[Brian_Ewen]

https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/golf/12053919/should-lexi-have-been-penalised

[Rob Marshall]

I  agree with R&A. Nothing was different when she made her swing.

[John Emerson]

video is unavailable

[Mike_Clayton]

I  agree with R&A. Nothing was different when she made her swing.

I guess they make the rules - but what happened to Rule 13-2?
'Prohibits a player from improving their intended stroke by moving, bending or breaking anything growing.'


So now you can improve your lie so long as you don't improve your lie?
Who decides that - especially in the absence of TV cameras?

[Brian_Ewen]

video is unavailable

Still works for me John.

[Jon Wiggett]

I  agree with R&A. Nothing was different when she made her swing.

I guess they make the rules - but what happened to Rule 13-2?
'Prohibits a player from improving their intended stroke by moving, bending or breaking anything growing.'


So now you can improve your lie so long as you don't improve your lie?
Who decides that - especially in the absence of TV cameras?

Mike,


having watched the clip I was left wondering what was going through her mind when she bent the grasses back with her club. However, the prohibits improving the lie and not attempting to improve the lie so I guess as she was deemed not to have actually improved the lie no rule was broken. Its not a good look though.


Jon

[Thomas Dai]

As she missed the cut her 'iffy' antics didn't fortunately deprive another competitor from playing the last 2 rounds.
There's a bad smell though and given other recent incidents how thick does a player have to be to do something like this even more so when there's a camera only a few feet away?
Or maybe Fire Ants have reached the west coast of Scotland?
atb

[Mike_Clayton]

I  agree with R&A. Nothing was different when she made her swing.

I guess they make the rules - but what happened to Rule 13-2?
'Prohibits a player from improving their intended stroke by moving, bending or breaking anything growing.'


So now you can improve your lie so long as you don't improve your lie?
Who decides that - especially in the absence of TV cameras?

Mike,


having watched the clip I was left wondering what was going through her mind when she bent the grasses back with her club. However, the prohibits improving the lie and not attempting to improve the lie so I guess as she was deemed not to have actually improved the lie no rule was broken. Its not a good look though.


Jon

Jon,


So if the grass hadn't bounced back it would have been a penalty?
Clearly it would have been - and it's just something no player with an awareness of the rules would think of doing.
There is a massive difference between breaking the rules and cheating - and only she knows what went on both here and at the ANA.

[Thomas Dai]

Worth a reminder of how some handle situations - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZUs-_Vakp0
Atb

[Jim Hoak]

You are able to take a stance--and that includes being able to put your club behind the ball.  You are able to move living things in taking that stance--just can't use your hands or artificial means.
My High School team once lost the state championship because a player moved a branch of a tree in taking his stance.  But he used his hands and moved it behind another branch.  That's a penalty.

I watched the Lexi video closely and I don't believe there was any penalty due.

[Sean_A]

You are able to take a stance--and that includes being able to put your club behind the ball.  You are able to move living things in taking that stance--just can't use your hands or artificial means.
My High School team once lost the state championship because a player moved a branch of a tree in taking his stance.  But he used his hands and moved it behind another branch.  That's a penalty.

I watched the Lexi video closely and I don't believe there was any penalty due.

+1

People are looking for phantom stuff to bitch about. IMO, this sort of continual bashing by media and twitter darlings is now the worst aspect of TV golf. It never ends. Folks need to chill.

Ciao

[Lou_Duran]

I am of the mind that an official's role is to facilitate fair play.  The official, IMO, is not there to punish, but more to clarify the rules and the spirit underlying them than to enforce a strict interpretation of the letter which, if one reads the rules book closely, has all sorts of buts, ors,  and exceptions.  In fact, in many situations when there is a doubt, the player is given the benefit.


The underlying principle in this case is did she do anything not allowed by the rules which resulted in the lie being improved.  I can't play the video by clicking on the the link, but we do know that the rules allow the player to ground the club behind the ball lightly EVEN if it improves the lie ever so slightly.


I didn't like Slugger's ruling on the Rahm chip- I doubt that the naked eye could see the rotation of the brand name ever so slightly unless the observer was near ground level a few inches from the ball.  Even from the magnified camera shot at an advantaged angle, I didn't see the ball move from its position (more of a rotation on a fixed spot).  And I was left to wonder whether the same ruling would have been made if the penalty resulted in Rahm losing the tournament.








     

[John_Cullum]

I  agree with R&A. Nothing was different when she made her swing.

I guess they make the rules - but what happened to Rule 13-2?
'Prohibits a player from improving their intended stroke by moving, bending or breaking anything growing.'


So now you can improve your lie so long as you don't improve your lie?
Who decides that - especially in the absence of TV cameras?

There is nothing new here. The rule has always been interpreted to prohibit improving the lie or area of intended swing. If growing or fixed things are touched or moved but no improvement results, there is no penalty. It happens all the time when players make practice strokes and touch tree limbs and leaves fall. The question is "has there been improvement?"

