Jimmy Walker admits to regularly breaking rule of golf on Twitter

[nsxguy]

Man if you played at the college level I'm surprised you aren't decrying this. Mike Holder hammered into our brains that you always mark when around the flag so that you don't bail somebody out. Protect the field, protect your teammates, protect yourself. That was part of college golf 101 IMO.

 

I would expect on the college level that the comps were much more intense. I'll bet in the Ryder Cup they'd run up and mark.

 

For better or worse, on the Pro Tour the attitude seems to be "Live and let live. There's plenty for everybody. Somebody gets helped by my ball, I'm going to get helped by somebody else's. Who cares ?"

 

I mean it's really hilarious. The players don't care. The officials can't see agreement to help so by rule "nothing happened" but so many who are NOT participating are sooooooooo offended and outraged. :telephone: :lol:

I think a rules based solution might be to disqualify every LPGA and PGA member for agreeing to waive a rule of golf.

 

I thought that was already the rule,,,,,,,,,, :blink:

[nsxguy]

This seems to be an emotional topic and both sides will argue this with little to no resolution it appears. I only ask 2 questions; In the LPGA instance I would ask what would have happened in Match play if they were all square on 18? Would you have marked after chipping first? 2nd question, If the first chip ended 10 feet short on the same line would Amy have asked her competitor to mark?

 

My answer in either scenario would be yes. To each his/her own it appears but intent has to be anaylized since its obvious player ethics/intent various with each of us.

 

The other side of the coin, I'd agree, is if both were at the bottom of the pack and shooting 77's would anyone give 2 cents. I assume that the position in the tournament and "circumstance" will continue this debate for sometime to come.

 

To the orginial OP's post about Walker...that was pretty shocking to what was admitted.

 

OK, I'll play, even though you didn't answer MY questions to you 'll answer yours.

 

Same as you, yes and yes. So what ? What's it got to do with this Amy/Ariya situation ?

[OldTomMorris]

The exact scenario that played out between these two women happens in every tournament played the world over.

 

A player chips up, looks at the other player who says it's ok, I'll go. Thousands of times a year.

 

There is no agreement to help. There is a knowledge that the likelihood of one ball hitting another is very slim and it is simply not that big of a deal...... until it is.

 

These events are about convenience and conscientiousness. Nothing else.

 

Much ado about no- very little.

 

When it's as close as it appeared in the latest scenario, looked inside 2ft to me possibly only 18 inches by not marking the ball its implied that you don't mind the potential help to your opponent. Seems like a dumb position to me, I'm not the most ultra-completive person but even I would never give my fellow competitor that kind of potential advantage. Also when an unmarked ball is that close to the hole, especially at professional level, the possibility that this could occur is highly likely. Of course recreational golf is different and it's not a problem.

 

Pace of play is a smokescreen, it's possible to maintain the integrity of the tournament and play at an acceptable pace all at once, they are not mutually exclusive.

 

Just because its rare doesn't make it a non-issue.

[3woodvt]

This seems to be an emotional topic and both sides will argue this with little to no resolution it appears. I only ask 2 questions; In the LPGA instance I would ask what would have happened in Match play if they were all square on 18? Would you have marked after chipping first? 2nd question, If the first chip ended 10 feet short on the same line would Amy have asked her competitor to mark?

 

My answer in either scenario would be yes. To each his/her own it appears but intent has to be anaylized since its obvious player ethics/intent various with each of us.

 

The other side of the coin, I'd agree, is if both were at the bottom of the pack and shooting 77's would anyone give 2 cents. I assume that the position in the tournament and "circumstance" will continue this debate for sometime to come.

 

To the orginial OP's post about Walker...that was pretty shocking to what was admitted.

 

OK, I'll play, even though you didn't answer MY questions to you 'll answer yours.

 

Same as you, yes and yes. So what ? What's it got to do with this Amy/Ariya situation ?

It implies intent.. Thank you... Sorry I missed your question what was it?

[nsxguy]

This seems to be an emotional topic and both sides will argue this with little to no resolution it appears. I only ask 2 questions; In the LPGA instance I would ask what would have happened in Match play if they were all square on 18? Would you have marked after chipping first? 2nd question, If the first chip ended 10 feet short on the same line would Amy have asked her competitor to mark?

 

My answer in either scenario would be yes. To each his/her own it appears but intent has to be anaylized since its obvious player ethics/intent various with each of us.

 

The other side of the coin, I'd agree, is if both were at the bottom of the pack and shooting 77's would anyone give 2 cents. I assume that the position in the tournament and "circumstance" will continue this debate for sometime to come.

 

To the orginial OP's post about Walker...that was pretty shocking to what was admitted.

 

OK, I'll play, even though you didn't answer MY questions to you 'll answer yours.

