OT-Rules Question

[A.G._Crockett]

Thanks in advance to answers to this question, which comes out of unusually thick Bermuda rough this year.

A player's ball comes to rest in the rough, but sitting up on the top of the grass with a decent lie.  When the player addresses the ball, though, the ball goes straight down to the bottom of the rough.

I know that a player is assessed a penalty stroke if he causes the ball to move, and let's assume that his address of the ball was, in fact, what caused the ball to sink to the ground. And, of course, he is required to replace the ball in it's original position before playing the stroke.


The catch here, of course, is that the ball is already in it's original position; it went straight down when it moved, not forward or backward or sideways.  In that respect, it becomes almost a "tree falls in the forest" situation; if a ball can't be replaced because it moved only vertically and still occupies the same spot on the golf course, did it really move; how is the rule applied?

What we did was simply assess a one-stroke penalty.  Did we apply the Rules correctly?

[Pete_Pittock]

The catch is that the ball is no longer in its original position. It moved vertically. The Rules are three-dimensional.


The definition of 'moved' is as follows:

When your ball at rest has left its original spot and come to rest on any other spot, and this can be seen by the naked eye (whether or not anyone actually sees it do so).
This applies whether your ball has gone up, down or horizontally in any direction away from its original spot.
If your ball only wobbles (sometimes referred to as oscillating) and stays on or returns to its original spot, your ball has not moved

[Matt_Cohn]

The catch is that the ball is no longer in its original position. It moved vertically. The Rules are two-dimensional.

So three-dimensional?

[Lou_Duran]

Vertical as well as horizontal movement is considered.  The ball was played from the wrong place = the GP, 2 strokes.  If the ball moved without knowledge or virtual certainty that it was caused by the player or an outside agency, the ball should have been played as it lies with no penalty provided that the ball was not touched and moved by the player after it had sunk in the grass due to natural forces.  Otherwise, if the ball didn't stay at the top of the grass where it was originally after trying to place it twice, I think that the player has to try to recreate the lie no closer to the hole, first within a club length, then until he can find a spot where it will.   

[JohnVDB]

As Peter pointed out if your ball moves in any direction and comes to rest in a different position, it has moved.


In order to say you caused it to move, it must be “known or virtually certain” that you caused it.  This is a very high standard of 95% certainty.  If you were touching the grass right or behind you ball and it moved as you were doing it, the standard would probably be met. 


When you cause your ball to move, you must always replace it unless it happens after you’ve started the backward movement for a stroke and complete the stroke (even if you accidentally miss the ball).


The question becomes how do you replace the ball that was hanging up in the grass.  Well, you try and it doesn’t stay there you try a second time.  After that, you are going to place it in the nearest location where it will stay.  That might be where it had moved to, but you have to try to put it back first.


If you don’t replace it or try and end up where ever, you get the general penalty as Lou said.  That is 2 strokes in stroke play or loss of hole in match play. 

[A.G._Crockett]

Vertical as well as horizontal movement is considered.  The ball was played from the wrong place = the GP, 2 strokes.  If the ball moved without knowledge or virtual certainty that it was caused by the player or an outside agency, the ball should have been played as it lies with no penalty provided that the ball was not touched and moved by the player after it had sunk in the grass due to natural forces.  Otherwise, if the ball didn't stay at the top of the grass where it was originally after trying to place it twice, I think that the player has to try to recreate the lie no closer to the hole, first within a club length, then until he can find a spot where it will.

Interesting; thank you, Lou.  We were certain that the ball moved because of the player addressing it, and further that there was no way that the ball could be replaced on that exact spot with the same lie relative to ground.  In all honesty, it didn't occur to any of us that the player should try to recreate the lie; I suppose it should have.
This occurred last Sunday on the 9th hole in a four ball competition, and the player's partner made a better score on the hole anyway, so it didn't matter that we apparently got it wrong.  The match turned out not to be close, and because of Covid restrictions there was no gathering over beer after the round to talk it over.  I didn't think to ask the pro, or even to look it up, but then it happened again yesterday morning in a casual round.  Glad to know the answer; this is going to happen all winter even after the Bermuda goes dormant.

[Ronald Montesano]

That old saw, don't ground your club.


What if the grass is not strong enough to support the ball in its original position? Are you allowed to tee it up, to replicate original height?

[JohnVDB]

That old saw, don't ground your club.


What if the grass is not strong enough to support the ball in its original position? Are you allowed to tee it up, to replicate original height?

As I said above, you put it down where it was.  If it doesn’t stay there, you try a second time.  If not you find the nearest place it will stay at rest when you let it go.


This means you put it down and let it go.  If it moves when you let it go, you need to keep trying at another location.  If you can get it to stay where you put it and it: 1) is the nearest place where it could be put down and stay and 2) it is teed up, it’s your lucky day.

