[Pete_Pittock]

I will do it occasionally with a ball marker if the line of putt of another player is close to my line and only a few feet away. Not with a coin or a poker chip. Its a bit quicker than going thru all the fussiness in marking clubhead length to the side and unfussinessing it back.

[Pat Burke]

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

Ulrich,
No idea.  I called well over 10 penalties on myself during my tour career.  Had 2 on the same green on two separate occasions
I also understand that perfect replacement is next to impossible. But when you can really see a big difference, as In the Lexi re-mark....


Funny story.  In the Hawaiian Open one year, I was the last to finish on number 15 in the first round.  I had a very short putt to finish out.  As I hit it, it looked like it might have moved. I made the putt, but asked my caddy if he saw the ball move?  He wasn't watching, and had no idea.  It's a 40 yard walk to 16 tee, and my playing partners already were gone, and had no idea I had an issue as I tapped in.
My caddie and I talked about it, and I told him I was pretty sure it moved, but given that I had had a number of penalties for the same thing, I was starting to think I was imagining things, I always run pretty close to crazy any way
I decided to call the penalty, and told the guys on 16 tee.  They didn't see anything, but I moved past.
After the round, my caddy was checking the scores, and a tv cameraman came up to him to tell him he saw my ball move through the camera as they did rehearsal!  He was happy I had called it, and checked my score to see if I did.  At least I wasn't seeing things!!


The rule is so different now, I really don't know what my reaction in Rahm's place would be. 

[Mark Pearce]

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 donīt 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?

He couldn't mark behind the ball because another player's ball was already there.  That's what led to the whole incident.  Rahm's ball finished directly in front of another marker.

[Michael Felton]

I had thought that the person who marked it had to replace it but apparently that is not the case.

That used to be true, but they changed it a few years ago. Curiously, the reason they changed it is because pretty much everyone marks the ball the same way, so there isn't really any doubt about how to put it back. If that happens to me I still ask the person who marked it if they put the marker right behind the ball.


Archie - the main drawback to marking the ball with the coin in front is you're not supposed to touch the line of your putt. Since the ball is going to roll over where the marker was, if you mark in front, you are changing the situation for your next shot. I think that's worse than the possibility that someone might put it back differently.


As a side note, I suspect that a lot of times people's eyes are in a different spot relative to the ball when they replace it versus when they mark it, so parallax error comes into play. I'm certain that's not deliberate, but I couldn't sign something saying that I definitely put the ball back right where it started every time I mark it. I imagine it winds up further away as often as it winds up closer though, so I'm comfortable.

[A.G._Crockett]

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....

Kalen,
I agree 100%; I have the same issue, and I find it incredible that he wasn't penalized.

[John Connolly]

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.

I don't agree. The tangent to the arc of the marker is still defined by a single point. Yes, the ball has to be placed at the apex of the arc but that's true no matter the radius of the marker.

[Tony_Muldoon]

I had thought that the person who marked it had to replace it but apparently that is not the case.

 I imagine it winds up further away as often as it winds up closer though, so I'm comfortable.

Unless of course it's deliberately placed nearer the hole....

[Michael Felton]

I had thought that the person who marked it had to replace it but apparently that is not the case.

 I imagine it winds up further away as often as it winds up closer though, so I'm comfortable.

Unless of course it's deliberately placed nearer the hole....

True - I was referring to my own actions here though, so I know whether it was deliberately placed nearer the hole...

[Kalen Braley]

I had thought that the person who marked it had to replace it but apparently that is not the case.

That used to be true, but they changed it a few years ago. Curiously, the reason they changed it is because pretty much everyone marks the ball the same way, so there isn't really any doubt about how to put it back. If that happens to me I still ask the person who marked it if they put the marker right behind the ball.


Archie - the main drawback to marking the ball with the coin in front is you're not supposed to touch the line of your putt. Since the ball is going to roll over where the marker was, if you mark in front, you are changing the situation for your next shot. I think that's worse than the possibility that someone might put it back differently.

Michael,


This actually isn't true.  The line of the putt can be touched in several circumstances, including with a ball marker.


Touching Line of Putt
The line of putt must not be touched except:

the player may remove loose impediments, provided he does not press anything down;

the player may place the club in front of the ball when addressing it, provided he does not press anything down;

in measuring - Rule 18-6;

in lifting or replacing the ball - Rule 16-1b;

in pressing down a ball-marker;

in repairing old hole plugs or ball marks on the putting green - Rule 16-1c; and

in removing movable obstructions - Rule 24-1.

[Steve Wilson]

If penalties are to be handed out on the basis of intent, isn't this new approach effectively branding those penalized as cheaters?


Do rules officials really want to go there?  Isn't it likely that there won't be any penalties once the implications are realized?

[jeffwarne]

If penalties are to be handed out on the basis of intent, isn't this new approach effectively branding those penalized as cheaters?


Do rules officials really want to go there?  Isn't it likely that there won't be any penalties once the implications are realized?

+1
Since when did anyone have the ability to judge intent without erring widely on the side of the player?


