New "unofficial" golf rule needed

[JohnV]

And to muddy the waters of Rae's Creek even darker, the competitor may not switch clubs once the bunker stance has been taken/built.  If he/she does, a penalty is incurred.

Wrong.  He can switch clubs or take a stance in a different direction.  But, he can't smooth the footprints he'd already created.

[JohnV]

You can read about both of these incidents on my blog at http://freedrop.wordpress.com

Harrington had clearly grounded his putter behind his ball, backed away and then when he came back, but before he grounded the putter again, the ball moved.  Unfortunately you can't un-address your ball by stepping away.  If you are that concerned, you should mark and lift it.  Then when you replace it, it is not addressed again until you ground the club.  Anyone who played in the Open Championship last year should understand that rule.

As for TV, the best thing about using TV is that the images are there to be viewed again and again, whereas a report of what was seen by a spectator on the grounds or even a fellow competitor can't be reviewed easily.

[C. Squier]

John, thanks for the explanation. Now for a question that may not be as easy to answer:  Why did it take 10 mins for Paddy and official to come to that fairly simple conclusion? 

[Padraig Dooley]

On the Harrington incident .

Surely we all know this rule ...... ? , and Harrington admitted in a interview later that he knew the rule .

So why did it take two referees to convince him , he was correct ?

If Harrington knew the rule (and you would think he would) why didn't he do the only thing that would protect him and MARK the ball.

Just curious Mike, how would Harrington marking the ball have protected him?

 

[TEPaul]

“It seems very unfair that he was penalised in these circumstances when it is 100% clear that the ball moved because of the wind - and when it happened he was not addressing the ball?
Is there really no room for discretion in these circumstances?”



Philip Gawith:

First of all, the fact that Harrington was not addressing his ball when the wind blew it has nothing to do with the ruling in his situation.

Secondly, no there is no room for discretion in those circumstances (such as Harrington’s) because of the way the Rule (18-2b) is written and interpreted.

As usual, JohnV, a true working Rules expert, gives another super clear explanation when he says a player cannot “unaddress” his ball simply by walking away from it. The only way he can “unaddress” it is by marking it, picking it up (taking it out of “play”) and replacing it (putting it back “in play”) as JohnV explained.

This is just another good example of how golfers always need to consider exactly what various words within the Rules of Golf really mean and they are interpreted (or should be when interpreted correctly) and this is certainly the case with Rule 182b. Look at the way it’s written and what the important determinative words are and what they mean literally:

“Rule 18-2b: Ball Moving after Address
If a player ball in play moves after he has addressed it (other than as a result of a stroke), the player is deemed to have moved the ball and incurs a penalty of one stroke……”

The first key word in that Rule is “after” (address). The second key words in the Rule are “in play” followed by the wording that if a player’s ball moves AFTER address when it is IN PLAY the player IS DEEMED TO HAVE MOVED THE BALL.

So no, there’s no discretion in Harrington’s circumstances because what happened in his situation falls completely within the meaning of Rule 18-2b and all its key words.

Then of course he explains that the only way to take a ball out of play in Harrington’s case (on a green) is to mark it and lift it. It is then out of play and does not get back “in play” until it is replaced. By the way, as some people think the ball is not back “in play” when the player removes his marker. It is back “in play” when he replaces it even if he leaves his marker on the ground.

JohnV is so good at this stuff that I have a pretty interesting question to ask him given a slight variation of Harrington’s situation.

NEXT

[TEPaul]

Bill Shamleffer:

What exactly is the definition of an "unofficial" Rule? 

[JohnV]

John, thanks for the explanation. Now for a question that may not be as easy to answer:  Why did it take 10 mins for Paddy and official to come to that fairly simple conclusion? 

Good question.  Probably some discussion about if he had grounded his club or not.  They might have asked someone to check the video.  Second, Paddy might have wanted an explanation of the rule.  Some players want to understand what happened, others just want you to rule and get on with it.

[JohnV]

What about the Harrington incident? As I saw it on TV - he addresses the ball with his putter (on 15th green) and is then subject to a heavy gust of wind, so he withdraws from the address position (but the ball is unmoved). He then starts to readress the ball but before he has done so, the ball moves x feet, clearly on account of the wind( his putter at this stage is not grounded and he has clearly not "re-addressed" the ball).

So Harrington is penalised a shot because the ball moved after he addressed it. But surely when he withdrew from the ball after he addressed it, he ceased to address it?

It seems very unfair that he was penalised in these circumstances when it is 100% clear that the ball moved because of the wind - and when it happened he was not addressing the ball?

Is there really no room for discretion in these circumstances?

