Proposed solution to "backstopping"

2»

Comments

  • Stuart_GStuart_G New HampshireMembers Posts: 23,392 ✭✭
    edited Jun 13, 2018 #32


    I'm truly amazed that people are actually failing to see that there is an integrity issue involved here.




    But it's only a "problem" when the ball could be marked without any affect on the pace of play. So the message is that pace of play is more important than integrity?



    Curious, isn't it?
  • davep043davep043 Members Posts: 3,262 ✭✭
    edited Jun 13, 2018 #33
    Stuart G. wrote:



    I'm truly amazed that people are actually failing to see that there is an integrity issue involved here.




    But it's only a "problem" when the ball could be marked without any affect on the pace of play. So the message is that pace of play is more important than integrity?



    Curious, isn't it?


    The wording is "without undue delay", not without any impact at all. In most of the cases I've taken issue with, the player whose ball is near the hole is standing 15 feet away for 15 or 20 seconds while the other guy goes through his pre-shot preparations. He could mark the ball with very little impact, and in many cases no impact at all. He doesn't have to hurry, he doesn't have to tell anyone to wait, he can just go mark, but specifically chooses not to. And when asked about it, they use the pace of play excuse to disguise their lack of integrity.
  • North TexasNorth Texas Members Posts: 4,268 ✭✭
    davep043 wrote:

    Stuart G. wrote:



    I'm truly amazed that people are actually failing to see that there is an integrity issue involved here.




    But it's only a "problem" when the ball could be marked without any affect on the pace of play. So the message is that pace of play is more important than integrity?



    Curious, isn't it?


    The wording is "without undue delay", not without any impact at all. In most of the cases I've taken issue with, the player whose ball is near the hole is standing 15 feet away for 15 or 20 seconds while the other guy goes through his pre-shot preparations. He could mark the ball with very little impact, and in many cases no impact at all. He doesn't have to hurry, he doesn't have to tell anyone to wait, he can just go mark, but specifically chooses not to. And when asked about it, they use the pace of play excuse to disguise their lack of integrity.




    The last sentence absolutely nailed it!
  • Stuart_GStuart_G New HampshireMembers Posts: 23,392 ✭✭
    edited Jun 13, 2018 #35
    davep043 wrote:


    The wording is "without undue delay", not without any impact at all. In most of the cases I've taken issue with, the player whose ball is near the hole is standing 15 feet away for 15 or 20 seconds while the other guy goes through his pre-shot preparations. He could mark the ball with very little impact, and in many cases no impact at all. He doesn't have to hurry, he doesn't have to tell anyone to wait, he can just go mark, but specifically chooses not to. And when asked about it, they use the pace of play excuse to disguise their lack of integrity.




    Changing the wording doesn't change the point. The fact that such an excuse exists at all just reinforces the point, it doesn't address it. Regardless of whether the excuse is mis-used or not, there are still plenty of cases where a ball is in a position to assist another player and it can unduly delay play to mark it yet no one is complaining about the integrity of the players or the need to protect the field in those cases.



    So it really is an "issue" that's less important than and clearly subservient to place of play.
  • North TexasNorth Texas Members Posts: 4,268 ✭✭
    Stuart G. wrote:

    davep043 wrote:


    The wording is "without undue delay", not without any impact at all. In most of the cases I've taken issue with, the player whose ball is near the hole is standing 15 feet away for 15 or 20 seconds while the other guy goes through his pre-shot preparations. He could mark the ball with very little impact, and in many cases no impact at all. He doesn't have to hurry, he doesn't have to tell anyone to wait, he can just go mark, but specifically chooses not to. And when asked about it, they use the pace of play excuse to disguise their lack of integrity.




    Changing the wording doesn't change the point. The fact that such an excuse exists at all just reinforces the point, it doesn't address it. Regardless of whether the excuse is mis-used or not, there are still plenty of cases where a ball is in a position to assist another player and it can unduly delay play to mark it yet no one is complaining about the integrity of the players or the need to protect the field in those cases.



    So it really is an "issue" that's less important than and clearly subservient to place of play.




    Except we're talking about it taking 10 or 15 seconds at the most which does not "unduly delay play". Hardly a pace of play issue.
  • WidespreadPanicWidespreadPanic Wizard in the Corner Members Posts: 4,865 ✭✭
    GMR wrote:


    Very very simple. Change the rule such that BOTH balls are played as they lie, even after a collision. You are right by the pin and opponent knocks you off the green? Tough luck, should have marked. Guarantee guys start marking anytime there's even a remote chance the opponent's shot might impair their own position.



