Rahm f'd up and should've been penalized

Seems pretty obvious.

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/07/jon-rahm-irish-open-win-highlights-rules-controversy

He won by 6. Nbd

surprised he just didn't call a penalty on himself before signing his card. he would still have won..and save his face

I agree. I know he was trying to follow the rules and trying to do it right, but he still made an error and should have been penalized, intent or not. To his credit he told the rules official that if he was in the wrong to penalize him right away so he knew what he was dealing with.

He won by 6. Nbd

It was on the sixth hole. With a temper like his, it would have likely been a very bd.

Any reason this revelation wasn't shared in the other threads that are talking about it?

Any reason this revelation wasn't shared in the other threads that are talking about it?

Please point out the other threads. This can gladly be combined.

any reason to think he cheated on purpose

Could he have just putted out or was his ball on top of the other marker?

any reason to think he cheated on purpose

didn't like a spike mark on original location

i robbed that bank, but it wasn't on purpose.

Any reason this revelation wasn't shared in the other threads that are talking about it?

 

Please point out the other threads. This can gladly be combined.

http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/1512930-john-rahm-6th-hole-on-green/

http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/1511068-dubai-duty-free-irish-open/

any reason to think he cheated on purpose

It doesnt matter if it was on purpose or not. If you are a db in football and you run into a wr on accident its still pass interference. No different in golf.

It currently would be a two 2 shpt penalty, inncorrect card and playing a ball from the wrong spot. He won by 6, so it really doesnt matter in the grand scheme of things.

To be honest alot golfers in the higher ranks do this.

i understand what u are saying as far as the rules go, but i want to know if he did it on purpose

I watched with interest some of the comments on other Social media sites where The Golf Channel, Golfweek, Golf.com etc etc post. Making issues about why was he allowed to get away with this when Lexi wasn't. People calling him a cheat, a spoilt brat, he moved it because of a spike mark, sure why not make up a reason. Brandel Chamblee ( font of all knowledge, if it can generate controversy) even said he moved it by up to 4 inches. The rule changed to allow for reasonable adjustment. Andy McPhee said that they had reviewed the incident and he placed his mark at about 10 o'clock and replaced it at about 11 o'clock. They were happy with his and Im's explanation that he believed he had placed it in the same spot. They allowed for reasonable adjustment that he did not intentionally place it in a different position, the position change was marginal and no advantage was gained. Rahm to his credit was accepting of any penalty but the rules officials did not impose one. I think there is a certain amount of European player hatred coming into play here. As I have said before he had a reason to mark to the side and not impede Im's putt, Lexi didn't have a reason!

If its The Open or another major and its close doen the stretch, does the same call get made?

Hope not.

I watched with interest some of the comments on other Social media sites where The Golf Channel, Golfweek, Golf.com etc etc post. Making issues about why was he allowed to get away with this when Lexi wasn't. People calling him a cheat, a spoilt brat, he moved it because of a spike mark, sure why not make up a reason. Brandel Chamblee ( font of all knowledge, if it can generate controversy) even said he moved it by up to 4 inches. The rule changed to allow for reasonable adjustment. Andy McPhee said that they had reviewed the incident and he placed his mark at about 10 o'clock and replaced it at about 11 o'clock. They were happy with his and Im's explanation that he believed he had placed it in the same spot. They allowed for reasonable adjustment that he did not intentionally place it in a different position, the position change was marginal and no advantage was gained. Rahm to his credit was accepting of any penalty but the rules officials did not impose one. I think there is a certain amount of European player hatred coming into play here. As I have said before he had a reason to mark to the side and not impede Im's putt, Lexi didn't have a reason!

I thought the rule changes go into effect in 2019?

any reason to think he cheated on purpose

It doesnt matter if it was on purpose or not. If you are a db in football and you run into a wr on accident its still pass interference. No different in golf.

 

It currently would be a two 2 shpt penalty, inncorrect card and playing a ball from the wrong spot. He won by 6, so it really doesnt matter in the grand scheme of things.

 

To be honest alot golfers in the higher ranks do this.

To the other post...is anyone else completely sick of Chamblee trying to stir things up constantly? He says this mark was incorrect by 3-4" inches. It was not even near that much.

Regardless of where he put the ball back in relation to the marker, how do we know he moved the marker back to the same exact location it was? Was he off a quarter inch? A half?

How about when someone hits a ball into a hazard from hundreds of yards away and has to estimate where it crossed into the hazard. What if they are off by a foot? What about 5 feet? How about 10 feet?

The point here is that:

1) Golf has no shortage of idiocy within its rules

2) There are known situations where a ball is put back into play in an imprecise location. Why does exact precision matter only some of the time?

I think we should go back to just leaving the ball where it lies completely untouched. Maybe bring back the stymie while we are at it. All of this going crazy about millimeters is a direct result of using an imprecise device (a coin) to determine the position of the ball when in reality it makes no difference at all to the outcome.