Read Decisions 18-2b/7 and 18-2b/8.  The ball is only un-addressed by marking and lifting it.

No room for discretion otherwise nobody would ever have caused their ball to move in their opinion.  If you are worried about your ball moving, don't ground your club.  OR JUST GET UP AND HIT IT INSTEAD OF SCREWING AROUND LIKE PADDY AND ALL THE OTHER PROS DO!

Sorry, no sympathy from this front.

[JohnV]

Tom,

The key word in that entire rule is actually "deemed".  Doesn't matter if you caused it or not, by addressing the ball, you take the risk and there is no need to have a big discussion about whether you did cause it or not.

[TEPaul]

JohnV:

Let's take Harrington's situation but instead of having him on the putting green as he was (and where he always has the option of marking and lifting his ball) let's put just off the putting green and consider his options if the very same thing happened---eg he addressed his ball, then walked away and was concerned his ball might move due to wind or whatever.

What would you say his options are then? Obvioiusly one would be to get up there and hit it pretty damned quick if he was concerned the ball might move, but what about the use of some other options for lifting the ball and taking it out of play.

I guess he could claim he was lifting it to check it for identification or to check to see if it was damaged but under the circumstances it would seem he wasn't being honest as to why he was marking and lifting and it would seem a Rules official would call him on that fact, right?

Jack N. was a smart guy and I guess this kind of example is why he rarely, if ever, technically "addressed" his ball.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,

The key word in that entire rule is actually "deemed". 



JohnV:

Yes, I know---IF the ball moves AFTER you've addressed it, it means you are DEEMED to have moved it period, end of story, and no discretion involved on the part of the player, fellow competitors, opponent or Rules official or Committee.

Clearly some think this is unfair but it is just another good example of the Golf Rules principle that "like situations shall be treated alike."

I do realize that some may struggle to understand what the "like situation" is in this kind of thing but I think we both basically cited it.

[JohnV]

JohnV:

Let's take Harrington's situation but instead of having him on the putting green as he was (and where he always has the option of marking and lifting his ball) let's put just off the putting green and consider his options if the very same thing happened---eg he addressed his ball, then walked away and was concerned his ball might move due to wind or whatever.

What would you say his options are then? Obvioiusly one would be to get up there and hit it pretty damned quick if he was concerned the ball might move, but what about the use of some other options for lifting the ball and taking it out of play.

I guess he could claim he was lifting it to check it for identification or to check to see if it was damaged but under the circumstances it would seem he wasn't being honest as to why he was marking and lifting and it would seem a Rules official would call him on that fact, right?

Tom, with the wording changes that were introduced in Rules 5 and 12 in 2008, he can't do that without a reason.  For example, Rule 12-1 says in part, "If a player has reason to believe a ball at rest is his and it is necessary to lift the ball in order to identify it, he may lift the ball..."  Later it says "... or he lifts the ball in order to identify it when not necessary to do so, he incurs a penalty of one stroke."

So, the only real options are don't ground the club or just hit it.

[TEPaul]

"So, the only real options are don't ground the club or just hit it."


JohnV:

Pretty much what I guess I said there and what I figured. Thanks for confirming it.

Did you ever hear the situation in the old Watson/Hannigan Rule book where Jack's ball was on a shaven bank (I think in the Masters)? It was sort of above a green. Of course he did not ground his club and he in no way at all was responsible for its movement, but it did take off from its resting place and rolled onto the green or almost onto the green. That story in the book said apparently because of Jack's instinct of fairness he was about to go pick it up and put it back just before a Rules official saw him and told him not to touch it and just play it from where it went.
 

[John Moore II]

JohnV:

Let's take Harrington's situation but instead of having him on the putting green as he was (and where he always has the option of marking and lifting his ball) let's put just off the putting green and consider his options if the very same thing happened---eg he addressed his ball, then walked away and was concerned his ball might move due to wind or whatever.

What would you say his options are then? Obvioiusly one would be to get up there and hit it pretty damned quick if he was concerned the ball might move, but what about the use of some other options for lifting the ball and taking it out of play.

I guess he could claim he was lifting it to check it for identification or to check to see if it was damaged but under the circumstances it would seem he wasn't being honest as to why he was marking and lifting and it would seem a Rules official would call him on that fact, right?

Jack N. was a smart guy and I guess this kind of example is why he rarely, if ever, technically "addressed" his ball.

A situation much like that one you state happened last year in the Mercedes Championship with Scott Verplank I believe (I may have gotten the exact situation there totally wrong). But the player soled the club behind the ball, but didn't exactly take his stance, yet the ball moved when he backed away. He was penalized in this situation under Decision 18-2b/4 as it was deemed he had caused the ball to move.

