[A.G._Crockett]

Sean: Backstopping isn’t rub if the green; it’s collusion and it’s cheating. No, there won’t be lots of measurements and delays, because if players measure and leave the ball, it’s clearly collusion. They’ll just mark it. Is my 5/10 rule perfect? No. Will it end backstopping/cheating? Yes.

Except so called back stopping isn't cheating. You are on about tacit agreements between players to mark or not....no? A player can request a ball be marked or a player can mark a ball if they choose to. I am of the mind that if I can comfortably mark the ball without holding up play I will do so. However, my priority is not to interfere with the rhythm of another golfer over marking the ball. You may disagree and that's ok. But in my experience, that is how the game is played 🤷. And yes, in your scenario I can definitely see issues with measuring distance for the sake of rule accuracy. Nope, introducing distance into the rule creates more grief. If you think it's fixed, don't bet on golf.

Ciao

Well, I could be wrong here, but...
Under Rule 15.3, "backstopping" by agreement, spoken or unspoken, IS cheating.  Difficult to interpret, difficult to enforce, difficult to prove; yes to each.  But still, if there is an agreement, it IS cheating. 

[Sean_A]

Sean: Backstopping isn’t rub if the green; it’s collusion and it’s cheating. No, there won’t be lots of measurements and delays, because if players measure and leave the ball, it’s clearly collusion. They’ll just mark it. Is my 5/10 rule perfect? No. Will it end backstopping/cheating? Yes.

Except so called back stopping isn't cheating. You are on about tacit agreements between players to mark or not....no? A player can request a ball be marked or a player can mark a ball if they choose to. I am of the mind that if I can comfortably mark the ball without holding up play I will do so. However, my priority is not to interfere with the rhythm of another golfer over marking the ball. You may disagree and that's ok. But in my experience, that is how the game is played . And yes, in your scenario I can definitely see issues with measuring distance for the sake of rule accuracy. Nope, introducing distance into the rule creates more grief. If you think it's fixed, don't bet on golf.

Ciao

Well, I could be wrong here, but...
Under Rule 15.3, "backstopping" by agreement, spoken or unspoken, IS cheating.  Difficult to interpret, difficult to enforce, difficult to prove; yes to each.  But still, if there is an agreement, it IS cheating.

That is my understanding. So to label anybody who leaves a ball on a green a cheater is slander. Its wild west justice...typical for golf wing nuts.  I have never heard of anybody accussing someone of illegal backstopping in all the golf I have played. I am sure it has come up, but I have never seen it. Or are we suggesting a different rule for the pros?

So much angst over crap rather than the actual shot quality. Is this what happens to tv spectators when play is slow? 

Ciao

[A.G._Crockett]

Sean: Backstopping isn’t rub if the green; it’s collusion and it’s cheating. No, there won’t be lots of measurements and delays, because if players measure and leave the ball, it’s clearly collusion. They’ll just mark it. Is my 5/10 rule perfect? No. Will it end backstopping/cheating? Yes.

Except so called back stopping isn't cheating. You are on about tacit agreements between players to mark or not....no? A player can request a ball be marked or a player can mark a ball if they choose to. I am of the mind that if I can comfortably mark the ball without holding up play I will do so. However, my priority is not to interfere with the rhythm of another golfer over marking the ball. You may disagree and that's ok. But in my experience, that is how the game is played . And yes, in your scenario I can definitely see issues with measuring distance for the sake of rule accuracy. Nope, introducing distance into the rule creates more grief. If you think it's fixed, don't bet on golf.

Ciao

Well, I could be wrong here, but...
Under Rule 15.3, "backstopping" by agreement, spoken or unspoken, IS cheating.  Difficult to interpret, difficult to enforce, difficult to prove; yes to each.  But still, if there is an agreement, it IS cheating.

That is my understanding. So to label anybody who leaves a ball on a green a cheater is slander. Its wild west justice...typical for golf wing nuts.  I have never heard of anybody accussing someone of illegal backstopping in all the golf I have played. I am sure it has come up, but I have never seen it. Or are we suggesting a different rule for the pros?

