Did Clark’s Ball Move Or Did He Improve His Lie?

[Jim_Coleman]

   I thought so on both questions. So did Chamblee. Luke Donald’s comment that because Clark was laying up there was no reason for him to cheat was beyond stupid. First, Clark probably didn’t intend to break a rule. But if he did, laying up is pretty irrelevant.

[Kevin_Reilly]

He probably should not have been doing that, but it isn't exactly the same as the "re-appearing ball" that happened with Kenny Perry years ago.


https://youtu.be/NKsioAyR9Fs?si=-9oBBJlkcmHQEUTt

[Bill Shamleffer]

Rule officiating infront of the tv sitting on the couch is a terrible thing and should not be a public discussion.

[Rob Marshall]

If it moved his lie certainly didn't improve......

[Jim_Coleman]

   The ball moving may not have improved the lie, but patting the grass down on address is another matter.

[Craig Sweet]

You can ground your club behind the ball...

[Kalen Braley]

As I understand it, its not so much a question of did it move...which it certainly did...its about did it return to its original position or not, which was a lot more difficult to determine. It seemed like it was more of a case of did he improve the lie as he patted down grass behind the ball.

Additionally, people wouldn't feel the need to comment on officiating from home if on-site officiating was proactive instead of reactive..

P.S.  Agree on the comment that he couldn't have been trying to cheat because he only laid up....just absurd. But I guess that's what happens when you install lead analysts who are buddy/buddy with many of the golfers.

[Rob Marshall]

You are allowed to ground the club behind the ball and the weight of the club is always going to change the lie even if the ball doesn't move. Pressing the grass down is a completely different thing.

[Kalen Braley]

I'd like to update my position...

Starting at roughly the 3:50 mark of this video, there is pretty clear evidence the ball actually did move and change position and he was certainly doing more than "lightly pressing down" on the grass behind it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErJjYZqGswA

[Craig Sweet]

Kalen, When hitting from the rough do you hoover the club head above the grass?

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen, When hitting from the rough do you hoover the club head above the grass?

Good question, I rarely play from rough that long.

When I'm ready to hit, yes I'll gently place the club behind the ball in the grass. But I don't tamp down multiple times...right behind the ball...like he did. And if I want to feel rough thickness i may take a swing or two away from the ball.

[Bruce Katona]

.......and the unofficial USGA couch officials wonder why the MOTM frown upon CBS providing extra close zoomed in coverage of the ball and lie when it comes to their event?


I thought we were done with the nonsense of calling in rules violations.

[Niall C]

I thought we were done with the nonsense of calling in rules violations.

It seems to me that these type of threads really only get going if there is a question of whether the player deliberately broke a rule to gain an advantage ie. cheated. It's what human society has done for eons and helps keep everyone in line. Or to look at it the other way, if you don't call it out then it becomes acceptable and everyone will be doing it.


Niall

[Jim_Coleman]

Niall: Completely agree. There is a tendency here and on tv (except Chamblee) to reflexively give the player the benefit of the doubt. Because we can never definitively know the player’s intent, we can only use common sense to come to a conclusion.
   In this instance, I would give Clark the benefit of the doubt on whether he saw the ball move, but not on whether he intended to improve his lie. I also think checking on a player’s integrity isn’t a waste of time. No, it isn’t architecture, but it is golf.

[jeffwarne]

Niall: Completely agree. There is a tendency here and on tv (except Chamblee) to reflexively give the player the benefit of the doubt. Because we can never definitively know the player’s intent, we can only use common sense to come to a conclusion.
   In this instance, I would give Clark the benefit of the doubt on whether he saw the ball move, but not on whether he intended to improve his lie. I also think checking on a player’s integrity isn’t a waste of time. No, it isn’t architecture, but it is golf.

Let's just say he didn't have great weekend
"the player is allowed to Lightly sole the club" debatable  (did it move? another question)
2:17 to hit a putt
Temper tantrum club burying
quoted saying "Would like to see 100 Tour cards" easy to say once you finally get to Top 100, but I get anything can be taken out of context with media.


Lots of great stories and personalities out there.
I like that Clark "chose his legacy over LIV golf" -so far-(or he was just finding out his value and will revisit if/when his stock rises)
Let's hope his agent has a quiet word re his on course conduct and he becomes someone we all root for.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

- You're allowed to ground your club (which is the weight of the club, not pushing down with added pressure).
- You're not allowed to improve your lie or cause the ball to move.

Both are true. If you can't ground your club (legally) without moving the ball (illegal), that's a penalty.

Intent doesn't really matter here. The ball either moved as a result of his actions or it didn't.

