If super slo-mo and zoom lenses weren't allowed...

[DaveLeeNC]

Just look at this video, and understand there is particulate matter fundamental to sand/silica that is half as small as what you can see here. Integral to the composition of sand.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=6dG9hb3_blo

 

Sand moving is not a rules violation. Sand touching is.

 

dave

[SHIVAN]

If you don't address the ball with your club anywhere near the sand, it doesn't matter how small it is, you wont have any chance of touching it. It's not a penalty to cause some sand to move, it's only a penalty if actual physical contact is made.

 

This is farther down this rabbit hole than I'd like to travel, but it was my understanding:

 

"You may not touch any sand in the bunker on your backswing before making your stroke (Decision 13-4/31)."

 

What I am saying is that the takeaway from a typically played shot will pull sand with your club and your club will therefore come in contact with sand from the bunker. If you hover 8" from the ball, and come in steep -- sure, no problem. If you play a fairway bunker shot like almost every good player does, you will be moving sand/silica, and it will be coming in contact with your club on the takeaway.

[2bGood]

My ball is lying in deep rough. While everyone is watching you play your shot, I nudge the ball with my toe into a clear spot 6" away, so now I have a clear swing at the ball. No one sees it because they were watching you play, but the camera picks it up. No penalty?

 

Under what I suggested it would be a penalty.

 

 

I think that depends...do we want to be fair to the players? Or fair to the game?

 

I think the answer for most will be to honor the game. But it means players won't be treated equally in the same contest.

 

This is a great way to re-frame the discussion. But I would suggest the game does not exist independent of the player so both are hurt when you are unfair to either.

 

What you absolutely should not do is enforce violations in one manner with one player, and in another manner with another player. The mere description of that occurring is NOT protecting the player or the field. It is setting up one enforcement policy for some players and one enforcement policy for others.

 

Either ALL shots are viewed, and reviewed, under high def hyper zoom, or none should be.

 

If the USGA wants to actually get it right, they merely need two officials with each group who are specifically tasked with watching each shot of each player in the group. If the two officials can not perceive a grain of sand moving, and the player did not call it on themselves because they could not feel the sand being moved, it's goo with me -- even if FOX zooms in 400x with a 4k capable camera and broadcasts it over all the air waves.

 

Yes, it is good with me if the player, the FC's, the caddies, and the two rules officials "miss" something like that because it is imperceptible to the human senses. I will go further and tell you that the takeaway on almost every shot in the sand is displacing sand from the movement of air around the ball. If you had a powerful enough camera, you could see it. Every shot from the sand. Bet on it.

 

I'll take that bet.

 

I don't like absolutes, but if we said 90%+ (maybe even higher) I would take that bet. Once you get down to microscopic level, there is stuff flying around all over the place.

[SHIVAN]

Just look at this video, and understand there is particulate matter fundamental to sand/silica that is half as small as what you can see here. Integral to the composition of sand.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=6dG9hb3_blo

 

Sand moving is not a rules violation. Sand touching is.

 

dave

 

Got it, and I clarified above. I am pretty clear on that, and what I am saying is the we are not far from having resolution available to detect sand being pulled from the backswing impacting the club. 4k is not quite enough, but it's getting close.

 

When it happens, and it will, should the player be penalized?

[SHIVAN]

Once you get down to microscopic level, there is stuff flying around all over the place.

 

Even just above microscopic, but yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Camera tech is not far from making it possible to determine that a silica grain was sucked back and contacted the club face before the club traveled on it's forward stroke. Technically, a penalty.

[sui generis]

If you don't address the ball with your club anywhere near the sand, it doesn't matter how small it is, you wont have any chance of touching it. It's not a penalty to cause some sand to move, it's only a penalty if actual physical contact is made.

 

But, but . . . diverting the discussion to the absurd shows how clever I am. :swoon:

[HitEmTrue]

Once you get down to microscopic level, there is stuff flying around all over the place.

 

Even just above microscopic, but yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Camera tech is not far from making it possible to determine that a silica grain was sucked back and contacted the club face before the club traveled on it's forward stroke. Technically, a penalty.