Amazing how one or two bad supposedly well intentioned rules changes have led us down this road.


If you put the ball down in the wrong place, as he obviously did, it should be a penalty-no need to interview the player and determine "intent"
But if we just did away with TV rulings etc., none of this would matter.


or we can just making rule, after rule, after rule....and interview players for intent

[Jim_Coleman]

   I'm pretty sure intent is already in the rules.  The penalty is disqualification.  However, it seems that the only way intent is found in golf is when the player confesses to cheating, which pretty much never happens.  (I can recall only one confession - when Tiger confessed to moving his ball back a yard to obtain a perfect distance.  This wasn't a confession to intentionally break a rule, however, as he thought it was OK when he did it.  But it did cause quite a hub bub, which never would have occurred had he kept his mouth shut.) 
   On the other hand, intent is found every day in criminal courtrooms around the country based purely on circumstantial evidence, as most cases don't have a confession, yet most prosecutions end in guilty verdicts.  Golf is too genteel to undertake such an analysis, not to mention that the system would be totally unworkable. So, in golf, intent is basically irrelevant.

[Niall C]

How do you deal with intent when the player says there was no intent to cheat and replacing the ball in the wrong spot was accidental but other evidence would suggest otherwise ?


Niall

[Jim_Coleman]

Niall: 
    That, to me, is the Lexi Thompson situation.  Golf will almost never touch it. 
    The only time they ever found intent and suspended someone that I can recall was Jane Blalock.  I don't know whether she confessed when presented with the evidence; I suspect not.  Greg Norman once accused Mark McCumber of cheating, but I think the Tour sided with McCumber.

[archie_struthers]

 


Hey Pat Burke .   


You get the deal on rules so would ask you to weigh in on marking in front of ball vs behind.


It really works IMO

[John_Cullum]

I believe the major factor in this decision was that the marker had to be moved after it was placed. That practically guarantees that the ball is not going to get back to its previous location. Keep in mind that the ball is to be replaced as near as possible to its previous spot, not the spot where the marker is located after it has been moved and replaced. So the question is where was the ball placed relative to where it was when lifted. One thing is for certain, it's not going to exactly where it was 99% of the time. The committee has to run an event that's fair to all competitors. They consider whether the player gained any advantage. If not, move on.

[Steve Wilson]

I return to my original question.  I think Thompson was effectively told she was deliberately breaking the rule to gain an advantage.
What do we call that?  Rahm was given a pass because even though he moved the ball closer to the hole, a rule violation since golf began, he didn't do it deliberately to gain an advantage.


I think the best approach in both cases is to give the penalty, otherwise we get into the situation Jeff Warne has forecast where we make another rule and another ruling and wrap it in an exception to the rule but not the ruling unless of course yada yada.  If it is thought that someone is deliberately breaking or even bending a rule to gain an advantage then sometime, somewhere the committee should summon the moral courage to disqualify a player.   


Clever people value cleverness and they enjoy doing the current version of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  Fine let them do that in the bar or the drawing room or whatever, but let's try to keep the rules as simple and straightforward as possible. Clever people being clever is how we have ended up with a rule book currently undergoing a revision that is "intended" to provide a more streamlined and understandable set of rules that are in accordance with how the game is played today.


Sometimes an Alexandrine approach to the Gordian knot is to be preferred.
 

[Marty Bonnar]

Play the ball down. Continuous putting. No marking. No cleaning. And get a bloody move on!


F.

[Steve Wilson]

"Play the ball down. Continuous putting. No marking. No cleaning. And get a bloody move on![/size]F."


Alexander, is that you?[/size]

[Niall C]

If it is thought that someone is deliberately breaking or even bending a rule to gain an advantage then sometime, somewhere the committee should summon the moral courage to disqualify a player.   
 

+1


Niall

[MClutterbuck]

What happened today is the exact reason why I think Jon Rahm should have called a 2 shot penalty on himself the other day, before signing his card, even with the rules official giving him a pass. Now he will be followed by controversy.

[Kalen Braley]

I never figured the guy to be a rules exploiter.


I wonder if he's a dew sweeper too?

[Pete_Pittock]

What happened today is the exact reason why I think Jon Rahm should have called a 2 shot penalty on himself the other day, before signing his card, even with the rules official giving him a pass. Now he will be followed by controversy.

What happened today?

[MClutterbuck]

What happened today is the exact reason why I think Jon Rahm should have called a 2 shot penalty on himself the other day, before signing his card, even with the rules official giving him a pass. Now he will be followed by controversy.

What happened today?

Not captured on camera, but apparently Lee Westwood called in the rules official after Rahm moved/tugged on a dry grass which he thought was a loose impediment and was still attached to the ground. He was initially assesed a 2 stroke penalty, but after discussion post round it was determined it did not improve his lie, that the blade went back to its original position, and therefore no penalty.


Rahm stated he would be fine if assesed 2 strokes penalty, but that it is totally the officials call after he described what happened.
[/size]If he had assesed a 2 shot penalty on himself the other day, optics today would be different. [size=78%]

[Pete_Pittock]

thanks

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()