[Jim_Coleman]

   Well, Eric, I really have no interest in debating the rules with you. If my understanding is wrong, I hope someone other than you can educate me.
   It is my understanding that, if a player causes a ball to move, regardless of intent or even whether he saw the ball move, he must replace the ball and incur a penalty. It is also my understanding that, if a player grounds his club behind the ball in other than a normal way and thereby improves his lie, then he incurs a penalty, regardless of whether the ball moves or of his intent.
   So, if Clark caused his ball to move, regardless of his intent, he should have replaced it and incurred a penalty. Also, if, in grounding his club 3 or four times before hitting his ball (an unusual practice it seems to me), Clark improved his lie, then, even if the ball didn’t move and regardless of his intent, he would incur a penalty. If he saw the ball move and didn’t replace it, or if he intended to improve his lie by grounding his club three or four times, then he didn’t just violate a rule, he cheated.
  If my understanding is incorrect, I stand corrected.

[Mike_Clayton]

One good thing about golf in Australia is this never comes up - because there is no rough like we saw at Bay Hill.

[Sean_A]

I thought we were done with the nonsense of calling in rules violations.

It seems to me that these type of threads really only get going if there is a question of whether the player deliberately broke a rule to gain an advantage ie. cheated. It's what human society has done for eons and helps keep everyone in line. Or to look at it the other way, if you don't call it out then it becomes acceptable and everyone will be doing it.


Niall

I guess diving in football doesn’t exist 😎.


Ciao

[Tony_Muldoon]

I thought we were done with the nonsense of calling in rules violations.

It seems to me that these type of threads really only get going if there is a question of whether the player deliberately broke a rule to gain an advantage ie. cheated. It's what human society has done for eons and helps keep everyone in line. Or to look at it the other way, if you don't call it out then it becomes acceptable and everyone will be doing it.


Niall

I guess diving in football doesn’t exist .


Ciao

You mean diving is illegal in Soccer?  Since when?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Well, Eric, I really have no interest in debating the rules with you. If my understanding is wrong, I hope someone other than you can educate me.

Jam, I am not even sure I saw your post, nor was I replying to you.

It is my understanding that, if a player causes a ball to move, regardless of intent or even whether he saw the ball move, he must replace the ball and incur a penalty. It is also my understanding that, if a player grounds his club behind the ball in other than a normal way and thereby improves his lie, then he incurs a penalty, regardless of whether the ball moves or of his intent.

Nothing I said contradicts that.

You're not allowed to cause your ball to move (except in a few rare cases, like accidentally on the putting green). You are allowed to ground your club… and in doing the latter it doesn't mean you get to do the former.

[Niall C]

I thought we were done with the nonsense of calling in rules violations.

It seems to me that these type of threads really only get going if there is a question of whether the player deliberately broke a rule to gain an advantage ie. cheated. It's what human society has done for eons and helps keep everyone in line. Or to look at it the other way, if you don't call it out then it becomes acceptable and everyone will be doing it.


Niall

I guess diving in football doesn’t exist 😎.


Ciao

Oh it absolutely exists, as does deliberate tripping of an opponent, deliberate hand balls etc. but as golfers do we not hold ourselves to a higher standard ?


Niall

[Rob Marshall]

- You're allowed to ground your club (which is the weight of the club, not pushing down with added pressure).
- You're not allowed to improve your lie or cause the ball to move.

Both are true. If you can't ground your club (legally) without moving the ball (illegal), that's a penalty.

Intent doesn't really matter here. The ball either moved as a result of his actions or it didn't.

I'd like to know how you can ground your club behind the ball in the rough without improving the lie....

[David Federman]

By grounding one's club, isn't it implicit that in deep rough, one's lie is necessarily improved? One could analogize to the rule against breaking a branch while taking a practice swing under a tree. Here, in deep rough, by grounding one's club, one necessarily alters the grass behind the ball in such a way as to improve the lie.


As to whether the ball moved in Clark's situation, I say no. It did oscillate, so to speak, but there is no way to determine if it did actually visibly move in any minimal amount. Further, it would be impossible to place the ball in its original position in the deep rough,even if it did move microscopically. It clearly was suspended by the grass above ground level.

[SL_Solow]

Rule 8.1b allows grounding the club lightly in front of or behind the ball.  Permits the player to let the weight of the club  be supported by the grass. Forbids pressing the club on the ground.  9.4 deals with penalties for moving the ball.  Clarification 9.2a/1 applies the naked eye standard to deciding whether the ball moved.  TV cameras don't count so our opinions, and the commentators in the booth are irrelevant.  The tougher question relates to 8.1b