Caddie Penalty

Anyone else see this or read about this. A 2 shots was assed for a caddie behind the player during putting. This seems a bit off if you ask me.



https://www.golfchannel.com/news/haotong-li-penalized-2-shots-after-caddie-helps-alignment-dubai-desert-classic
«1

Comments

  • BertGABertGA Members Posts: 279 ✭✭
    Yeah, I’m pretty sure someone around here was insisting that rule did not apply in the greens.
  • hangontighthangontight Members Posts: 543 ✭✭
    edited Jan 27, 2019 10:32pm #3
    I believe this happened twice at the USKG Copperhead classic a few weeks ago- while my son was at scoring table an official came up to inform one of the scoring volunteers that this penalty happened in the group behind us...he said “again, same as the last one”...not sure who called the penalty, but they def are enforcing it.
  • sui generissui generis Members Posts: 3,804 ✭✭
    darter79 wrote:


    Anyone else see this or read about this. A 2 shots was assed for a caddie behind the player during putting. This seems a bit off if you ask me.



    https://www.golfchan...-desert-classic




    The player is responsible for knowing the Rules. The player is responsible for the actions of their caddie (or partner.)



    The governing bodies decided that the ability to line up a player’s feet and body accurately is a fundamental skill of the game that should be the sole responsibility of the player.



    That's the Rule.
    Knowledge of the Rules is part of the applied skill set which a player must use to play a round of competitive golf.
  • kekoakekoa ClubWRX Posts: 8,852 ClubWRX


    I believe this happened twice at the USKG Copperhead classic a few weeks ago- while my son was at scoring table an official came up to inform one of the scoring volunteers that this penalty happened in the group behind us...he said “again, same as the last one”...not sure who called the penalty, but they def are enforcing it.




    Good on them.
  • DaddyCaddieIUDaddyCaddieIU Members Posts: 38 ✭✭
    BertGA wrote:


    Yeah, I’m pretty sure someone around here was insisting that rule did not apply in the greens.




    That was me and I was referencing advice from a LEGAL position....we won't re hash the conversation, but no one on here said you could do it on the greens.
  • darter79darter79 Members Posts: 698 ✭✭
    If you look at the video that caddie moves before the player addresses the ball this was a BS ruling
  • jj9000jj9000 ClubWRX Posts: 2,630 ClubWRX
    That was a Mickey Mouse penalty....Dude hadn't even addressed the ball.



    He hadn't even taken his practice swings.



    The new rule is going to have Caddies move 2-3 feet to the left or right of the player...and behind them...doing exactly what they did last year.



    Reading the putt or alignment 2-3 feet beside the intended line isn't much different than being directly behind the player.
  • heavy_hitterheavy_hitter Members Posts: 3,067 ✭✭
    darter79 wrote:


    If you look at the video that caddie moves before the player addresses the ball this was a BS ruling




    I agree. This was a BS ruling. I am for enforcing the rules and I think this is a great rule. I just didn't see a penalty in this case.
  • tiger1873tiger1873 Members Posts: 1,043 ✭✭

    darter79 wrote:


    If you look at the video that caddie moves before the player addresses the ball this was a BS ruling




    I agree. This was a BS ruling. I am for enforcing the rules and I think this is a great rule. I just didn't see a penalty in this case.




    Golf rules is like the legal system. It is all about the interpretation of the judge or in this case the rules official. Over time if enough penalty’s are called it becomes the law.



    It will take a while before we actually have a standard.
  • mrshinsamrshinsa Members Posts: 172 ✭✭
    The rules officials need to use common sense and understand why the rule was introduced in the first place. I think they were just itching to hand out a penalty that day, and Li was an unfortunate victim.
  • davep043davep043 Members Posts: 3,101 ✭✭
    This wasn't an interpretation, or a gray area, he broke the rule. The rule says that the caddie cannot be there when the player begins to take his stance. The caddie waited too long to move. If you actually look at the rule, there's an illustration that shows an almost identical situation, with a big red X at the bottom.