I think we should go back to just leaving the ball where it lies completely untouched. Maybe bring back the stymie while we are at it. All of this going crazy about millimeters is a direct result of using an imprecise device (a coin) to determine the position of the ball when in reality it makes no difference at all to the outcome.

^ Right on the money.

If we did the following test:

1. Asked someone to move their mark because it was in the way
   
2. Walked away and waited while the other player took their turn
   
3. Moved their mark back
   

We would precisely measure the before and after location of the mark.

I can guarantee we would see variations in the location of the mark. Perhaps some that are as much 1-2 inches different. And this test would be done with the participants knowing they are being measured.

If we did this test on a random group of people in random situations, I would hypothesize an even larger variance.

surprised he just didn't call a penalty on himself before signing his card. he would still have won..and save his face

Thats my view as well. It wouldnt affect the outcome and would show good faith and honor in the rules official who gave him the out. Different from the Lexi situation as the rules officials let him know right away.

in 2006 Darren Clarke showed guts and honor to penalize himself after a rain delay when fans improved his lie in the rough. i saw this on tv and was blown away by his honesty and integrity. i cant find the video but thats what golf is about.It cost him his countrys open title and he didnt compromise his integrity. pure class

http://news.bbc.co.u...olf/5012034.stm

http://www.belfastte...e-28764597.html

who cares....besides mama Ryu........he got warned.....woulda made anyways like Lexi......why not focus on the hundreds of things he did right to win

I think we should go back to just leaving the ball where it lies completely untouched. Maybe bring back the stymie while we are at it. All of this going crazy about millimeters is a direct result of using an imprecise device (a coin) to determine the position of the ball when in reality it makes no difference at all to the outcome.

Got a solution...cresent moon shaped coin, standard for all players. Mark the golfball inside the concave side.

You mark your ball, then need to move your mark, lining up your putter to some inanimate object yards away, then move the marker back, then replace the ball. I would be astonished if this can be done with any degree of absolute certainty as to the original ball position. Rahm did the best he could do, without resorting to some exotic GPS spotting.

surprised he just didn't call a penalty on himself before signing his card. he would still have won..and save his face

 

Thats my view as well. It wouldnt affect the outcome and would show good faith and honor in the rules official who gave him the out. Different from the Lexi situation as the rules officials let him know right away.

in 2006 Darren Clarke showed guts and honor to penalize himself after a rain delay when fans improved his lie in the rough. i saw this on tv and was blown away by his honesty and integrity. i cant find the video but thats what golf is about.It cost him the irish open title and he didnt compromise his integrity.

 

http://news.bbc.co.u...olf/5012034.stm

 

http://www.belfastte...e-28764597.html

Did Clarke really penalize himself? I don't think so.

While he did play sideways to the fairway, he did so from a MUCH better lie. Perhaps from the original lie (which was much worse) he may not have put it back in the fairway and compounded the issue?

Also - isn't Clarke required to recreate the original lie? If he knew the lie had changed, don't the rules require him to recreate the original lie to the best of his ability?

I may be wrong about having to recreate the lie, but if I am correct, didn't Clarke actually break that rule by hitting his ball from a lie that he knew was better than what he left it as?

I watched with interest some of the comments on other Social media sites where The Golf Channel, Golfweek, Golf.com etc etc post. Making issues about why was he allowed to get away with this when Lexi wasn't. People calling him a cheat, a spoilt brat, he moved it because of a spike mark, sure why not make up a reason. Brandel Chamblee ( font of all knowledge, if it can generate controversy) even said he moved it by up to 4 inches. The rule changed to allow for reasonable adjustment. Andy McPhee said that they had reviewed the incident and he placed his mark at about 10 o'clock and replaced it at about 11 o'clock. They were happy with his and Im's explanation that he believed he had placed it in the same spot. They allowed for reasonable adjustment that he did not intentionally place it in a different position, the position change was marginal and no advantage was gained. Rahm to his credit was accepting of any penalty but the rules officials did not impose one. I think there is a certain amount of European player hatred coming into play here. As I have said before he had a reason to mark to the side and not impede Im's putt, Lexi didn't have a reason!

 

I thought the rule changes go into effect in 2019?

The R & A and USGA agreed a rule change following the Lexi Thompson incident.

• New Decision on the Rules of Golf will limit use of video evidence
  
• Decision 34-3/10 will implement two standards for Rules committees to limit use of video
  
• New Decision takes effect immediately
  

The R&A and the USGA have issued a new Decision on the Rules of Golf to limit the use of video evidence in the game which takes effect immediately.

The two organisations have also established a working group of LPGA, PGA Tour, European Tour, Ladies European Tour and PGA of America representatives to immediately begin a comprehensive review of broader video issues that arise in televised competitions, including viewer call-ins.

Decision 34-3/10

New Decision 34-3/10 implements two standards for Rules committees to limit the use of video: 1) when video reveals evidence that could not reasonably be seen with the “naked eye” and 2) when players use their reasonable judgment to determine a specific location when applying the Rules. The full language of the Decision can be found here.