 

Technically, not a penalty. Not even close. Look at rule 13-4.

 

[DaveLeeNC]

If you don't address the ball with your club anywhere near the sand, it doesn't matter how small it is, you wont have any chance of touching it. It's not a penalty to cause some sand to move, it's only a penalty if actual physical contact is made.

 

This is farther down this rabbit hole than I'd like to travel, but it was my understanding:

 

"You may not touch any sand in the bunker on your backswing before making your stroke (Decision 13-4/31)."

 

What I am saying is that the takeaway from a typically played shot will pull sand with your club and your club will therefore come in contact with sand from the bunker. If you hover 8" from the ball, and come in steep -- sure, no problem. If you play a fairway bunker shot like almost every good player does, you will be moving sand/silica, and it will be coming in contact with your club on the takeaway.

 

If this issue were ever to come up, I would be quite surprised to see a decision (formal or on the course) saying that this is a violation of 13-4. It doesn't seem to match the intent of 13-4 which is about testing and touching the surface.

 

I suppose you could go down a 13-2 path on this maybe (improving your lie). But I doubt it.

 

dave

[lchang]

If you don't address the ball with your club anywhere near the sand, it doesn't matter how small it is, you wont have any chance of touching it. It's not a penalty to cause some sand to move, it's only a penalty if actual physical contact is made.

 

But, but . . . diverting the discussion to the absurd shows how clever I am. :swoon:

 

I guess lots of us (reasonable people... At least in our own opinions!) think it's gotten to that absurdity point already. Or pretty darn close.

[SHIVAN]

Technically, not a penalty. Not even close. Look at rule 13-4.

 

13-4C....what am I missing that you might see as otherwise Ok? Anna touched the sand in high def zoom 4k res. How would touching sand that is now moving with your club, but imperceptible to the naked eye, different?

 

 

 

13-4. Ball in Hazard; Prohibited Actions

Except as provided in the Rules, before making a stroke at a ball that is in a hazard (whether a bunker or a water hazard) or that, having been lifted from a hazard, may be dropped or placed in the hazard, the player must not:

 

a.Test the condition of the hazard or any similar hazard;

b.Touch the ground in the hazard or water in the water hazard with his hand or a club; or

c.Touch or move a loose impediment lying in or touching the hazard.

 

Exceptions:

1. Provided nothing is done that constitutes testing the condition of the hazard or improves the lie of the ball, there is no penalty if the player (a) touches the ground or loose impediments in any hazard or water in a water hazard as a result of or to prevent falling, in removing an obstruction, in measuring or in marking the position of, retrieving, lifting, placing or replacing a ball under any Rule or (b) places his clubs in a hazard.

 

2. At any time, the player may smooth sand or soil in a hazard provided this is for the sole purpose of caring for the course and nothing is done to breach Rule 13-2 with respect to his next stroke. If a ball played from a hazard is outside the hazard after the stroke, the player may smooth sand or soil in the hazard without restriction.

 

3. If the player makes a stroke from a hazard and the ball comes to rest in another hazard, Rule 13-4a does not apply to any subsequent actions taken in the hazard from which the stroke was made.

 

Note: At any time, including at address or in the backward movement for the stroke, the player may touch, with a club or otherwise, any obstruction, any construction declared by the Committee to be an integral part of the course or any grass, bush, tree or other growing thing.

[HitEmTrue]

Touching the ground is a breach. Touching particles floating around in the air is not.

[2bGood]

If you don't address the ball with your club anywhere near the sand, it doesn't matter how small it is, you wont have any chance of touching it. It's not a penalty to cause some sand to move, it's only a penalty if actual physical contact is made.

 

But, but . . . diverting the discussion to the absurd shows how clever I am. :swoon:

 

Absurd today, but not XX years from now. What we saw on Sunday in terms of slow motion and magnification would have been considered absurd not too many years ago. The tech will keep progressing. Golf has brought rules into control the use of technology in equipment to preserve the game, why not do the same for calling penalties given hey have already started down this path with ball movement.

[2bGood]

I think one area, more magnified filming will effect is rule 13-2. I am sure the are thousand of violations unseen by the naked eye.