[JLahrman]

In order to say you caused it to move, it must be “known or virtually certain” that you caused it.  This is a very high standard of 95% certainty.  If you were touching the grass right or behind you ball and it moved as you were doing it, the standard would probably be met.

John, not to be cheeky but where does 95% come from? I get it as a standard of statistical significance, but how can a player make that determination? What if I'm only 91% sure I did it? If the ball is sitting up high enough that it could settle further down, then it could just be the weight of the ball that eventually caused it to drop.


I think back to that Dustin Johnson penalty at Oakmont "

[size=100%]If the weight of evidence indicates that it is more likely than not that the player caused the ball to move, even though that conclusion is not free from doubt, the player incurs a one-stroke penalty under Rule 18-2 and the ball must be replaced." [/size]Thankfully that rule has been rewritten, but without benefit of TV cameras it would have been DJ just saying "yeah it moved but there is only a 40% chance that I caused it, so therefore no penalty".[/size][size=100%][/color]

[Pete_Pittock]

I think the 95% comes from the definition of 'known or vitually certain:


The standard for deciding what happened to a player’s ball – for example, whether the ball came to rest in a penalty area[/url][/i], whether it moved[/url][/i] or what caused it to move[/url][/i].
Known or virtually certain[/url][/i] means more than just possible or probable. It means that either:There is conclusive evidence that the event in question happened to the player’s ball, such as when the player or other witnesses saw it happen, or
[/size][/font]

• Although there is a very small degree of doubt, all reasonably available information shows that it is at least 95% likely that the event in question happened.

“All reasonably available information” includes all information the player knows and all other information he or she can get with reasonable effort and without unreasonable delay.

[/size][/color][/size][/color]

[Peter Flory]

I have another technical rules question and this seemed like a decent thread to pose it.


I was watching the replay of the Open when Bjorn took 3 to get out of a greenside bunker and where it rolled into his footprint on the last one. 


The question is, what if you smooth out the sand after you hit the shot, but before the ball re-enters the bunker (innocently or with intent to improve the conditions)?  Similarly, what if your ball comes to rest, you rake the bunker, and then the ball moves and rolls back in?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I have another technical rules question and this seemed like a decent thread to pose it.

I was watching the replay of the Open when Bjorn took 3 to get out of a greenside bunker and where it rolled into his footprint on the last one. 

The question is, what if you smooth out the sand after you hit the shot, but before the ball re-enters the bunker (innocently or with intent to improve the conditions)?  Similarly, what if your ball comes to rest, you rake the bunker, and then the ball moves and rolls back in?

I suspect others may get to this before I can provide a full response, but check 8.1 and 11, IIRC.

[Peter Flory]

Not sure if this answer was right, but it's all I could find on the subject and it seems to say that as long as the ball is outside the bunker, you can smooth or rake away.


https://golf.com/instruction/rules/rake-bunker-after-shot-ball-back-in/

[jeffwarne]

Just really glad we "simplified" that rule.


Now your ball moves, you go into a dramatic, yet semi horrified state, call your playing partners over, they decide whether you're a good guy, having a good round, who your parents are, do you support their Foundation....Then an official is called.


"Sir I'm 77% certain I caused it to move when I soled my club"
I get to appear to be honest, and get away with cheating-yet sleep at night.
And we all get to believe there was a minor earthquake miles away that made the ball move, not the soling of the club.


Before the rules "simplification" you would say
"I addressed my ball and it moved" and you added a shot, and replaced.
yet somehow...that's not simpler?

[JohnVDB]

I have another technical rules question and this seemed like a decent thread to pose it.


I was watching the replay of the Open when Bjorn took 3 to get out of a greenside bunker and where it rolled into his footprint on the last one. 


The question is, what if you smooth out the sand after you hit the shot, but before the ball re-enters the bunker (innocently or with intent to improve the conditions)?  Similarly, what if your ball comes to rest, you rake the bunker, and then the ball moves and rolls back in?

Peter,


Rule 12.2a(3) says:

[size=78%] After a ball in a bunker is played and it is outside the bunker, the player may:[/size]
   •   Touch sand in the bunker without penalty under Rule 12.2b(1), and
   •   Smooth sand in the bunker to care for the course without penalty under Rule 8.1a.

Therefore while the ball is outside the bunker you can smooth the bunker to care for the course.


Once the ball is back in the bunker the usual prohibitions apply.

[JohnVDB]

Jeff,


Simplicity is often perceived as unfair.  If you address your ball, step away and, while you’re assessing the shot, the ball moves you probably didn’t cause it to move but in the interest of simplicity, under the old rules you were penalized.


In all other cases than addressing the ball, the rule was always that it had to be known or virtually certain you caused it to move, the change made that the case for all situations.


We don’t try to figure out a number, just determine if the player’s actions almost assuredly caused the ball to move.  Is you ball off the ground in high grass, when you touched the grass behind the ball and it moved almost immediately after that?  You probably caused it and should be penalized.


