strangest things I've ever seen watching tournament golf.

[John Kavanaugh]

If we're not careful this notion that we never move a ball on the green out of a pok mark is going to lead to even slower play. The last thing we want to witness is a golfer repairing the green where his ball lies on every stroke. Move the ball a quarter inch left or right and move on just like we always have. If you're not moving your ball out of a blemish then why mark it at all?

[Kalen Braley]

If they can find enough volunteers at every tourney to:


- Carry/operate the scoreboards
- Provide multiple spotters per hole
- Crowd Control
- Maintain the ropes
- Concessions


Why can't they have a volunteer ball mark person each hole to make sure its done objectively and correct.  Players can't even be trusted to rank bunkers and replace divots after the fact, how on gods green earth can they be trusted to actually touch thier ball before its holed?


P.S.  Look what happened in Baseball and Football when you let non-officials maintain the balls for play? 

[archie_struthers]

 


Try marking it in front for one day. 


You would be amazed at how much harder it would be to misplace it on its return!

[Mark Pearce]

I don't mean for any of this to sound holier than thou; we've ALL done what Lexi Thompson did when the is an old ball mark or an aeration hole, or the like.  We have NOT all done what Rahm did, though, whether he gained advantage or not.

Have we, really?  In my view Thompson cheated.  I like to think most here haven't done that.

[A.G._Crockett]

I don't mean for any of this to sound holier than thou; we've ALL done what Lexi Thompson did when the is an old ball mark or an aeration hole, or the like.  We have NOT all done what Rahm did, though, whether he gained advantage or not.

Have we, really?  In my view Thompson cheated.  I like to think most here haven't done that.

Ok, fine.  Lexi Thompson and I are the only ones who have replaced our ball and put it no closer to the hole but NOT back into an indentation or an aeration hole. 

I have assessed my life a 4 stoke penalty, and now I'll just get on with it, and resolve to be and do better.

[Kalen Braley]

AG,


Its all good.  Technically speaking its impossible to replace the ball in the "exact" same spot...ever.  But he clearly broke the rules give how they are written, and I think that is the issue people are having here....

[Wade Whitehead]

So, if intent matters, why was Carl Pettersson penalized at the PGA?  He didn't mean to move the leaf.

http://www.golf.com/ap-news/pettersson-docked-2-shots-1st-hole

In another case, if a player tees up in front of the markers but didn't mean to, then what?

WW

[Bill_McBride]

It is a clear sloppy mistake. I watched carefully and he returns the marker to the correct position, exact same angle. He just fails to remember that he had marked his ball on the side, not at the back. It is a clear penalty, 2 strokes. But I think this is an honest mistake, no bad intent whatsoever.


I don´t understand the ruling. And Rahm should have givenhimself a 2 stroke penalty even if the official



The Lexi situation is completely different. There is no time between marking and placing incorrectly. So the mental mistake from her was a lot sloppier. Both clear penalties.

I'm curious about why anyone would mark on the side of the ball instead of directly behind it as we were all taught.  Hmmm?