[SHIVAN]

Touching the ground is a breach. Touching particles floating around in the air is not.

 

You are lacking understanding of the concept I am laying out for you. On a backswing, as typically played at that level, from the sand, the player will be moving items that were previously at rest in the bunker. Silica and sand particulates. You can't see them today, because the resolution is not quite there. It's almost there, but not quite. The air displacement from the backswing is bringing items in to motion that were previously lying still in the bunker, loose impediments (if you will) and are integral to the bunker itself. I am not talking about random particulate, I am specifically talking about moving sand, then coming in contact with the sand while in the backswing. A penalty.

[HitEmTrue]

Touching the ground is a breach. Touching particles floating around in the air is not.

 

You are lacking understanding of the concept I am laying out for you. On a backswing, as typically played at that level, from the sand, the player will be moving items that were previously at rest in the bunker. Silica and sand particulates. You can't see them today, because the resolution is not quite there. It's almost there, but not quite. The air displacement from the backswing is bringing items in to motion that were previously lying still in the bunker, loose impediments (if you will) and are integral to the bunker itself. I am not talking about random particulate, I am specifically talking about moving sand, then coming in contact with the sand while in the backswing. A penalty.

 

I completely understand what you are saying.

 

Why would that be a penalty? It isn't on the ground any longer.

[Itsjustagame]

Officiating in most sports isn't "fair". If every foul in an NBA/NFL game was called the games would be endless.

In many sports (diving, gymnastics) the officiating is highly subjective.

Instant replay and zoom lenses are here to stay in every sport, and TV is a large part of why sports figures make big money.

The fact that penalties are not assessed equally is simply an inevitable part of sports.

It happened this way before TV even existed.

Officiating wasn't ever "fair" in sports.

I see no need to change anything.

[SHIVAN]

Touching the ground is a breach. Touching particles floating around in the air is not.

 

You are lacking understanding of the concept I am laying out for you. On a backswing, as typically played at that level, from the sand, the player will be moving items that were previously at rest in the bunker. Silica and sand particulates. You can't see them today, because the resolution is not quite there. It's almost there, but not quite. The air displacement from the backswing is bringing items in to motion that were previously lying still in the bunker, loose impediments (if you will) and are integral to the bunker itself. I am not talking about random particulate, I am specifically talking about moving sand, then coming in contact with the sand while in the backswing. A penalty.

 

I completely understand what you are saying.

 

Why would that be a penalty? It isn't on the ground any longer.

 

Maybe I am missing the meaning of 13-4C? Honestly asking. I am sure there are probably decisions and discussions to which I might be directed. The particulate would be a loose impediment, and it has been moved/displaced and then touched.

[2bGood]

Touching the ground is a breach. Touching particles floating around in the air is not.

 

You are lacking understanding of the concept I am laying out for you. On a backswing, as typically played at that level, from the sand, the player will be moving items that were previously at rest in the bunker. Silica and sand particulates. You can't see them today, because the resolution is not quite there. It's almost there, but not quite. The air displacement from the backswing is bringing items in to motion that were previously lying still in the bunker, loose impediments (if you will) and are integral to the bunker itself. I am not talking about random particulate, I am specifically talking about moving sand, then coming in contact with the sand while in the backswing. A penalty.

 

I completely understand what you are saying.

 

Why would that be a penalty? It isn't on the ground any longer.

 

I think this discussion is a dead end to prove the point, there are many more straight forward examples of how high magnification of all shots would cause more penalties to be incurred - without anyone being able to perceive it happened with the naked eye. Play around with 13-2 for a while.

[QEight]

Touching the ground is a breach. Touching particles floating around in the air is not.

 

You are lacking understanding of the concept I am laying out for you. On a backswing, as typically played at that level, from the sand, the player will be moving items that were previously at rest in the bunker. Silica and sand particulates. You can't see them today, because the resolution is not quite there. It's almost there, but not quite. The air displacement from the backswing is bringing items in to motion that were previously lying still in the bunker, loose impediments (if you will) and are integral to the bunker itself. I am not talking about random particulate, I am specifically talking about moving sand, then coming in contact with the sand while in the backswing. A penalty.