    The Euro Tour released a statement that accepts that it was an infraction. The tour would like the rule revised to provide a gray area, to give their officials some discretion in interpreting the rules. Is that what we want, rules that are clear and defined, or gray areas?
  • heavy_hitterheavy_hitter Members Posts: 3,067 ✭✭
    davep043 wrote:


    This wasn't an interpretation, or a gray area, he broke the rule. The rule says that the caddie cannot be there when the player begins to take his stance. The caddie waited too long to move. If you actually look at the rule, there's an illustration that shows an almost identical situation, with a big red X at the bottom.

    The Euro Tour released a statement that accepts that it was an infraction. The tour would like the rule revised to provide a gray area, to give their officials some discretion in interpreting the rules. Is that what we want, rules that are clear and defined, or gray areas?




    Define beginning to take his stance. It is different for every single person. My opinion is that he started walking away before he started to take his stance. I am all for the rule. This was hogwash. I believe Chamblee is 100% correct in his evaluation of this.
  • tiger1873tiger1873 Members Posts: 1,043 ✭✭

    davep043 wrote:


    This wasn't an interpretation, or a gray area, he broke the rule. The rule says that the caddie cannot be there when the player begins to take his stance. The caddie waited too long to move. If you actually look at the rule, there's an illustration that shows an almost identical situation, with a big red X at the bottom.

    The Euro Tour released a statement that accepts that it was an infraction. The tour would like the rule revised to provide a gray area, to give their officials some discretion in interpreting the rules. Is that what we want, rules that are clear and defined, or gray areas?




    Define beginning to take his stance. It is different for every single person. My opinion is that he started walking away before he started to take his stance. I am all for the rule. This was hogwash. I believe Chamblee is 100% correct in his evaluation of this.




    The definition is different for every person. I expect though at the end of the day it's going be more strictly enforced then not because of how the rule reads. For us who have to do junior caddies I think this just means let the kids play more and get the heck out of the way. If you do that no one will give you a penalty. As for PGA tours I will let them worry about that penalty not my problem.
  • davep043davep043 Members Posts: 3,101 ✭✭

    davep043 wrote:


    This wasn't an interpretation, or a gray area, he broke the rule. The rule says that the caddie cannot be there when the player begins to take his stance. The caddie waited too long to move. If you actually look at the rule, there's an illustration that shows an almost identical situation, with a big red X at the bottom.

    The Euro Tour released a statement that accepts that it was an infraction. The tour would like the rule revised to provide a gray area, to give their officials some discretion in interpreting the rules. Is that what we want, rules that are clear and defined, or gray areas?




    Define beginning to take his stance. It is different for every single person. My opinion is that he started walking away before he started to take his stance. I am all for the rule. This was hogwash. I believe Chamblee is 100% correct in his evaluation of this.


    You (and Brandel) may want to read the Interpretations, they do provide some guidance, and it appears to me that the ruling was correct. Here's one of the examples that seems to apply here:
    After standing behind the ball to determine the target line, the player takes a step forward and then starts to turn his or her body and puts a foot in place for the stroke.
  • DaddyCaddieIUDaddyCaddieIU Members Posts: 38 ✭✭
    If he would have made a practice stroke instead of actual stroke without moving his feet would you still think it’s a penalty?



    I think it’s a bad ruling but just curious.



  • wlmwlm Members Posts: 94 ✭✭
    I thought it was an aggressive ruling when I first saw it. Then I read the rules and examples, and it actually seems to be a correct ruling. The players are just going to have to be very aware of where the caddie stands. At least the player can back off when on the green as a corrective measure.
  • sui generissui generis Members Posts: 3,804 ✭✭
    wlm wrote:


    I thought it was an aggressive ruling when I first saw it. Then I read the rules and examples, and it actually seems to be a correct ruling. The players are just going to have to be very aware of where the caddie stands. At least the player can back off when on the green as a corrective measure.




    Good for you, really! Amazing what comes out when we actually read the Rule instead of going off half-c0cked. image/smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />
    Knowledge of the Rules is part of the applied skill set which a player must use to play a round of competitive golf.
  • davep043davep043 Members Posts: 3,101 ✭✭


    If he would have made a practice stroke instead of actual stroke without moving his feet would you still think it's a penalty?



    I think it's a bad ruling but just curious.


    If he turned into a giraffe I wouldn't think its a penalty either. Neither one happened.
  • heavy_hitterheavy_hitter Members Posts: 3,067 ✭✭
    davep043 wrote:


    If he would have made a practice stroke instead of actual stroke without moving his feet would you still think it's a penalty?