So much angst over crap rather than the actual shot quality. Is this what happens to tv spectators when play is slow? 

Ciao

Agreed.  I play a LOT of competitive golf, and in many, many rounds these situations come up.  I might play from off the green and start walking toward my ball to mark it, only to see a fellow competitor ready, or close to it, to play his shot; now I have to decide whether or not to go ahead and mark.  And, of course, I could be the player with the upcoming shot,and face the decision of going ahead and playing or waiting for the fellow competitor to get up to the green to mark.  I think the key here is that the idea of an agreement between the two players.
The only time I remember it being openly discussed was in a four ball when the guys we were playing with discussed it and left a ball on the green just beyond the hole to possibly help on a very difficult downhill pitch over a bunker.  At the time, I wasn't sure of whether the rule applied the same way when the two player were partners; I asked after the round, and was told in no uncertain terms that it DOES apply in a partner situation. 

[Niall C]

I recall an incident many years ago when Monty and Darren Clarke were playing together in a Euro event. Clarke was chipping on first with Monty in the greenside bunker and ready to play. As soon as Clarke had played Monty played his shot before Clarke had a chance to mark. Monty's ball hit Clarke's which was 6 or 7 feet behind the flag. Clarke wasn't best pleased but then he never was when it came to Monty.


Can't say whether Monty simply played ready golf or had it in his mind that Clarke's ball could act as a back-stop. I suspect not as it wasn't much of a bunker shot, but Clarke wasn't happy all the same. At the time I thought that he was miffed that he hadn't been allowed to mark and thought that bad etiquette but maybe he just didn't want to give Monty an advantage.


Niall

[John_Cullum]

I recall an incident many years ago when Monty and Darren Clarke were playing together in a Euro event. Clarke was chipping on first with Monty in the greenside bunker and ready to play. As soon as Clarke had played Monty played his shot before Clarke had a chance to mark. Monty's ball hit Clarke's which was 6 or 7 feet behind the flag. Clarke wasn't best pleased but then he never was when it came to Monty.


Can't say whether Monty simply played ready golf or had it in his mind that Clarke's ball could act as a back-stop. I suspect not as it wasn't much of a bunker shot, but Clarke wasn't happy all the same. At the time I thought that he was miffed that he hadn't been allowed to mark and thought that bad etiquette but maybe he just didn't want to give Monty an advantage.


Niall

Clarke had the right to make him to wait until he marked

[John_Cullum]

Wrong. The rules clearly prevent such.

No, sorry. Tiger is allowed to talk to his caddie. He's not giving advice to Adam Scott, he's simply making misleading comments to his caddie. Good luck proving otherwise.

Tiger intentionally acted (verbally) with the intent to influence Scott in choosing a club and making a stroke. That is clearly contrary to the definition of advice.


Also, note the first example of advice given in the Guide book

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Tiger intentionally acted (verbally) with the intent to influence Scott in choosing a club and making a stroke. That is clearly contrary to the definition of advice.

No, it's not, because you're not going to be able to prove the intent. You can prove that he spoke, but not that it was to Scott or to influence Scott.

Given your previous (incorrect) comment about how "different shaft flexes" and stuff make this info worthless, you're now arguing that Tiger can/did influence Adam Scott by saying something to Tiger's own caddie?

[Charlie Goerges]

Tiger intentionally acted (verbally) with the intent to influence Scott in choosing a club and making a stroke. That is clearly contrary to the definition of advice.

No, it's not, because you're not going to be able to prove the intent. You can prove that he spoke, but not that it was to Scott or to influence Scott.

I can't speak for John, but I think the point might be that the exact same thing could be said of Brooks.


Rules committee: Brooks, you and your caddie both said "Five", did you intend to influence play?
Brooks: Nope
Rules committee: Nothing we can do here boys.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I can't speak for John, but I think the point might be that the exact same thing could be said of Brooks.

Brooks and his caddie said it TO Gary's caddie (three times), not to each other as is often done on Tour. Equivalent of leaving the towel off the club heads, etc.