 

Same as you, yes and yes. So what ? What's it got to do with this Amy/Ariya situation ?

It implies intent.. Thank you... Sorry I missed your question what was it?

 

Post 394

[3woodvt]

A "no brainer" ?

 

Then perhaps you can show us the evidence they agreed to leave the ball there to help. After all, that's what the Rule says.

 

Or are you suggesting the official "mind reading" is good enough ?

 

Thank you as I missed that.. That is exactly what I'm suggesting based off common sense (no brainer is my wording) that the official blew the call. It happens. Most officiating is judgement based decisions (NFL intentional grounding, uncatchable ball, MLB...Check swing (intent) NBA--blocking/charging technical fouls,...the list is endless in every sport. Golf is no different. The official should know the nuiances of the game and be a "mind reader" IMO as they are there to enforce the rules of the game as described..(although sometimes I can't even follow all the rules with golf). The official blew it as bad as the Saints/Rams game. If you gonna officiate you gotta make the call or find another line of work, no place for the weak minded. Correction the LPGA fumbled the ball on this one...now the excuse of slow play trumps this from now on...may as well change the rules and integrity of the game stating its fine to allow backstops as this was as obvious as it gets.

[3woodvt]

nsxguy...The thing that really makes this a no brainer for the official imo is the fact after skulling the chip shot that was going 15ft??? passed the hole, They both looked torwards one another with big smiles and of all things fist bumped a crappy shot, why?? Because of the issue that's being discussed... Really end of argument. I'll leave you the last word...

[nsxguy]

A "no brainer" ?

 

Then perhaps you can show us the evidence they agreed to leave the ball there to help. After all, that's what the Rule says.

 

Or are you suggesting the official "mind reading" is good enough ?

 

Thank you as I missed that.. That is exactly what I'm suggesting based off common sense (no brainer is my wording) that the official blew the call. It happens. Most officiating is judgement based decisions (NFL intentional grounding, uncatchable ball, MLB...Check swing (intent) NBA--blocking/charging technical fouls,...the list is endless in every sport. Golf is no different. The official should know the nuiances of the game and be a "mind reader" IMO as they are there to enforce the rules of the game as described..(although sometimes I can't even follow all the rules with golf). The official blew it as bad as the Saints/Rams game. If you gonna officiate you gotta make the call or find another line of work, no place for the weak minded. Correction the LPGA fumbled the ball on this one...now the excuse of slow play trumps this from now on...may as well change the rules and integrity of the game stating its fine to allow backstops as this was as obvious as it gets.

 

So you don't actually have ANY evidence they agreed in order to HELP, as that's what the RULE actually says.

 

That's what I thought. So mind reading it is then. Thanks for confirming. :good:

 

All those other sports are taking steps to GET IT RIGHT, mostly because the game is "too fast" for human eye/reflexes, etc. They are using technology more and more without adversely affecting the game's flow more than necessary.

 

They are NOT changing their decisions based on intuition, mind reading or their "spidey senses". They are using the proof that technology shows them.

 

Now if you don't like the RULE and believe it should be changed, that's a different argument. :rtfm:

 

 

nsxguy...The thing that really makes this a no brainer for the official imo is the fact after skulling the chip shot that was going 15ft??? passed the hole, They both looked torwards one another with big smiles and of all things fist bumped a crappy shot, why?? Because of the issue that's being discussed... Really end of argument. I'll leave you the last word...

 

I gave what I consider an easily plausible explanation earlier for the fist bump. I believe I said something like the optics weren't good but in the excitement, they just fist bumped over a fortunate occurrence.

 

And I still fail to see why "we" care so much if none of them do (or at least seem to). :hi:

[3woodvt]

LOL.. Good stuff. If I pull over a driver who has been speeding and smell alcohol but "see" no beer in the car then is their no "evidence" to suspect the driver has been drinking??? No you make a 'judgement call' and ask the driver to step out of the car and do a field sobriety test...

some have the ability to see and understand through experience and common sense to make these calls without the signed paperwork you seek for "evidence" in a situation that doesn't require any...It's called being an "enforcer", some are the sheep and some are the wolves I suppose...:)

 

The wry smiles and fist bumps were similar to the drunk making excuses why he can't walk a strait line...some of us have a 5th sense that allows us to call people out when others are blind to the obvious. Call it a gift.

 

 

[nsxguy]

Really end of argument. I'll leave you the last word...

 

I thought you were done here ? :rolleyes:

 

 

LOL.. Good stuff. If I pull over a driver who has been speeding and smell alcohol but "see" no beer in the car then is their no "evidence" to suspect the driver has been drinking??? No you make a 'judgement call' and ask the driver to step out of the car and do a field sobriety test...

 

Correct, there is no evidence.

 

There IS "probable cause". Probable cause is NOT proof. At least not here where I live.