    I think it's a bad ruling but just curious.


    If he turned into a giraffe I wouldn't think its a penalty either. Neither one happened.




    The rule states “deliberate”. There was nothing deliberate about what he did. Poor ruling. USGA R&A made another poorly written rule. Go Figure.
  • davep043davep043 Members Posts: 3,101 ✭✭

    davep043 wrote:


    If he would have made a practice stroke instead of actual stroke without moving his feet would you still think it's a penalty?



    I think it's a bad ruling but just curious.


    If he turned into a giraffe I wouldn't think its a penalty either. Neither one happened.




    The rule states “deliberate”. There was nothing deliberate about what he did. Poor ruling. USGA R&A made another poorly written rule. Go Figure.


    The caddie took his position deliberately to help read the putt. He wasn't meandering past on his way to get a drink of water, he wasn't chatting with a cute woman in the crowd, he was standing on for a specific purpose. He had not moved away before the player STARTED to take his stance. The fits the definition of an infraction.

    And please note, neither the USGA nor the R&A had anything to do with the ruling, it was an official with the European Tour. The CEO of the Tour specifically said in a press release that it WAS an infraction. He doesn't like the way the rule is written, he wants it to be less precise so that his rules officials can use more judgement. Personally, I like rules that are written in a way that removes the potential for gray areas, the potential for judgement, the potential that one player may be penalized and another player not penalized because the officials in their groups have different judgements. Precision in rules helps all players to be treated the same under the rules.
  • heavy_hitterheavy_hitter Members Posts: 3,067 ✭✭
    davep043 wrote:

    davep043 wrote:


    If he would have made a practice stroke instead of actual stroke without moving his feet would you still think it's a penalty?



    I think it's a bad ruling but just curious.


    If he turned into a giraffe I wouldn't think its a penalty either. Neither one happened.




    The rule states “deliberate”. There was nothing deliberate about what he did. Poor ruling. USGA R&A made another poorly written rule. Go Figure.


    The caddie took his position deliberately to help read the putt. He wasn't meandering past on his way to get a drink of water, he wasn't chatting with a cute woman in the crowd, he was standing on for a specific purpose. He had not moved away before the player STARTED to take his stance. The fits the definition of an infraction.

    And please note, neither the USGA nor the R&A had anything to do with the ruling, it was an official with the European Tour. The CEO of the Tour specifically said in a press release that it WAS an infraction. He doesn't like the way the rule is written, he wants it to be less precise so that his rules officials can use more judgement. Personally, I like rules that are written in a way that removes the potential for gray areas, the potential for judgement, the potential that one player may be penalized and another player not penalized because the officials in their groups have different judgements. Precision in rules helps all players to be treated the same under the rules.




    Still disagree. Hank Haney disagrees. Robert Damron disagrees. Chamblee disagrees. 100’s of pros on Twitter disagree.
  • davep043davep043 Members Posts: 3,101 ✭✭

    davep043 wrote:

    davep043 wrote:


    If he would have made a practice stroke instead of actual stroke without moving his feet would you still think it's a penalty?



    I think it's a bad ruling but just curious.


    If he turned into a giraffe I wouldn't think its a penalty either. Neither one happened.




    The rule states “deliberate”. There was nothing deliberate about what he did. Poor ruling. USGA R&A made another poorly written rule. Go Figure.


    The caddie took his position deliberately to help read the putt. He wasn't meandering past on his way to get a drink of water, he wasn't chatting with a cute woman in the crowd, he was standing on for a specific purpose. He had not moved away before the player STARTED to take his stance. The fits the definition of an infraction.

    And please note, neither the USGA nor the R&A had anything to do with the ruling, it was an official with the European Tour. The CEO of the Tour specifically said in a press release that it WAS an infraction. He doesn't like the way the rule is written, he wants it to be less precise so that his rules officials can use more judgement. Personally, I like rules that are written in a way that removes the potential for gray areas, the potential for judgement, the potential that one player may be penalized and another player not penalized because the officials in their groups have different judgements. Precision in rules helps all players to be treated the same under the rules.




    Still disagree. Hank Haney disagrees. Robert Damron disagrees. Chamblee disagrees. 100’s of pros on Twitter disagree.