[Rob Marshall]

I can't speak for John, but I think the point might be that the exact same thing could be said of Brooks.

Brooks and his caddie said it TO Gary's caddie (three times), not to each other as is often done on Tour. Equivalent of leaving the towel off the club heads, etc.

It's not the equivalent of leaving the towel off the club heads. Anyone can do that but the other player has to walk over and look. They directly gave them the advice both visually and verbally. The rules don't say you have to cover your clubs. They do say you can't give tell them what club you hit.


I don't understand the argument. They knowingly broke the rules and you can't defend that. Then they lied about it

[Erik J. Barzeski]

It's not the equivalent of leaving the towel off the club heads.

Saying "Let's hit the 5I" (caddie to his player or vice versa) is equivalent to leaving the towel off. In either case, someone can over-hear or take a peek, and it's not illegal.

Both are often done on Tour (players will talk loudly to their caddies, will wash the club in a way that others can see it, etc.). I don't like it, but it's commonly done.

I don't understand the argument. They knowingly broke the rules and you can't defend that. Then they lied about it

Uhhh, I haven't defended Brooks or his caddie (or Gary or his). Not once. They should have been penalized IMO.

[Charlie Goerges]

I want to say that I don’t like the situation as it is either. It’s just that the permissive attitude on tour combined with the language of the rule makes it nigh on impossible to enforce. There has been only one instance on the tour of it being enforced thus far this millennium. And that guy called it on himself!

[Rob Marshall]

It's not the equivalent of leaving the towel off the club heads.

Saying "Let's hit the 5I" (caddie to his player or vice versa) is equivalent to leaving the towel off. In either case, someone can over-hear or take a peek, and it's not illegal.

Both are often done on Tour (players will talk loudly to their caddies, will wash the club in a way that others can see it, etc.). I don't like it, but it's commonly done.

I don't understand the argument. They knowingly broke the rules and you can't defend that. Then they lied about it

Uhhh, I haven't defended Brooks or his caddie (or Gary or his). Not once. They should have been penalized IMO.

I know you aren’t defending them, didn’t say you were. I replied to your post because the towel comparison makes no sense. To imply you are doing something wrong by not covering your clubs is foolish.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

To imply you are doing something wrong by not covering your clubs is foolish.

Good thing I didn't do that then.

[Niall C]

I recall an incident many years ago when Monty and Darren Clarke were playing together in a Euro event. Clarke was chipping on first with Monty in the greenside bunker and ready to play. As soon as Clarke had played Monty played his shot before Clarke had a chance to mark. Monty's ball hit Clarke's which was 6 or 7 feet behind the flag. Clarke wasn't best pleased but then he never was when it came to Monty.


Can't say whether Monty simply played ready golf or had it in his mind that Clarke's ball could act as a back-stop. I suspect not as it wasn't much of a bunker shot, but Clarke wasn't happy all the same. At the time I thought that he was miffed that he hadn't been allowed to mark and thought that bad etiquette but maybe he just didn't want to give Monty an advantage.


Niall

Clarke had the right to make him to wait until he marked

John


Clarke hadn't even got to the green when Monty played. Are you saying that it is a rule that a player can insist on marking his ball after hitting a shot onto a green and before his playing partner has hit his approach to the same green ? If so, does that same rule apply when both players are 200 yards from the green rather than within 15/20 yards ?


Niall

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Clarke hadn't even got to the green when Monty played. Are you saying that it is a rule that a player can insist on marking his ball after hitting a shot onto a green and before his playing partner has hit his approach to the same green ? If so, does that same rule apply when both players are 200 yards from the green rather than within 15/20 yards?

He's likely saying what he wrote: that Clarke could have told Monty he intended to mark his ball, and Monty would have had to allow him to go do so.

In fact, any player (even one on a nearby hole) could have requested Clarke mark his ball before Montgomerie played. It doesn't even matter if it's their ball or they're the one about to play the shot.