 

I completely understand what you are saying.

 

Why would that be a penalty? It isn't on the ground any longer.

 

Maybe I am missing the meaning of 13-4C? Honestly asking. I am sure there are probably decisions and discussions to which I might be directed. The particulate would be a loose impediment, and it has been moved/displaced and then touched.

 

I bet there are no decisions regarding atomic size particles being vacuumed into air and then touching them with your club, none.

 

More relevant would be leaves flying around and touching the club while in hazard.

[Shilgy]

Touching the ground is a breach. Touching particles floating around in the air is not.

 

You are lacking understanding of the concept I am laying out for you. On a backswing, as typically played at that level, from the sand, the player will be moving items that were previously at rest in the bunker. Silica and sand particulates. You can't see them today, because the resolution is not quite there. It's almost there, but not quite. The air displacement from the backswing is bringing items in to motion that were previously lying still in the bunker, loose impediments (if you will) and are integral to the bunker itself. I am not talking about random particulate, I am specifically talking about moving sand, then coming in contact with the sand while in the backswing. A penalty.

Please read 13-2

However the player incurs no penalty if the action occurs:

in making a stroke or the backward movement of his club for a stroke and the stroke is made.

 

 

So your scenario is already covered and not a penalty.

[SHIVAN]

"On the spot" will gain new meaning, when we can see specific blades of grass on the green, or imperfections that allow for determination of "on the spot".

 

 

 

20-3. Placing and Replacing

 

a. By Whom and Where

 

 

A ball to be placed under the Rules must be placed by the player or his partner.

 

A ball to be replaced under the Rules must be replaced by any one of the following: (i) the person who lifted or moved the ball, (ii) the player, or (iii) the player's partner. The ball must be placed on the spot from which it was lifted or moved. If the ball is placed or replaced by any other person and the error is not corrected as provided in Rule 20-6, the player incurs a penalty of one stroke. In any such case, the player is responsible for any other breach of the Rules that occurs as a result of the placing or replacing of the ball.

 

If a ball or ball-marker is accidentally moved in the process of placing or replacing the ball, the ball or ball-marker must be replaced. There is no penalty, provided the movement of the ball or ball-marker is directly attributable to the specific act of placing or replacing the ball or removing the ball-marker. Otherwise, the player incurs a penalty of one stroke under Rule 18-2 or 20-1.

If a ball to be replaced is placed other than on the spot from which it was lifted or moved and the error is not corrected as provided in Rule 20-6, the player incurs the general penalty, loss of hole in match play or two strokes in stroke play, for a breach of the applicable Rule

[SHIVAN]

Touching the ground is a breach. Touching particles floating around in the air is not.

 

You are lacking understanding of the concept I am laying out for you. On a backswing, as typically played at that level, from the sand, the player will be moving items that were previously at rest in the bunker. Silica and sand particulates. You can't see them today, because the resolution is not quite there. It's almost there, but not quite. The air displacement from the backswing is bringing items in to motion that were previously lying still in the bunker, loose impediments (if you will) and are integral to the bunker itself. I am not talking about random particulate, I am specifically talking about moving sand, then coming in contact with the sand while in the backswing. A penalty.

Please read 13-2

However the player incurs no penalty if the action occurs:

in making a stroke or the backward movement of his club for a stroke and the stroke is made.

 

 

So your scenario is already covered and not a penalty.

 

Actually it's not, because the scenario I am laying out is exactly what Anna did, but at a smaller particulate size. 13-2 says "Exception: Ball in hazard - see Rule 13-4." Sorry. 13-2 is overridden by specific language about a ball in a hazard.

[QEight]

@SHIVAN:

Honestly asking.

 

And I honestly believed you...

[Stuart_G]

Maybe I am missing the meaning of 13-4C? Honestly asking. I am sure there are probably decisions and discussions to which I might be directed. The particulate would be a loose impediment, and it has been moved/displaced and then touched.

 

No it would not be a loose impediment. From the defn of Loose impediments: Sand and loose soil are loose impediments on the putting green, but not elsewhere.

