[Jim_Coleman]

   I haven't raised this (my white whale) in a while, but I can't resist one more time.  Today, on the 72nd hole of the Champions Tour event, Monty blasted of out the green side bunker to 3 feet.  Wes Short was in the same bunker needing to get up and down to win the tournament.  Monty left his ball by the hole, providing Short with a possible little backstop.  Lanny Watkins called Monty out.  "I don't like that.  He should protect the field."  If one doesn't think there's a tacit agreement to leave balls in place around holes, I've got some swamp to sell.

[Jim_Coleman]

    I mean Wadkins.  Sorry.

[Greg Tallman]

My Goodness, this nonsense again? And to think billions are worried about their next drink of water or bite of food.

[John Kavanaugh]

In a world where slow play is the greatest evil facing the game you, my friend, are out of line. Two guys in a bunker and one needs to get out and mark his ball before the other plays...really?!?

[Matt_Cohn]

Interesting rules note here. Player A says, "Want me to leave my ball there for you?" Player B says, "Sure, that'd be nice." Player B then plays his shot and goes on with his day. What's the penalty?

[Charlie_Bell]

It stinks, but I'd say it's a little hard to know where to draw the line.


Clearly the Oosthuizen ace carom shot seems fine, but what if two guys are pitching from 50 yards away and the first one ends up within 6" of the hole? 100 yards away?  30 yards away?  And now we're within greenside bunker territory...   

[Jim_Coleman]

   I know I'm boring and consumed.  But, I finally have a friend  -  Lanny!

[noonan]

Lanny is correct!

[Mitch Hantman]

Matt,


I think in your question, both players could be DQ'd, because they are agreeing to waive the rules.  If nothing is said, there is probably no penalty.

[A.G._Crockett]

   I know I'm boring and consumed.  But, I finally have a friend  -  Lanny!

Jim,
I didn't see the incident, and I don't necessarily disagree with you (though that puts me sort of in the position of agreeing with Lanny Wadkins) but just in practical terms, where would you draw the line?  At what point/distance should a player ALWAYS go forward to the green and mark their ball?

In the interest of full disclosure, I must admit that I do this all the time if I'm ready to play from just off the green and another player's ball is in a position to possibly help me if I hit it.  If he has not yet walked up on the green, I'll say "You can leave that..." and go ahead and play, and I'd be less than honest if I said that pace of play was my primary concern.  But isn't taking advantage of the Rules at least somewhat different than breaking them?

A second question: Would the gate swing the other way as well?  If Player A has hit his approach shot in from 125 out and the ball lies directly between Player B and the hole, are we ok with Player B asking A to go mark his ball?  Isn't that sort of the other side of the same coin?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Not quite on topic, but in the old days, it was quite common to collude in splitting the pot in pro tournaments, despite who won. 

And, I know at least one pro who tanked when he reached an international playoff,  more mindful of catching his plane home than actually winning some little known Asian tournament.  The two pros agreed to split the pot so they could get out of there, and when they wouldn't let them, one just hit in a pond on purpose.

[Mike_Young]

Don't think they don't work the cut line also.  Some that are close but have endorsements and are top players will be sure to miss the cut if they are close...

[Jim_Kennedy]

22/7  Ball Assisting Fellow-Competitor on Putting Green; Procedure for Referee If Competitor Does Not Lift Ball
Q.In stroke play, a competitor's ball is in a position to assist the play of a fellow-competitor and the competitor is in a position to lift the ball under Rule 22-1 without delaying the fellow-competitor's play. However, the competitor does not take any action to invoke the Rule. Would a referee be justified in intervening and requesting the competitor to invoke the Rule to protect himself and the rest of the field?
A.Yes. If the competitor were to object, there would be strong evidence of an agreement not to lift the ball for the purpose of assisting the fellow-competitor in breach of Rule 22-1. The referee would be justified in so advising the competitors involved and warning that failure to lift the ball would result in disqualification under Rule 22-1.



So I guess the Referee didn't believe there was any "collusion" between Monty and Wes.

[Kalen Braley]

I don't know guys...

I think wearing a hat inside is a far more insidious cancer that is ripping the country apart at the seams...

Colluding with a player to win a tournie?  No biggie... 

[Matt_Cohn]

Matt,


I think in your question, both players could be DQ'd, because they are agreeing to waive the rules.  If nothing is said, there is probably no penalty.

Exactly! I'm not familiar with another rule that results in automatic dual DQ!