Sure some players might not get a penalty when their actions may or may not have been responsible for the movement, but is that worse than penalizing a player when his actions clearly didn’t, but because he did something he was at risk until he hit the shot?

[jeffwarne]

John,
First of all you know more about the rules then the rest of this board combined, and have had "real world" experience implementing them. I certainly appreciate your insight on this board with your experiences and expertise.


My experience is merely anecdotal, dealing with member events, and whatever rules incidents have cropped up in my group in Section,some National/International and MGA events.


That said,as you may have surmised I was not a fan of the attempt to simplify the rules a few years back, because I felt the rules, while complicated, were really well written if one took the time to learn the definitions, then by extension, the rules. So many simply don't bother to learn the definitions, and therefore struggle with the rules, and don't know where in the rulebook to look when there's an issue.


It used to be if you even suspected your ball was lying precariously, you simply didn't ground the club, a la Jack Nicklaus.
With the current rule, there simply is too much wiggle room, and fellow competitors tend to shy away from chiming in,especially if they have a personal relationship with the player in question-or immediately simply say he didn't cause it to move.
I haven't had a ball move since the rule changed, because I still go with the no grounding practice to avoid it whenever the lie is uncertain.Heck, I'm still afraid to sole the club in grass in a penalty area because I'm conditioned not to.


I think I'm ok with the rare,occasional "unfair penalty" such as the one you describe in paragraph 1.
I'm not OK with the popularity contest that goes on whenever a ball moves AFTER address, usually resulting in no penalty.


I guess I really don't believe in coincidences.


I guess I also have a problem with nearly anything that changes in the rules to make them more "fair", and/or rules that are changed due to the cry for rules being too complicated.
I think we both can agree the rule is MORE complicated now(deeming what caused it to move).
We just disagree on whether more "fair"is better, or even more "fair" at all.
I could easily say the penalties that AREN'T called after addressing are unfair to the rest of the field, who might play the same shot/lie while hovering to avoid ball movement(a more difficult thing to do)


Anecdotally, before the rules changes-I watched Darrel Kestner win a MET PGA by being wise enough to NOT ground his putter on a slick downhill, downwind 20 footer.
A gust hit the ball and trickled it down to 2 feet and he tapped in for birdie to win.


Under the new rules, that would've been very controversial had he soled his club anywhere near the ball(which one would be more likely to do now with new rules), as a determination would've had to have been made as to whether he caused it to move.
The difference between winning and losing the Section Championship hanging in the balance. Fortunately, he's one of the most popular players in the Section

[Lou_Duran]

Jeff,


If Mr. Kestner had first marked his ball, he would have had to replace it from where it moved.


A rule I don't like is when you take penalty relief and the ball, after dropping and coming to rest, is moved by natural forces into a PA or an unplayable lie.  This happened at a local US Open qualifier where the player took penalty relief from a pond, dropped a ball in the relief area with it coming to rest precariously in a thin lie on a slope.  While he was pulling a club a few feet away, the ball started rolling down the bank and back into the water.  I got called over and he looks at me hoping for a free re-drop, but when he provided the facts- the key ones that he had dropped correctly and that the ball had come to rest- there wasn't much to be said.  This problem can be alleviated by marking the PA at the top of the bank, but much of the time the red line is much closer to the water line.  Alternatively, the drop could be treated like marking and placing a ball on the green- if it moves, replace it.


I would also like to see full relief on drops from PAs and unplayable lies. 

[JohnVDB]

As Lou said, if Mr. Kestner had lifted his ball and replaced it it would now come back.


Lou, that was discussed after Rickie Fowler’s incident in Phoenix in 2019, but i don’t think there was enough support for it.


My own personal list is long, but my #1 would be to make the reference point for taking two club-length relief for an unplayable to be the spot directly behind where the ball was unplayable rather the the spot..  That way it could never roll back to the same spot and be correctly in play requiring a second unplayable penalty.

[Peter Flory]

The thing that I didn't understand about Fowler's situation is why he chose to take a drop on that slope at all.  He could have replayed from his prior position, which seemed to give him a better shot at getting it close.  It was a straight forward chip w/ a drop off beyond the hole vs a lob over a bunker to a table top. 

[BCrosby]

John Low and Bernard Darwin would whole-heartedly agree with Jeff W's take above. I do too.


I prefer a rule that is simple to apply if the alternative is a rule that requires an assessment of some combination of a player's intent, the specifics of the terrain and weather conditions.


Golf can be unfair. Players know that and the smartest of them take steps to minimize that risk. All part of the game. Penalties likewise. We have gone off the rails when the application of a penalty - in the name of fairness - requires special findings of fact, especially if those findings require deciding something as elusive as a player's intent.   


Bob



 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I don't think the rule is difficult to apply now. I think it's "simpler" now, too, and better. The Rules changes in 2019 were immensely successful.

If you complete the successful drop, the ball is in play. Thus, it's treated like any other ball in play. If your ball rolls into a penalty area, you have the same options you'd have had before.