[Shilgy]

Touching the ground is a breach. Touching particles floating around in the air is not.

 

You are lacking understanding of the concept I am laying out for you. On a backswing, as typically played at that level, from the sand, the player will be moving items that were previously at rest in the bunker. Silica and sand particulates. You can't see them today, because the resolution is not quite there. It's almost there, but not quite. The air displacement from the backswing is bringing items in to motion that were previously lying still in the bunker, loose impediments (if you will) and are integral to the bunker itself. I am not talking about random particulate, I am specifically talking about moving sand, then coming in contact with the sand while in the backswing. A penalty.

Please read 13-2

However the player incurs no penalty if the action occurs:

in making a stroke or the backward movement of his club for a stroke and the stroke is made.

 

 

So your scenario is already covered and not a penalty.

 

Actually it's not, because the scenario I am laying out is exactly what Anna did, but at a smaller particulate size. 13-2 says "Exception: Ball in hazard - see Rule 13-4." Sorry. 13-2 is overridden by specific language about a ball in a hazard.

You are correct. The rule does say however prior to making a stroke you cannot touch the ground in the hazard or water in the water hazard with his hand or club. Additionally of course you cannot move the sand on your backswing by touching it. What you are looking for would be 13-4-31.5(which does not yet exist) to define touching sand in a bunker during the backswing as only being sand on the ground and not in the air. IMO these two statements cover your question as the sand and impediments must be on the ground and touched to be a violation.

[SHIVAN]

Maybe I am missing the meaning of 13-4C? Honestly asking. I am sure there are probably decisions and discussions to which I might be directed. The particulate would be a loose impediment, and it has been moved/displaced and then touched.

 

No it would not be a loose impediment. From the defn of Loose impediments: Sand and loose soil are loose impediments on the putting green, but not elsewhere.

 

Then I am wrong, and I apologize. I just did not/do not see how a player could cause the surface to move, then come in contact with that which was displaced, and still be Ok. I stand corrected.

[Shilgy]

Maybe I am missing the meaning of 13-4C? Honestly asking. I am sure there are probably decisions and discussions to which I might be directed. The particulate would be a loose impediment, and it has been moved/displaced and then touched.

 

No it would not be a loose impediment. From the defn of Loose impediments: Sand and loose soil are loose impediments on the putting green, but not elsewhere.

He was wrong and you are correct. So in this issue though his question is, I believe, covered in the rules as noted above but he is misunderstanding. The sand in the bunker is not a loose impediment and needs to be touched on the ground for it to be a penalty. Shivan's question is about the movement of the club on the backswing(which is prior to the stroke) fanning the particles into the air and thus moving/touching them.

[Stuart_G]

Shivan's question is about the movement of the club on the backswing(which is prior to the stroke) fanning the particles into the air and thus moving/touching them.

 

Why do you think that is still in question? It seems to me that aspect was previously addressed quite adequately (numerous times) and the only remaining basis for argument was the belief that the sand was a loose impediment (hence the reference to 13-4c).

[Sawgrass]

I feel compelled to say that "sand" is different than any smaller associated "particles." Just like rocks are different than sand.

 

I don't need a microscope to see a grain of sand. And it is fairly solid, not prone to breaking down into smaller particles or "dust."

 

I'll also venture to say that if cameras become more sophisticated so as to create absurdity in defining what is moved, the RBs will deal with it as they have already begun with the recent decision on a ball's movement. For now, things are just fine. No worries.

[rsj1360]

I feel compelled to say that "sand" is different than any smaller associated "particles." Just like rocks are different than sand.

 

I don't need a microscope to see a grain of sand. And it is fairly solid, not prone to breaking down into smaller particles or "dust."

 

I'll also venture to say that if cameras become more sophisticated so as to create absurdity in defining what is moved, the RBs will deal with it as they have already begun with the recent decision on a ball's movement. For now, things are just fine. No worries.

I don't agree with the premise that "sand" can be well defined. We've all seen bunkers (or beaches) where the sand is basically small pebbles and others where the sand is very fine grained and powdery.