[JohnVDB]

I  agree with R&A. Nothing was different when she made her swing.

I guess they make the rules - but what happened to Rule 13-2?
'Prohibits a player from improving their intended stroke by moving, bending or breaking anything growing.'


So now you can improve your lie so long as you don't improve your lie?
Who decides that - especially in the absence of TV cameras?

 Ike,


You need to get a new Rule book.  The number is now 8.1. They are free at most clubhouses.  You can probably even get the R&A’s app for free in OZ.


The definition of improve in the book is to do something that creates a potential advantage.  Having looked at the video, the grass comes back to almost the same location. Meaning the Committee’s job is to determine if there was an improvement as defined.


The R&A felt there wasn’t.  From what I saw I’d probably agree with them. But, other Committees might have ruled differently.  It is a judgment call.

[Jon Wiggett]

I  agree with R&A. Nothing was different when she made her swing.

I guess they make the rules - but what happened to Rule 13-2?
'Prohibits a player from improving their intended stroke by moving, bending or breaking anything growing.'


So now you can improve your lie so long as you don't improve your lie?
Who decides that - especially in the absence of TV cameras?

Mike,


having watched the clip I was left wondering what was going through her mind when she bent the grasses back with her club. However, the prohibits improving the lie and not attempting to improve the lie so I guess as she was deemed not to have actually improved the lie no rule was broken. Its not a good look though.


Jon

Jon,


So if the grass hadn't bounced back it would have been a penalty?
Clearly it would have been - and it's just something no player with an awareness of the rules would think of doing.
There is a massive difference between breaking the rules and cheating - and only she knows what went on both here and at the ANA.

Clearly had the grass not bounced back that would have constituted an advantage an therefore a penalty. I have always thought the double standard of making what actually happens with certain rules important but then making the intention of the player with other rules was always pretty mixed up.


I can not find any reason for her to do what she did other than to try and improve her lie yet despite this being in my eyes an attempt to cheat it goes unpunished.


Jon

[Rob Marshall]

I  agree with R&A. Nothing was different when she made her swing.

I guess they make the rules - but what happened to Rule 13-2?
'Prohibits a player from improving their intended stroke by moving, bending or breaking anything growing.'


So now you can improve your lie so long as you don't improve your lie?
Who decides that - especially in the absence of TV cameras?

Mike,


having watched the clip I was left wondering what was going through her mind when she bent the grasses back with her club. However, the prohibits improving the lie and not attempting to improve the lie so I guess as she was deemed not to have actually improved the lie no rule was broken. Its not a good look though.


Jon

Jon,


So if the grass hadn't bounced back it would have been a penalty?
Clearly it would have been - and it's just something no player with an awareness of the rules would think of doing.
There is a massive difference between breaking the rules and cheating - and only she knows what went on both here and at the ANA.

Clearly had the grass not bounced back that would have constituted an advantage an therefore a penalty. I have always thought the double standard of making what actually happens with certain rules important but then making the intention of the player with other rules was always pretty mixed up.


I can not find any reason for her to do what she did other than to try and improve her lie yet despite this being in my eyes an attempt to cheat it goes unpunished.


Jon

From the clip I saw the grass didn’t “bounce” back, it was just blowing around in the wind. I agree it didn’t look good.

[John Kavanaugh]

There is a 13 team high school girls invitational being played at the course in my back yard. I just took a photo of a girl playing a ball out of my neighbors yard. Her Dad found the ball and told her it was ok. The shit I could stir over in the scorers tent. At 60 yrs old this is not the battle I choose to perhaps be my last.

[Mike_Clayton]

You are able to take a stance--and that includes being able to put your club behind the ball.  You are able to move living things in taking that stance--just can't use your hands or artificial means.
My High School team once lost the state championship because a player moved a branch of a tree in taking his stance.  But he used his hands and moved it behind another branch.  That's a penalty.

I watched the Lexi video closely and I don't believe there was any penalty due.

Clearly there wasn't a penalty due - because the R&A make and decide the rules and rulings.
But - she wasn't putting her club behind the ball - as Rahm was - she moved something to the side of the ball and if it hadn't bounced back - something she had no control over - it would have improved her lie.

[Lou_Duran]

The rules allow for the player to determine if an impediment is loose or if it is attached to the ground.  If it is loose it can be removed without penalty so long as the ball does not move.  If it is still rooted or attached and it is not pulled out, moving it back to its original position avoids a penalty.  I typically don't ground my clubs near the ball except for the putter and seldom remove small loose impediments, though I might if I was playing for big money and had 4+ hours to complete my round. 

[Brian_Ewen]

https://www.alistairtaitgolf.com/post/golf-s-basic-tenet-play-the-ball-as-it-lies



"Whether the lie returned exactly to its original conditions is clearly a moot point. What isn’t moot is that Thompson made no effort to restore the original lie. The inference here is that Mother Nature decided to interfere by restoring the original condition, therefore there was no breach.