Rule 15.3:
If a player reasonably believes that a ball on the putting green might help anyone’s play (such as by serving as a possible backstop near the hole), the player may:

• Mark the spot of the ball and lift it under Rule 13.1b if it is their own ball, or if the ball belongs to another player, require the other player to mark the spot and lift the ball (see Rule 14.1).
• The lifted ball must be replaced on its original spot (see Rule 14.2).

[Jim_Coleman]

    Another example of “professional courtesy.”  On 15 today, Walker hit a high hook into the trees. No one saw the ball. A video replay couldn’t follow it either, but no splash was seen in the water left of the trees. They looked around on both sides of the water for what seemed like a lot longer than 3 minutes. The announcers correctly questioned whether it was virtually certain that it went in the water. No one saw it go in the water, and it could have easily glanced off a tree left of the water.
   All of a sudden, Scheffler opined that it had have to hit a tree at the far end of where they were looking, on the right side of the water. Walker took a drop giving him a direct shot to the green. Once Scheffler put his two cents in, I suppose everything after that was Kosher. But all Scheffler was doing was scratching his buddy’s back. Anybody see this and think it was sketchy?

[John Blain]

    Another example of “professional courtesy.”  On 15 today, Walker hit a high hook into the trees. No one saw the ball. A video replay couldn’t follow it either, but no splash was seen in the water left of the trees. They looked around on both sides of the water for what seemed like a lot longer than 3 minutes. The announcers correctly questioned whether it was virtually certain that it went in the water. No one saw it go in the water, and it could have easily glanced off a tree left of the water.
   All of a sudden, Scheffler opined that it had have to hit a tree at the far end of where they were looking, on the right side of the water. Walker took a drop giving him a direct shot to the green. Once Scheffler put his two cents in, I suppose everything after that was Kosher. But all Scheffler was doing was scratching his buddy’s back. Anybody see this and think it was sketchy?

Good article here on the Jimmy Walker ruling yesterday at HT.


With 'vote of confidence' rules gesture, Scottie Scheffler rescues bewildered pro (golf.com)

[Jim_Coleman]

   Excellent description of what happened. Once another player comes to the rescue (a la Casey Wittenberg for Tiger at the Players), that’s the end of the discussion. Scheffler sure waited a long time to put his 2 cents in, and one would think if the ball dropped pretty near the fairway the camera would have picked it up. We’ll never know.  But it seemed pertinent to a discussion of Tour players helping each other out.

[archie_struthers]

 


As to backstopping by Monty, if he was seven feet behind the hole who really cares?    More likely D.Clark was irritated in general by the curmudgeonly Englishman ( meant  Scot)  and just needed a little push to go off!   There’s a long history there too regarding the English and Irish ☘️

[Niall C]

yeah, who was the Englishman ?

[Rob Marshall]

yeah, who was the Englishman ?

Ha, I was going to say the same thing

[archie_struthers]

 




Ha , ha my bad. Must have been a senior moment as I totally meant to say the dour Scot 


Met Monty as a 19 year old and he wasn't much fun even then...as to Clark  woo hoo

[Michael Whitaker]

I can't speak for John, but I think the point might be that the exact same thing could be said of Brooks.

Brooks and his caddie said it TO Gary's caddie (three times), not to each other as is often done on Tour. Equivalent of leaving the towel off the club heads, etc.

It's not the equivalent of leaving the towel off the club heads. Anyone can do that but the other player has to walk over and look. They directly gave them the advice both visually and verbally. The rules don't say you have to cover your clubs. They do say you can't give tell them what club you hit.


I don't understand the argument. They knowingly broke the rules and you can't defend that. Then they lied about it

I have a friend who caddies on the Corn Ferry Tour. I asked him today about the Keopka/caddy advice controversy. He said the CF caddies were told it wasn’t a rule violation because the comments were made AFTER both players had hit their shots. I hadn’t heard that explanation anywhere else. If that’s true, why wasn’t it made clear somewhere?

[Kalen Braley]

Well that's not true.

According to shot tracker on the Masters website.

Brooks hit his drive 310 yards, and had 231 left.
Woodland hit his drive 331 yards, and had 209 yards left

In the video, you can see Brooks hit then his caddy gave information to Woodlands caddy...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()