And yeah, I'd call bullshit if a player tried to say he was looking to see his ball was unfit for play, unless there was some evidence stating it might be unfit. However, if it was not visibly damaged in the fairway, didn't fly in the air with some odd pattern, and didn't strike an irrigation head, bleacher or something else, I'd tell him he couldn't lift the ball.

[Philip Gawith]

Thanks for enlightenment re the Harrington situation.

One point that strikes me about the Mcilroy situation vs Harrington is this: nobody thinks Harrington was trying to cheat, yet he is penalised. His state of mind makes no difference to the decision - and this seems to be how golf rules are generally applied.

Yet in the case of Mcilroy, his state of mind was central to the decision: so long as he said he was tidying up, not kicking the sand in anger, he was ok. This feels quite unusual - or am I just parading my ignorance?! 

[John Moore II]

Thanks for enlightenment re the Harrington situation.

One point that strikes me about the Mcilroy situation vs Harrington is this: nobody thinks Harrington was trying to cheat, yet he is penalised. His state of mind makes no difference to the decision - and this seems to be how golf rules are generally applied.

Yet in the case of Mcilroy, his state of mind was central to the decision: so long as he said he was tidying up, not kicking the sand in anger, he was ok. This feels quite unusual - or am I just parading my ignorance?! 

Well, kicking the sand is specifically defined in the rules as illegal, smoothing the sand with your foot after a shot but before the ball is out of the bunker is specifically defined as legal. Harrington's situation was also specifically defined as requireing a penalty. Now, all that being said, I would have still likely ruled in favor of McIlroy as even if he had kicked at the sand in anger I would not have considered it testing the sand since he had all ready taken a full stance and played a shot from the bunker. IMHO Decision 13-4/0.5 does define kicking the sand as illegal BUT, and this is the key to me, it does not define if it still constitutes testing the conditions if it happens after a shot has been played, but while the ball still lies in the bunker. That would have been the basis of my decision.

[Kevin_Reilly]

A situation much like that one you state happened last year in the Mercedes Championship with Scott Verplank I believe (I may have gotten the exact situation there totally wrong). But the player soled the club behind the ball, but didn't exactly take his stance, yet the ball moved when he backed away. He was penalized in this situation under Decision 18-2b/4 as it was deemed he had caused the ball to move.

Here is that incident with Verplank:

Scott Verplank plays 2 balls

and the followup:

Verplank followup

[JohnV]

Philip,

The difference is interesting.

Over the years, the general trend has been to removing penalties.  Until 2004, there were three ways to get penalized if your ball moved (you caused it, you addressed the ball, you moved a loose impediment within a club-length).  They got rid of the last one in 2004.  The rules are not designed to protect you from clumsiness or lack of care.  Addressing the ball in windy conditions is lack of care.

In hazards the general principle is that you can't make your shot easier by doing something around the ball beyond taking your stance or gain any more information than you would get from digging in your feet.  Once you've hit the shot, if the ball is still in the bunker, you can't get any more information than you got from the shot or improve your next shot.  Also they don't tolerate things done in frustration or anger, hence the ban on banging the club in the sand or kicking the ground.

The recent changes to allow the player to tidy up after himself (with certain restrictions) means that if he is doing that, he is ok.  So, in Rory's case, it had to be determined if he was tidying up or acting in anger.  He said he always kicks down the edges of the footprints etc and I think you have to believe him since I do it myself sometimes and see others do it.

[John Moore II]

But John, do you not agree that the rules do not specifically indicate what is to be done if the player has all ready played a shot from the bunker and the ball still lies within? I understand that it is clearly obvious that it is illegal to kick to test the condition of the sand prior to playing a shot from the bunker. But in this case, the player has all ready played from within the bunker but still lies in the bunker. In that situation, he is not testing the condition of the sand, IMO, because he all ready knew everything he needed to know.

[TEPaul]

"And yeah, I'd call bullshit if a player tried to say he was looking to see his ball was unfit for play,"


John K. Moore:

I love that---I really love it. Next time I'm officiating and a player asks me to rule some way I don't agree with, instead of explaining the Rule to him I'm just going to say "Bullshit" and walk away.

I love that---You DA MAN! 

[John Moore II]

"And yeah, I'd call bullshit if a player tried to say he was looking to see his ball was unfit for play,"


John K. Moore:

I love that---I really love it. Next time I'm officiating and a player asks me to rule some way I don't agree with, instead of explaining the Rule to him I'm just going to say "Bullshit" and walk away.

I love that---You DA MAN! 