 

Probable cause gives you a reason to investigate further; to test. The test is PROOF. The fist bump is NOT (IMO of course).

 

Thanks for your insight though.

 

Now, perhaps you're "really"(?) done here ? Now you can shuffle on back to your Cobra thread(s) and give us your latest bump/minute-by-minute update - you know, to "keep the thread alive". :lol:

[bladehunter]

Really end of argument. I'll leave you the last word...

 

I thought you were done here ? :rolleyes:

 

 

LOL.. Good stuff. If I pull over a driver who has been speeding and smell alcohol but "see" no beer in the car then is their no "evidence" to suspect the driver has been drinking??? No you make a 'judgement call' and ask the driver to step out of the car and do a field sobriety test...

 

Correct, there is no evidence.

 

There IS "probable cause". Probable cause is NOT proof. At least not here where I live.

 

Probable cause gives you a reason to investigate further; to test. The test is PROOF. The fist bump is NOT (IMO of course).

 

Thanks for your insight though.

 

Now, perhaps you're "really"(?) done here ? Now you can shuffle on back to your Cobra thread(s) and give us your latest bump/minute-by-minute update - you know, to "keep the thread alive". :lol:

 

Much like the anchor rule. It’s ambiguous. No way to prove it as you described. So no real way to call it. So no real rule. So no real issue. Except the backstopping part.

[3woodvt]

Exactly Blade, Thank you. Guess I've still got permission to post in here..lol. Anchoring is a great comparison.

[nsxguy]

Really end of argument. I'll leave you the last word...

 

I thought you were done here ? :rolleyes:

 

 

LOL.. Good stuff. If I pull over a driver who has been speeding and smell alcohol but "see" no beer in the car then is their no "evidence" to suspect the driver has been drinking??? No you make a 'judgement call' and ask the driver to step out of the car and do a field sobriety test...

 

Correct, there is no evidence.

 

There IS "probable cause". Probable cause is NOT proof. At least not here where I live.

 

Probable cause gives you a reason to investigate further; to test. The test is PROOF. The fist bump is NOT (IMO of course).

 

Thanks for your insight though.

 

Now, perhaps you're "really"(?) done here ? Now you can shuffle on back to your Cobra thread(s) and give us your latest bump/minute-by-minute update - you know, to "keep the thread alive". :lol:

 

Much like the anchor rule. It's ambiguous. No way to prove it as you described. So no real way to call it. So no real rule. So no real issue. Except the backstopping part.

 

:wacko: :wacko: :wacko:

 

And now you've come full circle. :taunt: The anchor rules is NOT ambiguous. It may be difficult to enforce but it's not ambiguous. (cool)

[bladehunter]

Really end of argument. I'll leave you the last word...

 

I thought you were done here ? :rolleyes:

 

 

LOL.. Good stuff. If I pull over a driver who has been speeding and smell alcohol but "see" no beer in the car then is their no "evidence" to suspect the driver has been drinking??? No you make a 'judgement call' and ask the driver to step out of the car and do a field sobriety test...

 

Correct, there is no evidence.

 

There IS "probable cause". Probable cause is NOT proof. At least not here where I live.

 

Probable cause gives you a reason to investigate further; to test. The test is PROOF. The fist bump is NOT (IMO of course).

 

Thanks for your insight though.

 

Now, perhaps you're "really"(?) done here ? Now you can shuffle on back to your Cobra thread(s) and give us your latest bump/minute-by-minute update - you know, to "keep the thread alive". :lol:

 

Much like the anchor rule. It's ambiguous. No way to prove it as you described. So no real way to call it. So no real rule. So no real issue. Except the backstopping part.

 

:wacko: :wacko: :wacko:

 

And now you've come full circle. :taunt: The anchor rules is NOT ambiguous. It may be difficult to enforce but it's not ambiguous. (cool)

 

Now you know that’s splitting hairs. How is it enforceable ? Can’t use zoom. Can’t even tell with zoom. So you ask “ do you anchor. “. If yes. “ did you mean to “. If no. Then everyone is good. Can’t be enforced. Same as this rule.

[nsxguy]

Much like the anchor rule. It's ambiguous. No way to prove it as you described. So no real way to call it. So no real rule. So no real issue. Except the backstopping part.

 

:wacko: :wacko: :wacko:

 

And now you've come full circle. :taunt: The anchor rules is NOT ambiguous. It may be difficult to enforce but it's not ambiguous. (cool)

 

Now you know that's splitting hairs. How is it enforceable ? Can't use zoom. Can't even tell with zoom. So you ask " do you anchor. ". If yes. " did you mean to ". If no. Then everyone is good. Can't be enforced. Same as this rule.

 

I know you don't like it but words have meanings. ;)

 

And you have said you like to argue,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, :D

[kmbean]

I didn’t read any of this thread I’d just like to say Jimmy Walker is a gigantic tool.