[George Pazin]

What actually happened? Was Short's bunker shot anywhere close to Monty's ball?

[Tom_Doak]

And, I know at least one pro who tanked when he reached an international playoff,  more mindful of catching his plane home than actually winning some little known Asian tournament.  The two pros agreed to split the pot so they could get out of there, and when they wouldn't let them, one just hit in a pond on purpose.

That was in the New Zealand Open.  I only know because said player's name is still mud in New Zealand.

[Chris Cupit]

Jim,
You are correct and I am saddened to see so many responses that attempt to minimize this, deflect attention by bringing up an irrelevant point or who seem to be suggesting that caring about playing a game honestly is somehow prudish or old fashioned.
First of all most people’s questions and hypotheticals are all already answered by The Rules which I think are available for free on the usga or r and a website and via app as well.  It is Rule 22.
If I understand the situation correctly:
1.      Final hole of a professional event with a significant amount of money on the line
2.      Player A plays and his ball is about three feet from the hole AND in a position to serve as a backstop for Play B who is to play a shot from a bunker.  Player B needs to get "up and down" to win.
     
Absolutely Player A should have marked.  Any player in the competition has the right to come out of the locker room if necessary to insist that Player A mark.  If no player does this a Rules Official should step in and ask Player A to mark and if he refuses or if Player B objects, the Rules Official should have a brief discussion that reminds the players of the language of Rule 22.  Then, if Player A does not mark or if Player B does not insist on it being marked (he could in fact mark it himself), both players should be disqualified.
 
What is so hard about that?  To those that ask “where do you draw the line” I would say that if you are uncomfortable drawing a line on the 72^nd hole of a professional event with the tournament on the line and the ball on the green three feet away is serving as a perfect backstop for another player then I hope to G*d you never have to exercise any judgement calls in your “actual lives” J  This one is easy (assuming  the facts I mentioned above are correct.)


PS  unlike other Rules that require knowledge for a DQ to occur, Rule 22 sets an even higher standard:  Rule 22 (unlike 1-3) does not require knowledge among the competitors that what they are doing is against the rules.  Instead, "In stroke play, if the Committee determines that competitors have agreed not to lift a ball that might assist any competitor, they are disqualified."

[Kalen Braley]

A few questions/comments:

1)  I would think this is equally important to enforce on all holes, and not just the 72nd hole.  I know the announcers like to talk about how "expensive" mistakes are on the last of a hole of a tournie.  But a mistake on the 3rd hole is just as costly money-wise, even if its not realized until the last hole.

2)  How far does one logically take this rule?  In rule 22/7 the language is "in a position to assist".  What if my ball is 3 feet ahead of my competitor in the fairway and its in perfect position to provide an aiming point for his shot into the green?  Am I then "assisting" him and should I mark/pickup my ball? (Which he could then use my marker as an aiming point)

3)  Or what if my competitors ball is on the green, albeit 20 feet on the other side of the hole, and I use his ball to aim for the line of my chip or putt?  Is he "assisting" me?

I understand the spirit of the rule, but seems like its a bit muddled in being able to prove intent...

P.S.  I think other rules tool can be ambiguous in how they "protect the field"

[Chris Cupit]

A few questions/comments:

1)  I would think this is equally important to enforce on all holes, and not just the 72nd hole.  I know the announcers like to talk about how "expensive" mistakes are on the last of a hole of a tournie.  But a mistake on the 3rd hole is just as costly money-wise, even if its not realized until the last hole. 


I agree--my point was that if one could not see how it matters in the example given then I don't think any other example would meet their standard either.

2)  How far does one logically take this rule?  In rule 22/7 the language is "in a position to assist".  What if my ball is 3 feet ahead of my competitor in the fairway and its in perfect position to provide an aiming point for his shot into the green?  Am I then "assisting" him and should I mark/pickup my ball? (Which he could then use my marker as an aiming point)  The determination of assisting is necessarily vague as what may reasonable assist a professional is different than what would reasonably assist someone else.  Again, I would suggest anyone interested in this to read ALL of Rule 22 and the related decisions as that is a good guideline. In your example, if YOU believe your ball is in a position to assist the play of your fellow competitor (22-1) you have the right to mark it.  If HE felt your ball reasonably interfered with his play (22-2) he could insist you mark.  If BOTH of you agreed to leave your ball there for the purpose of assisting him, then you are both DQ'd. (22-1).