    So they all disagree with the head of the European Tour, and with the R&A official, who agree that the rule was applied correctly? Of those people, I tend to think the R&A official has the clearest grasp of the rules. Players are notoriously ignorant about many of the rules, ex-players aren't much better, and from my experience listening to him, Haney is of the opinion that if the USGA is involved at all, its wrong from the start, no matter how right it is.
  • sui generissui generis Members Posts: 3,804 ✭✭

    davep043 wrote:

    davep043 wrote:


    If he would have made a practice stroke instead of actual stroke without moving his feet would you still think it's a penalty?



    I think it's a bad ruling but just curious.


    If he turned into a giraffe I wouldn't think its a penalty either. Neither one happened.




    The rule states “deliberate”. There was nothing deliberate about what he did. Poor ruling. USGA R&A made another poorly written rule. Go Figure.


    The caddie took his position deliberately to help read the putt. He wasn't meandering past on his way to get a drink of water, he wasn't chatting with a cute woman in the crowd, he was standing on for a specific purpose. He had not moved away before the player STARTED to take his stance. The fits the definition of an infraction.

    And please note, neither the USGA nor the R&A had anything to do with the ruling, it was an official with the European Tour. The CEO of the Tour specifically said in a press release that it WAS an infraction. He doesn't like the way the rule is written, he wants it to be less precise so that his rules officials can use more judgement. Personally, I like rules that are written in a way that removes the potential for gray areas, the potential for judgement, the potential that one player may be penalized and another player not penalized because the officials in their groups have different judgements. Precision in rules helps all players to be treated the same under the rules.




    Still disagree. Hank Haney disagrees. Robert Damron disagrees. Chamblee disagrees. 100’s of pros on Twitter disagree.




    Look to the Rules for information on the Rules. TV entertainers are generally only good, as we see all the time, at entertaining not getting things right. image/smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />
    Knowledge of the Rules is part of the applied skill set which a player must use to play a round of competitive golf.
  • jj9000jj9000 ClubWRX Posts: 2,630 ClubWRX
    davep043 wrote:


    Haney is of the opinion that if the USGA is involved at all, its wrong from the start, no matter how right it is.




    To be fair...what has the USGA been right about over the last decade?



    They're really good at fixing problems that don't exist...and muddying the waters in doing so.



    They're also really good at burning greens for US Opens in their quest too prove a point.
  • heavy_hitterheavy_hitter Members Posts: 3,067 ✭✭
    edited Jan 29, 2019 12:43pm #26
    jj9000 wrote:
    davep043 wrote:


    Haney is of the opinion that if the USGA is involved at all, its wrong from the start, no matter how right it is.




    To be fair...what has the USGA been right about over the last decade?



    They're really good at fixing problems that don't exist...and muddying the waters in doing so.



    They're also really good at burning greens for US Opens in their quest too prove a point.




    Amen.



    Amateurs writing rules for the pros.



    Golfers that want to compete, but not good enough to compete in golf go to work for the USGA.



    The entire Lucy Li story is ridiculous.
    Post edited by Unknown User on
  • sui generissui generis Members Posts: 3,804 ✭✭


    https://mobile.twitt...478669892218880



    Davep043–this should be penalty too?




    Dave will tell you the same thing. What does the Rule say?
    Knowledge of the Rules is part of the applied skill set which a player must use to play a round of competitive golf.
  • BertGABertGA Members Posts: 279 ✭✭




    Can’t tell from the video, but it seems to me Rickie wasn’t lining up for the shot, just setting up for a practice swing. He takes a swing and backs off, so unless he just fanned the shot, I wouldn’t call that addressing the ball.
  • DaddyCaddieIUDaddyCaddieIU Members Posts: 38 ✭✭
    Denny McCarthy....look it up....sickening! I look forward to this getting changed along with the Tour Championship format!



    Stance to practice swing is apparently stance to shot.
  • leezer99leezer99 I swear I am quitting this site every day... Members Posts: 1,033 ✭✭
    Denny McCarthy....look it up....sickening! I look forward to this getting changed along with the Tour Championship format!



    Stance to practice swing is apparently stance to shot.


    I call it, "on the job training".

    There's definitely something more important that I should be doing.

Sign In or Register to comment.