    Thoughts?


    Not good. Not good at all.
    Taylormade M2 ('17) 10.5*
    Cobra F7 15.5*
    Taylormade M1 ('17) 19*
    Mizuno MP18 Fli Hi 4i
    Mizuno MP18 SC 5-PW
    Cleveland RTX 588 2.0 52**, 56**, 60**
    Taylormade TP Red Ardmore 3
    Taylormade TPx
  • davep043davep043 Members Posts: 3,262 ✭✭
    Stuart G. wrote:

    davep043 wrote:


    The wording is "without undue delay", not without any impact at all. In most of the cases I've taken issue with, the player whose ball is near the hole is standing 15 feet away for 15 or 20 seconds while the other guy goes through his pre-shot preparations. He could mark the ball with very little impact, and in many cases no impact at all. He doesn't have to hurry, he doesn't have to tell anyone to wait, he can just go mark, but specifically chooses not to. And when asked about it, they use the pace of play excuse to disguise their lack of integrity.




    Changing the wording doesn't change the point. The fact that such an excuse exists at all just reinforces the point, it doesn't address it. Regardless of whether the excuse is mis-used, there are still plenty of cases where a ball is in a position to assist another player and it can unduly delay play to mark it yet no one is complaining about the integrity of the players or the need to protect the field in those cases.



    So it really is an "issue" that's clearly subservient to place of play.


    I didn't change the wording, I clarified that the wording leaves some room for interpretation. We'll have to agree that we disagree here. To me, the wording indicates that if you're 100 yards away, you shouldn't feel obligated to make your FC wait while you mark your ball. If you can get to your ball in a reasonable amount of time, you SHOULD mark it, to protect the rest of the field. Because situations can vary so greatly, its not possible to write an absolute rule that's workable.



    I'll go back to the match play context. If my ball is a foot behind the hole, and you're chipping, I'll make you wait for 5 or 10 seconds while I go up and mark. That does not "unduly" delay play. I'd be stupid to give you that potential assistance. If we're 100 yards out, even 30 yards, I may not care. If I'd do that in a Ryder Cup match, I should do the same thing in the Valero Open.
  • Stuart_GStuart_G New HampshireMembers Posts: 23,392 ✭✭
    edited Jun 13, 2018 #39
    davep043 wrote:


    We'll have to agree that we disagree here.




    Sorry, I don't think it's an issue of agreement or not - at least not about what you are trying to explain. You still seem to be missing my point - maybe my explanation isn't clear. But it's not about the distinction you're trying to explain. The point is concerning the existence of such a distinction, not my understanding of that distinction.



    Let me rephrase it using your example.


    davep043 wrote:


    To me, the wording indicates that if you're 100 yards away, you shouldn't feel obligated to make your FC wait while you mark your ball. If you can get to your ball in a reasonable amount of time, you SHOULD mark it, to protect the rest of the field.




    If protecting the field is so important (to warrant the level of outrage many are expressing), why shouldn't you feel obligated to make your FC wait while you go mark your ball?
  • davep043davep043 Members Posts: 3,262 ✭✭
    Stuart G. wrote:

    davep043 wrote:


    We'll have to agree that we disagree here.




    Sorry, I don't think it's an issue of agreement or not - at least not about what you are trying to explain. You still seem to be missing my point - maybe my explanation isn't clear. But it's not about the distinction you're trying to explain. The point is concerning the existence of such a distinction, not my understanding of that distinction.



    Let me rephrase it using your example.


    davep043 wrote:


    To me, the wording indicates that if you're 100 yards away, you shouldn't feel obligated to make your FC wait while you mark your ball. If you can get to your ball in a reasonable amount of time, you SHOULD mark it, to protect the rest of the field.




    If protecting the field is so important (to warrant the level of outrage many are expressing), why shouldn't you feel obligated to make your FC wait while you go mark your ball?


    Because the chances of even the best player in the world hitting the other ball are so extremely slim that it doesn't merit the delay required. Pace of play has some influence, along with reasonable judgement. As you get closer, the delay becomes smaller as the likelihood of actual assistance increases, so at some point protecting the field SHOULD override the small delay.


    Stuart G. wrote:


    So it really is an "issue" that's less important than and clearly subservient to place of play.