The first standard states “the use of video technology can make it possible to identify things that could not be seen with the naked eye.” An example includes a player who unknowingly touches a few grains of sand in taking a backswing with a club in a bunker when making a stroke.

If the committee concludes that such facts could not reasonably have been seen with the naked eye and the player was not otherwise aware of the potential breach, the player will be deemed not to have breached the Rules, even when video technology shows otherwise. This extends the provision from ball at rest moved cases, which was introduced in 2014 (Decision 18/4).

The second standard applies when a player determines a spot, point, position, line, area, distance or other location in applying the Rules, and recognises that a player should not be held to the degree of precision that can sometimes be provided by video technology. Examples include determining the nearest point of relief, or replacing a lifted ball.

So long as the player does what can reasonably be expected under the circumstances to make an accurate determination, the player’s reasonable judgment will be accepted, even if later shown to be wrong by the use of video evidence.

Rules Modernisation

Both of these standards have been extensively discussed as part of the Rules modernisation initiative and The R&A and the USGA have decided to enact this Decision immediately because of the many difficult issues arising from video review in televised golf.

The standards in the Decision do not change any of the current requirements in the Rules, as the player must still act with care, report all known breaches of the Rules and try to do what is reasonably expected in making an accurate determination when applying the Rules.

Video-related topics that require a deeper evaluation by the working group include the use of information from sources other than participants such as phone calls, email or social media and the application of penalties after a score card has been returned.

Martin Slumbers, Chief Executive of The R&A, said, “We have been considering the impact of video review on the game and feel it is important to introduce a Decision to give greater clarity in this area. Golf has always been a game of integrity and we want to ensure that the emphasis remains as much as possible on the reasonable judgment of the player rather than on what video technology can show.”

USGA Executive Director/CEO Mike Davis said, “This important first step provides officials with tools that can have a direct and positive impact on the game. We recognise there is more work to be done. Advancements in video technology are enhancing the viewing experience for fans but can also significantly affect the competition. We need to balance those advances with what is fair for all players when applying the Rules.”

The R&A and the USGA will consider additional modifications recommended by the working group for implementation in advance of 1 January 2019, when the new code resulting from the collaborative work to modernise golf’s Rules takes effect.

surprised he just didn't call a penalty on himself before signing his card. he would still have won..and save his face

 

Thats my view as well. It wouldnt affect the outcome and would show good faith and honor in the rules official who gave him the out. Different from the Lexi situation as the rules officials let him know right away.

in 2006 Darren Clarke showed guts and honor to penalize himself after a rain delay when fans improved his lie in the rough. i saw this on tv and was blown away by his honesty and integrity. i cant find the video but thats what golf is about.It cost him the irish open title and he didnt compromise his integrity.

 

http://news.bbc.co.u...olf/5012034.stm

 

http://www.belfastte...e-28764597.html

 

Did Clarke really penalize himself? I don't think so.

 

While he did play sideways to the fairway, he did so from a MUCH better lie. Perhaps from the original lie (which was much worse) he may not have put it back in the fairway and compounded the issue?

 

Also - isn't Clarke required to recreate the original lie? If he knew the lie had changed, don't the rules require him to recreate the original lie to the best of his ability?

 

I may be wrong about having to recreate the lie, but if I am correct, didn't Clarke actually break that rule by hitting his ball from a lie that he knew was better than what he left it as?

You got everything back words and yes he penalized himself. He knew it wasnt a lucky breakand showed alot of honor, sorry you dont see it my way

the question is, was it an honest mistake by him

surprised he just didn't call a penalty on himself before signing his card. he would still have won..and save his face

 

Thats my view as well. It wouldnt affect the outcome and would show good faith and honor in the rules official who gave him the out. Different from the Lexi situation as the rules officials let him know right away.

in 2006 Darren Clarke showed guts and honor to penalize himself after a rain delay when fans improved his lie in the rough. i saw this on tv and was blown away by his honesty and integrity. i cant find the video but thats what golf is about.It cost him the irish open title and he didnt compromise his integrity.

 

http://news.bbc.co.u...olf/5012034.stm

 

http://www.belfastte...e-28764597.html

 

Did Clarke really penalize himself? I don't think so.

 

While he did play sideways to the fairway, he did so from a MUCH better lie. Perhaps from the original lie (which was much worse) he may not have put it back in the fairway and compounded the issue?

 

Also - isn't Clarke required to recreate the original lie? If he knew the lie had changed, don't the rules require him to recreate the original lie to the best of his ability?

 

I may be wrong about having to recreate the lie, but if I am correct, didn't Clarke actually break that rule by hitting his ball from a lie that he knew was better than what he left it as?

 

You got everything back words and yes he penalized himself. He knew it wasnt a lucky breakand showed alot of honor, sorry you dont see it my way

He did know it wasn't a lucky break, I will give you that, but my question still stands, isn't he obligated to recreate the original lie if he knows it was different?