[Dave_Miller]

Concerning whether or not Els ball moved on Number 11 during the Satruday round.
I do not know if the ball moved or not however I did pose the question to the USGA as follows:

If,during the time a player is waiting for a ruling on whether branches are piled for removal or are loose impediments, he touches the branch and the ball moves. (See definition of move or moved). If the ruling is GUR, ie. the branches are piled for removal, does the player still incur the penalty for causing his ball to move.
The answer was unequivocably YES.  The penalty does not go away.  
Thus if Els ball did move on Saturday he should have incurred the applicable penalty under Rule 18-2.  The subsequent GUR ruling is irrelevant to the ball moving.
Best
Dave

[James Edwards]

Dave, agreed...  Its a good job he didn't win by one?

[A.G._Crockett]

Interesting!  I really like Els, and suspect everyone does; he is arguably the greatest beneficiary of favorable (and possibly incorrect!) rulings and non-rulings in golf history.

[JSlonis]

Dave,

Thanks for the info.  I can't believe that a committee could look at the video of that situation and not make a determination that Els' ball "moved".  It is clear that it just didn't rotate, and it's comical that they tried to give that reason.  Whoever came up with this "rotation" theory must have also served on the Warren Commission and the OJ Jury.

[Michael Moore]

What's the story on rotation, anyway?

Hasn't a ball that rotates come to rest in a different position, in three dimensions, and therefore moved?

[Michael Moore]

Where does it say in the rules that rotation is OK?

Rotation and oscillation are two different things. To me oscillation is the ball wobbling on the same dimple that it came to rest on.

[James Edwards]

....The ruling should be play it or return to the tee big man!!!

The thing that I love, is when a professional golfer hits a DPH (Deep Pull Hook) goes miles into the rubbish, gets a 'free' drop and proceeds to hit it out - no mean feat - knock it on the green and proceed with a bogey...

To me, Els has made a bad swing and got awfully lucky... how?  Next he be saying 'rabbit scraping' of course that far in clag there might be!

[Robert_Walker]

How did the ball move? From where to where did it move? Did it fall? Did it rise? Did it move sideways?
Did it come to rest in another place?

[Michael Moore]

Mr. Shivas -

So I can lean over, spin my ball so that the mud is on the far side, and play away?

I don't think so . . .

I think that a rotated ball ends up in a new position, in theory and in practice.

[JohnV]

As the instructors at Rules Workshops have said, a ball can roll 3 feet and turn around and roll 3 feet back to the same spot and not be considered to have moved.  Given that, I would say that rotation would also be ok as long as it didn't come to rest in a different location.

[Matt_Ward]

The joke of the situation with Els is that the material had been removed and was set in the wood (15-20 yards) out of sight and likely out of mind. In my mind the materials in questions had been "removed." Does anyone in his right mind believe they would have further removed the materials and sent them to South Carolina?  

I mean if one were to buy the rationale offered by Els you could say any limbs could be deemed as a pile to be removed. That is simply silly. If I were to hit a ball in the woods and there were fallen limbs and the like the issue would be my own stupidity for hitting it there in the first place. I would certainly not be able to wiggle a free drop.

Finally, can someone explain to me how relief was determined? It seemed like Ernie was able to get a decent swing without any intereference from all the timber that was there.

Last item -- I agree with the folks who mentioned about the ball moving when Ernie was moving materials in and around the area where his ball was. It's amazing that the folks within the walls of Augusta have their own notion on what the Rules of Golf are. Thank heavens for the birdie by Phil at #18!

Els was looking to grab onto anything he could to facilitate a free drop. The official (Nicholson) simply ate his whistle and folded like a cheap envelope.

[JohnV]

Matt,

Assume your course had a storm that knocked down a bunch of branches and the superintendent wanted to get things ready for a big tournament that was coming up.  He wants to get a chipper in there to mulch up all the branches but he doesn't have time to do it right now.  So, he takes the branches and moves them as far into the trees as possible and piles them up for later work, assuming that since these are really good players nobody will hit it over there.  It is definitely still his intention to remove them but he has gotten them out of the way for the tournament, he thinks.

It is just because of things like this that officials do silly thinks like marking OB behind a tee where no ball could ever go.  Balls go where you don't expect them sometimes.

As for branches that have fallen from a tree but not been piled by the grounds crew.  Sorry, you can get some of the patrons to help you move the big ones   but otherwise you're on your own.

In taking relief Ernie had to find the nearest point where he full relief from the pile.  Therefore, he is not allowed to have any of the branches in the pile interfering with his swing.  He could then drop within a club length of that point.  I'm sure he could find somewhere that didn't have any interference from other branches if that is what you are asking.