    Protecting the field is NOT "clearly subservient to place of play", both factor into the judgement. If the rulemakers had intended pace of play to be the overriding factor, they certainly could easily have worded the rule to make that explicitly clear. They chose to write it in such a way that a limited delay is clearly an acceptable cost for protecting the field.
  • Stuart_GStuart_G New HampshireMembers Posts: 23,392 ✭✭
    edited Jun 13, 2018 #41
    davep043 wrote:


    Because the chances of even the best player in the world hitting the other ball are so extremely slim that it doesn't merit the delay required. Pace of play has some influence, along with reasonable judgement. As you get closer, the delay becomes smaller as the likelihood of actual assistance increases, so at some point protecting the field SHOULD override the small delay.




    There is some place we should probably agree to disagree. Even up close, the chances of any actual assistance are extremely small statistically, much less than 1%. Much more likely even smaller then 0.1%. And that's for the Pros. It would be almost infinitesimal if you included all play under the rules.


    davep043 wrote:


    Protecting the field is NOT "clearly subservient to place of play", both factor into the judgement.




    By your own arguments, If there is a potential to assist play, the player shouldn't feel any obligation to have the ball marked if it would unduly delay play. That, by definition, is subservience.


    davep043 wrote:


    If the rulemakers had intended pace of play to be the overriding factor, they certainly could easily have worded the rule to make that explicitly clear. They chose to write it in such a way that a limited delay is clearly an acceptable cost for protecting the field.




    And I didn't say or even imply it was subservient in the eyes of the ruling bodies, I implied it was subservient in the eyes of the people complaining about the players actions.



    They could have also changed the wording of rule 22-1 to actually make some reference to the need or desire to protect the field - but they choose not to.
  • davep043davep043 Members Posts: 3,262 ✭✭
    Stuart G. wrote:




    They could have also changed the wording of rule 22-1 to actually make some reference to the need or desire to protect the field - but they choose not to.


    At least for the next 6 months or so, you need to review the Decisions too:


    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.
  • Stuart_GStuart_G New HampshireMembers Posts: 23,392 ✭✭
    edited Jun 13, 2018 #43
    yes that decision is very helpful for a ref on how to test if there might be an agreement in place between players not to lift a ball. I agree that the field certainly does need to be protected from that kind of thing. And the wording in rule 22-1 already makes it clear that that is not acceptable.
  • bscinstnctbscinstnct Members Posts: 26,694 ✭✭
    Good for a little shadiness in golf so it not so goody goody



    If you don't want the guy to mark you be like



    giphy.gif
  • BlackDiamondPar5BlackDiamondPar5 Members Posts: 5,306 ✭✭
    bscinstnct wrote:


    Good for a little shadiness in golf so it not so goody goody



    If you don't want the guy to mark you be like



    giphy.gif


    Classic
  • Ben MartinezBen Martinez Bird is the word Members Posts: 113 ✭✭
    GMR wrote:


    Very very simple. Change the rule such that BOTH balls are played as they lie, even after a collision. You are right by the pin and opponent knocks you off the green? Tough luck, should have marked. Guarantee guys start marking anytime there's even a remote chance the opponent's shot might impair their own position.



    Thoughts?
    not a bad idea....would stop people from leaving their ball on the green because the ball that is there will likely move further away.
  • Redjeep83Redjeep83 Members Posts: 5,190 ✭✭

    GMR wrote:


    Very very simple. Change the rule such that BOTH balls are played as they lie, even after a collision. You are right by the pin and opponent knocks you off the green? Tough luck, should have marked. Guarantee guys start marking anytime there's even a remote chance the opponent's shot might impair their own position.



    Thoughts?
    not a bad idea....would stop people from leaving their ball on the green because the ball that is there will likely move further away.




    haha, uh no. You will have guys having players wait to hit their approaches from 175 out while you mark your ball
  • BlackDiamondPar5BlackDiamondPar5 Members Posts: 5,306 ✭✭
    Redjeep83 wrote:


    GMR wrote:


    Very very simple. Change the rule such that BOTH balls are played as they lie, even after a collision. You are right by the pin and opponent knocks you off the green? Tough luck, should have marked. Guarantee guys start marking anytime there's even a remote chance the opponent's shot might impair their own position.



    Thoughts?
    not a bad idea....would stop people from leaving their ball on the green because the ball that is there will likely move further away.




    haha, uh no. You will have guys having players wait to hit their approaches from 175 out while you mark your ball


    Exactly... No need to slow the game down. Just solutions looking for a problem.
  • sui generissui generis Members Posts: 3,899 ✭✭

    GMR wrote:


    Very very simple. Change the rule such that BOTH balls are played as they lie, even after a collision. You are right by the pin and opponent knocks you off the green? Tough luck, should have marked. Guarantee guys start marking anytime there's even a remote chance the opponent's shot might impair their own position.