Tom-I can't tell if you are being silly or not. I do trust that you read the sentence that followed the one you quoted though?

[Bill Shamleffer]

Bill Shamleffer:

What exactly is the definition of an "unofficial" Rule? 

I would not have anything added to the Rules of Golf per this matter, however, if I was on a tournament committee, I would be in favor of having a policy that we do not accept phone calls per any possible rules infractions from individuals not in any official capacity with that specific event.

Why?

1. I explained in my 2nd post that I have some concerns about the possible motivations behind why this call is being made and the timing of the call being made.  Doe mw this is not an issue per all of those participating in the event (either as competitors or officials), as they all have an ethical obligation of fairness in administering the rules.

2. The inevitiable delay is unfair.  All possible rules infractions seen in person can immediately be brought to the attention of the player or a tournament official, and likely the matter can be properly reviewed before the scorecard is reviewed.  However, a rule infraction seen on TV, may first be on tape (from either minutes to hours before), second it will take some time for the TV viewer to locate the telephone # of the tournament and then get through on that # to the right parties.  By the time all of this occurs the scorecard may already be signed, and the only possible remedy to the infraction (if one occured) may be DQ.

3. We always hear how seeing Augusta for the first time in person, people are always amazed how different the course looks from how it looked on TV.  Even though they have heard about the drastic elevations and green countours, they are still always amazed at what they miss from the TV broadcast.  Well then how can we depend on the accuracy of the TV viewer in judging if a rules infraction occurred.


I have no issue with TV tape being used to review matters seen on the grounds by tournament officials, or even mentioned by the player some time later during that round or event.  My only issue is with allowing TV viewers to call in to the tournement about a possible rules infraction.

To add to my prior comments per a code of ethics in this area; remember, all competitors and officials are OBLIGATED to NOT ignore any rules infraction they are aware of.  The TV viewer does NOT have this obligtion.  Rather the TV viewer decides if they want to call in about a possible rules infraction.  Since there is NO obligation to report, unfairness results in accepting calls from the TV viewers who do decide to call in possible rules infractions.

[JohnV]

Bill,

So, John Doe can not call in.  But what if one of the officials who is working the tournament happens to be watching Golf Central that night and sees it?  Or if a member of the media who is sitting in the press tent sees it when it is replayed and goes over and asks the official about it?

As for motivation, I'm not worried about that.  Unless the evidence obviously proves an infraction, the officials I know would not penalize the player.  In general, without much corroboration, ties goes to the player.

John,

The rules do specifically specify what the player can do.  Specifically, Exception 2 to Rule 13-4 tells us the player can smooth sand as long as it doesn't breach 13-2 for the next stroke.  This is the only "extra" thing that can be done as opposed to what can be done before a stroke is played.  Decision 13-4/35, which covers the player hitting sand in the bunker after failing to extricate the ball uses the phrase "None of the Exceptions to 13-4 apply..."  Therefore, I believe all the player can do is what is covered in Decision 13-4/0.5 as allowed before the stroke and the additional right covered in Exception 2.

[John Moore II]

Bill--I agree with you, sort of, about point number 2 you bring up. Because in these cases, its somewhat unfair to the player. If its reported prior to the end of the round and the player signing the card, its fine. But otherwise, its a DQ. I like the idea that JVB puts forward on his blog about a possible revision to the rule.

Now, something else to think of: I am not sure how it is done on the tour or even at the Masters, but for the US Open, I am fairly sure they have a rules offical with every group. If that is the case at regular tour events and majors, how do we manage to have an infraction escape the eyes of 2 or 3 players, 2 or 3 caddies, one rules offical with the group and the spectators with the group?

[Tim_Cronin]

I may be the only one here who saw the McIlroy sweep of the foot, thanks to watching the BBC feed online. It was a vigorous one, even in a slow-motion replay, and the commentary was to the effect that the rules committee would be looking into it (and may have been by that point). I haven't seen him enough to see what he does normally, but I'll bet he's not using the same action. This would have booted a soccer ball 50 yards down the 18th fairway.

Let's not forget that generally, the Masters rules committee has leaned over backwards to keep players in the field or not penalize strokes (Palmer in 1958 at the 12th, for instance). DiVicenzo, of course, they could do nothing about, even though Bobby Jones looked for a way to waive the penalty.

As for Harrington, the "address and walk away, and still be penalized" concept seems to me to be one that ought to be looked at sooner rather than later. Common sense would dictate that backing off a stance, and the address, would mean that the ball is no longer addressed. I'll bet that even those who have read the Decisions book would have gotten this one wrong in a quiz or on the course. Maybe this is this year's candidate for changing the rule in mid-year, the way one was last year.