[Matt_Ward]

John V.B.:

I'm fully aware of the "perfect storm" that knocks so many trees and causes a situation you described. That's not really what happened with Els this past Saturday. Ernie knew his situation was deader than Elvis and he was intent on wiggling a ruling that would allow him a free drop. He knew that any movement of the loose impediments would mean his ball would likely move. He was quite resourceful but when limbs are removed 15-20 yards or more from the actual playing are of the course they are in my mind "removed." To say otherwise is really strecthing the meaning of the rule and goes IMHO beyond the intent of what the rule speaks about.

Let's not forget that two officials -- count'em one-two -- gave the correct ruling to Els prior to Will showing up on the scene and giving his "sense of the club" approach.

John -- we will not see eye-to-eye on this one. The purpose of the rules is to provide a uniform mechanism that treats the individual and let's not forget the FIELD in some sort of consistent fashion. IMHO that didn't happen and it's really sad the CBS crew sat back with their thumbs in their mouths and said really nothing insightful -- for example, linking how Els was getting a ruling no less beneficial than what he received with the Holland decision 10 years earlier at Oakmont.

[JohnV]

Matt, there is no "correct" ruling in this type of case without knowing the "sense of the club."  Only the club official or the superintendent can truely say if material is piled for removal or not.  Frequently as a rules official we have to make our best guess because they are not available.

By the way, I didn't hear Ernie specifically ask for the third opinion, but I wasn't listening to everything that was said.  Are you sure that the officials didn't call Will Nicholson over on their own or that he showed up knowing that they were making a mistake?

[Matt_Ward]

John:

Ernie was intent on getting another opinion until it jived with his thoughts. He didn't agree with the first two and by that time Nicholson was on the scene to give his "sense of the club" ruling.

John -- let's be serious -- the materials in question were no less than 25 yards from the edge of the tree line -- how much further "removed" need they be -- South Carolina -- Virginia??? Many superintendents stock materials in such a fashion in order for it to decompose naturally. No one does a complete sweeping of all woods around the course and gathers materials in order for their to be a PRISTINE LOOK.

In effect -- it has been removed. you don't arbitrarily declare an area GUR because of the implications not only with the player in question but for the field in general.

[Mike_Young]

It was an interesting ruling.  Our head pro, Ed Hoard has been for years as a rules official and is usually on 11 but this year was on hole 10.
Would it not be fair to say we are missing the point of the entire situation.  Seems to me that once ANGC speaks that would be the end no matter what the other rulings were.  I would assume it would be their decision and that the rules officials were probably glad to have the responsibility lifted.

[John_Cullum]

Shivas
NO

[JohnV]

Dave,

No, because he has to determine his nearest point of relief and take relief from that point avoiding the interference.

But, once the ball is in play, if his ball was behind the pile he could remove loose impediments on his line of play which might include those same branches.

[Bob_Huntley]

AG Crockett,

I would add Ballesteros, Palmer, O'Meara to the list.

[Robert_Walker]

Matt Ward,
I think you might be on the wrong thread. This thread is about the ball moving. There are 2 other threads addressing your issue.

[Dennis_Harwood]

Mr. Shivas -

So I can lean over, spin my ball so that the mud is on the far side, and play away?

I don't think so . . .

I think that a rotated ball ends up in a new position, in theory and in practice.

Not according to the Rules-- See Dec 21/5

If you lift your ball you can rotate it in replacing it(even though you must replace it precisely where it was), and the Rules consider you have put the ball back in precisely the same place it was when it was lifted--

Decison 21/5 so states(a ball can be rotated and that does not mean it is not replaced precisely where it was--provided the mud is not used as a tee)--

They USGA points out in their workshops that even if a player can rotate the ball with mud in such a manner that it benefits the player(avoids hitting the mud, or influences spin), so long as the mud is not used as a tee its OK--

[JohnV]

Of course you have to have a good reason for lifting it to begin with.  You can always use 5-3 or 12-1 for that, just make sure you follow the procedure properly.

[Willie_Dow]

Guys

As I've said before, the Rule Book is so full of it!

Play it as it lies, or forget it - no adjustment!

The book will get smaller!

Willie

[A_Clay_Man]

Dave- Maybe it's stating the obvious but once the pile is determined to be gur, the way I look at it is that that area now has a white line circleing it. Which means the player must take complete relief from that area. So dropping within the area is not allowed, under the rules.

[John_Cullum]

Shivas
Rule 25-1b prescribes the method of taking relief. You must determine the nearest point that affords complete reflief from the condition you seek to take relief from. This is the exclusive way of taking relief. Removing the abnormal condition is not a permitted method.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()