    Thoughts?
    not a bad idea....would stop people from leaving their ball on the green because the ball that is there will likely move further away.




    Worse than a bad idea, it's a dreadful idea. The player is entitled to the lie which his stroke gave him. D13-2/8.5 is a clear example of this principle.
    Knowledge of the Rules is part of the applied skill set which a player must use to play a round of competitive golf.
  • BNGLBNGL Members Posts: 1,690 ✭✭
    Let’s just do away with any groups of more than 1, singles only. Problem solved
  • OutlierOutlier OUTLIER Members Posts: 1,195 ✭✭
    edited Jun 13, 2018 #51
    davep043 wrote:



    I liked DJ's response at the press conference at Shinnecock when they asked him about backstopping. He was like "HUH"?? Not even sure he knew what the term meant.


    DJ isn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, although 140 characters just might be the kind of reading he'd consider. I'd be surprised if he's ever read the actual rule, or has thought about the reasoning behind it, and I don't think he's alone in that. Based on what I've read from other players, most don't understand the rule either.




    I seriously don't get the whole "DJ is dumb" shtick....now Jimmy Walker- he proved he was both loud and dumb. DJ is just laid back in my opinion. Outside of the waste area/bunker thing I think he seems as tuned in as the majority of PGA rank and file. He answers post round and pre-tournament interview/press conference questions with as much acumen as any of the rest of them save "Professor" Phil.
  • ValtielValtiel Konica-Minolta Bizhub Members Posts: 2,172 ✭✭
    This controversy was dumb the first time it came up, it is dumb now, and it will be dumb the next time it comes up unless golf balls have somehow tripled in size.
    Taylormade M1 430 8.5* Tensei Pro Orange V2 70TX || Titleist 915D3 8.5* Diamana Kai'li 80x
    Callaway XHot 3Deep Pro 14.5* Fujikura Motore VC 8.3 Tour Spec X || Nike SQ2 13* Diamana Blueboard 83x
    Nike Tour Issue SQ2 17* Diamana Blueboard 103x || SQ2 15* Diamana Blueboard 93x
    PING Anser 20* Aldila Rogue Black 110MSI 105h Tour-X || Taylormade V-Steel 21* Project X Rifle Satin 6.5
    Mizuno MP-H4 3i 21* Project X PXi 7.0
    Mizuno MP-H4 4i 24* Project X PXi 7.0
    Mizuno MP-59 4i-PW 24*- 48* Brunswick Precision Rifle FCM 7.0
    Vokey Mild Raw 8620 54* Brunswick Precision Rifle FCM 7.0
    Vokey  SM6 58* Oil Can Low Bounce K-Grind Brunswick Precision FCM 7.3 SSx1
    Vokey Special 62* Black Oxide V-Grind Brunswick Precision FCM 7.3 SSx2
    Scotty Cameron Santa Fe Bullseye shaft

    WITB Thread
  • WidespreadPanicWidespreadPanic Wizard in the Corner Members Posts: 4,865 ✭✭
    edited Jun 13, 2018 #53
    Outlier wrote:

    davep043 wrote:



    I liked DJ's response at the press conference at Shinnecock when they asked him about backstopping. He was like "HUH"?? Not even sure he knew what the term meant.


    DJ isn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, although 140 characters just might be the kind of reading he'd consider. I'd be surprised if he's ever read the actual rule, or has thought about the reasoning behind it, and I don't think he's alone in that. Based on what I've read from other players, most don't understand the rule either.




    I seriously don't get the whole "DJ is dumb" shtick....now Jimmy Walker- he proved he was both loud and dumb. DJ is just laid back in my opinion. Outside of the waste area/bunker thing I think he seems as tuned in as the majority of PGA rank and file. He answers post round and pre-tournament interview/press conference questions with as much acumen as any of the rest of them save "Professor" Phil.


    I dont either. What if Spieth had the same response? When Spieth was asked about the new 2 hole playoff format he had no idea that it had changed. Does that make Spieth not the sharpest knife? People should take a look at the notes he takes during practice rounds, especially for majors.
    Taylormade M2 ('17) 10.5*
    Cobra F7 15.5*
    Taylormade M1 ('17) 19*
    Mizuno MP18 Fli Hi 4i
    Mizuno MP18 SC 5-PW
    Cleveland RTX 588 2.0 52**, 56**, 60**
    Taylormade TP Red Ardmore 3
    Taylormade TPx
  • whartonrywhartonry whartonry Members Posts: 30 ✭✭
    These guys are really good, but not good enough to even make this an issue worthy to be talked about as much as it has.....
Sign In or Register to comment.