Again, for examples of the Rule in practice, read the 7 decisions to get a sense of what is reasonable. 

3)  Or what if my competitors ball is on the green, albeit 20 feet on the other side of the hole, and I use his ball to aim for the line of my chip or putt?  Is he "assisting" me?

I understand the spirit of the rule, but seems like its a bit muddled in being able to prove intent...


The Rules assume honesty and so assume people will be honest if asked about their intentions.  I think the language is pretty clear and if I wasn't sure if competitors agreed in order to assist one another, I would ask.  If they want to lie and turn the game into pretty much every other sport, then that is on them.  I also am not stupid and if a player(s) were obviously lying to me about their intentions (and I think I have been around the game enough to know when they are), I have no problem saying they should be DQ'd.

As you pointed out in your second example, using a ball as an aiming point is different especially when that aiming point is going to be replaced by another, albeit smaller one, e.g. a tee or coin.  The example that set this in motion was a ball in an obvious position to help deflect or stop another ball near the hole.

P.S.  I think other rules tool can be ambiguous in how they "protect the field"  For example....

[Jim_Coleman]

    I agree with Chris; like pornography, you know it when you see it.  If one needs an objective standard, how about this: when a ball on the green can provide assistance to a ball within 20 yards of the green, it must be marked.  It's arbitrary, but it's something.  One might argue that anything outside 20 yards may slow up play.  Otherwise, we're stuck with the status quo, which I believe is abused.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Chris,
It takes a conspiratorial mind to believe that collusion is Tour-wide, but the only way that you could ever prove that a group of two, three, or four players was doing it, and DQ'ing them for it, is if the referee were to interject him/herself into the situation, as illustrated below. 

22/7 Ball Assisting Fellow-Competitor on Putting Green; Procedure for Referee If Competitor Does Not Lift Ball

Q.In stroke play, a competitor's ball is in a position to assist the play of a fellow-competitor and the competitor is in a position to lift the ball under Rule 22-1 without delaying the fellow-competitor's play. However, the competitor does not take any action to invoke the Rule. Would a referee be justified in intervening and requesting the competitor to invoke the Rule to protect himself and the rest of the field?

A.Yes. If the competitor were to object, there would be strong evidence of an agreement not to lift the ball for the purpose of assisting the fellow-competitor in breach of Rule 22-1. The referee would be justified in so advising the competitors involved and warning that failure to lift the ball would result in disqualification under Rule 22-1.

[Chris Cupit]

Jim,


I am not a black helicopter guy but I think it is naive not to know that what many may consider professional courtesy does cross the line with the rules and Rule 22 is a prime example.  Unfortunately, a pro that insisted on protecting his rights or the rights of others under Rule  22 would face certain pariah status among his peers.


And yes, the "effort" needed to stop this is never going to happen and could give the game a black mark.  Were I "king" of the tour I would simply post a memo reminding everyone of the Rule and the assumption of honesty behind all the Rules and the game itself. 


I do think most people are honest and that golfers tend to be more honest than other professional athletes.  Unlike most sports where bending or breaking rules is part of the culture of "how the game is played", golf is different and expects its participants to play differently.


That would be my first step.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Chris,


I wasn't suggesting that you were.


What I am suggesting is that all these players are under the microscope every weekend, and the idea that a ball laying 3' from a hole needed marking wasn't an issue for Monty and Wes, the referee, the committee, and anyone else in the field.


Only Wadkins.     

[Kalen Braley]

Chris,

I took your advice and read the decisions, and came across this one.  Perhaps I'm just reading this wrong, but it seems to be in direct contradiction to the original post of this thread!!  Or perhaps this is only so because its Match Play and not stroke paly??

22/5 Assisting Ball Lifted by Opponent Replaced on Request; Player's Ball Then Strikes Opponent's Ball and Opponent Lodges Claim 

Q. In a match between A and B, A's ball is near the hole in a position to serve as a backstop for B's ball. A lifts his ball to clean it. B requests A to replace his ball before he (B) putts. A protests but B insists that, under the Rules, A must replace his ball immediately. A replaces his ball but disputes B's right to require him to do so and claims the hole. B putts and his ball strikes A's ball and stops very close to the hole. A replaces his ball and holes out for a 4. B then holes out for a 4. The match continues and the claim is later referred to the Committee. How should the Committee rule?


A. The hole stands as played. The Rules do not require A to replace his ball, but B was not in breach of the Rules by asking A to replace it - see Rule 22-1.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()