I can’t find the clause in either of my rule books that says if you improve your lie but the ball returns naturally to its original condition then you’re off the hook. You might struggle to find it, too"

[Jeff Johnston]

Brian, thanks for posting that from Alastair Tait - I was going to say pretty much the same thing and to me that’s it in a nutshell. Lexi deliberately improved her lie, which was returned to something approximating its original state by dumb luck and very evidently by no effort on her part. On the rule as written I don’t see how that is not a penalty; and for spirit of the rule purposes I can’t see much argument either. For reasons best known to themselves however the R&A have elected to fudge it.


Let’s take another fairly well known recent example. When P Reed did his golf club gardening in the Bahamas in late 2019, on what the R&A have said here he would have faced no penalty if the sand had restored itself to something like its original position (not impossible if say you have finer sand and/or a sloping lie). Anyone want to argue for that as a good / logical / correct outcome?

[Jon Wiggett]

https://www.alistairtaitgolf.com/post/golf-s-basic-tenet-play-the-ball-as-it-lies



"Whether the lie returned exactly to its original conditions is clearly a moot point. What isn’t moot is that Thompson made no effort to restore the original lie. The inference here is that Mother Nature decided to interfere by restoring the original condition, therefore there was no breach.


I can’t find the clause in either of my rule books that says if you improve your lie but the ball returns naturally to its original condition then you’re off the hook. You might struggle to find it, too"

Brian,


this is a little bit of 'over think'. The question he should be asking is was the lie improved or altered in anyway by the player which changed the shot. Clearly it was not in the eyes of the R&A.

[Jeff Johnston]

https://www.alistairtaitgolf.com/post/golf-s-basic-tenet-play-the-ball-as-it-lies



"Whether the lie returned exactly to its original conditions is clearly a moot point. What isn’t moot is that Thompson made no effort to restore the original lie. The inference here is that Mother Nature decided to interfere by restoring the original condition, therefore there was no breach.


I can’t find the clause in either of my rule books that says if you improve your lie but the ball returns naturally to its original condition then you’re off the hook. You might struggle to find it, too"

Brian,


this is a little bit of 'over think'. The question he should be asking is was the lie improved or altered in anyway by the player which changed the shot. Clearly it was not in the eyes of the R&A.

Jon, I don’t agree there is over-think here.  Re your mooted question above, the outcome (as in the lie eventually addressed and played) - while obviously relevant - is not the only determining factor; in drafting the rule, the R&A also placed importance  (I think correctly) on the route and means by which the lie is restored.


Applying the rule as it lies (!!) I don’t see how the R&A felt able to apply the exemption in this instance, and in doing so I don’t think they did the field (or the game) any favours.

[JohnVDB]

For those who say you can't find anything in the Rule book, 8.1c says, "If a player improves the conditions affecting the stroke by moving, bending or breaking an object in bread of Rule 8.1a(1) ... There is no penalty if, before making the next stroke, the player eliminates the improvement by restoring the original conditions..."
While the Rule says "the player eliminates the improvement" this doesn't mean the player must take an action to remove, merely that it gets eliminated.
For example, a player goes under a tree and moves a branch out of the way in breach of Rule 8.1a.  The player then decides to get another club and steps out from under the tree.  The branch, on its own, goes back to where the improvement is eliminated.  The player then goes back under the tree, but without moving the branch this time.  There is no penalty because there is no improvement.  This is essentially what Lexi did.  She moved the grass, it moved back on its own.  No improvement, no penalty.

[Jon Wiggett]

https://www.alistairtaitgolf.com/post/golf-s-basic-tenet-play-the-ball-as-it-lies



"Whether the lie returned exactly to its original conditions is clearly a moot point. What isn’t moot is that Thompson made no effort to restore the original lie. The inference here is that Mother Nature decided to interfere by restoring the original condition, therefore there was no breach.


I can’t find the clause in either of my rule books that says if you improve your lie but the ball returns naturally to its original condition then you’re off the hook. You might struggle to find it, too"

Brian,


this is a little bit of 'over think'. The question he should be asking is was the lie improved or altered in anyway by the player which changed the shot. Clearly it was not in the eyes of the R&A.

Jon, I don’t agree there is over-think here.  Re your mooted question above, the outcome (as in the lie eventually addressed and played) - while obviously relevant - is not the only determining factor; in drafting the rule, the R&A also placed importance  (I think correctly) on the route and means by which the lie is restored.


Applying the rule as it lies (!!) I don’t see how the R&A felt able to apply the exemption in this instance, and in doing so I don’t think they did the field (or the game) any favours.

Jeff,


I would suggest that as the lie was not altered then no rule has been breached. Yes, she bends the grass back but the lie of the ball is not improved or altered. The player then restores the grass to its original position by removing the club which was holding it back. It really is not complicated.


JohnVDB,


+1

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()