 

Thank you.

 

[Golfjack]

LOL. I don't even think I've seen this happen on TV. Never when they have putted have I seen a ball next to the hole. Mostly just little ball markers if anything. Pro's also don't seem to use those huge vegas coins some amateurs prefer so they don't ever deter an intended path. However, I have seen amateurs place flags or clubs too close. Actually, I've hit a ball thin and a club stopped it for me even though it was no where near the hole. So there's that. No way was that intentional for any of us.

[bladehunter]

Much like the anchor rule. It's ambiguous. No way to prove it as you described. So no real way to call it. So no real rule. So no real issue. Except the backstopping part.

 

:wacko: :wacko: :wacko:

 

And now you've come full circle. :taunt: The anchor rules is NOT ambiguous. It may be difficult to enforce but it's not ambiguous. (cool)

 

Now you know that's splitting hairs. How is it enforceable ? Can't use zoom. Can't even tell with zoom. So you ask " do you anchor. ". If yes. " did you mean to ". If no. Then everyone is good. Can't be enforced. Same as this rule.

 

I know you don't like it but words have meanings. ;)

 

And you have said you like to argue,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, :D

 

Lots of times many meanings.

 

 

[nsxguy]

Much like the anchor rule. It's ambiguous. No way to prove it as you described. So no real way to call it. So no real rule. So no real issue. Except the backstopping part.

 

:wacko: :wacko: :wacko:

 

And now you've come full circle. :taunt: The anchor rules is NOT ambiguous. It may be difficult to enforce but it's not ambiguous. (cool)

 

Now you know that's splitting hairs. How is it enforceable ? Can't use zoom. Can't even tell with zoom. So you ask " do you anchor. ". If yes. " did you mean to ". If no. Then everyone is good. Can't be enforced. Same as this rule.

 

I know you don't like it but words have meanings. ;)

 

And you have said you like to argue,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, :D

 

Lots of times many meanings.

 

First of all that definition has only ONE "meaning", listed with various synonyms.

 

And the definition still does not fit. Anchoring is NOT ambiguous. It's not open to more than one interpretation. It's not unclear. It's not arguable.

 

If you anchor the top hand against your body you are anchoring.

 

Again, enforcing it is another issue. ;)

[Shilgy]

 

Now you know that’s splitting hairs. How is it enforceable ? Can’t use zoom. Can’t even tell with zoom. So you ask “ do you anchor. “. If yes. “ did you mean to “. If no. Then everyone is good. Can’t be enforced. Same as this rule.

You keep stating this "intent" idea. Please point me to where in the 2019 rules or interpretations this exists.

Hint, the rule is 10.1b

[bladehunter]

 

Now you know that’s splitting hairs. How is it enforceable ? Can’t use zoom. Can’t even tell with zoom. So you ask “ do you anchor. “. If yes. “ did you mean to “. If no. Then everyone is good. Can’t be enforced. Same as this rule.

You keep stating this "intent" idea. Please point me to where in the 2019 rules or interpretations this exists.

Hint, the rule is 10.1b

 

Repeatedly said “ in practice “. Not quoted any rule. If intent didn’t come in then why wasn’t a penalty assessed ? It was said that there wasn’t because no conspiracy to help another player was present . That speaks of the intent of the two players.

 

And if you are talking about the anchor rule please go to the r and a listing for the rule and review the pics.

 

Clearly shows forearm and hand well away as ok. Then it shows forearm touching as not ok. That’s the anchor point that’s used today. Not the top hand. It’s not just the hand.

 

If it’s not subject to intent and very much a judgment call. Then why did every long putter player go to the rules officials and actually have their stroke watched and certified ? If it’s so black and white that wouldn’t be needed .

[davep043]

Does it happen as much in match play?

 

If referring to the OP, it's not an issue in Match Play.

 

In stroke play only:

• A player who is required to lift a ball may play first instead, and
  
• If two or more players agree to leave a ball in place to help any player, and that player then makes a stroke with the helping ball left in place, each player who made the agreement gets the general penalty (two penalty strokes).
  

In match play, the rules are different. If I tell you I want to mark my ball, you are required to wait. If you don't, you lose the hole. In fourball match, if I want your partner to mark before you play, same thing, he is required to mark it before you play. If you play before he marks it, your side loses the hole. All of this is in 15-3.a, for a ball on the putting green. There is no field to protect, I only have to protect my own interests.

So, when someone hits it to 15 feet from 221 out, they can make their opponent wait until they mark? Do any of the slow play rules prevent this? Is this rule intended to simplify the rules, speed things up or just bring in the possibility of gamesmanship?

You should read the rule, 15.3.a. "If a person reasonably believes that a ball on the putting green might help anyone's play.....". A key word is "reasonably", and its not reasonable to expect a ball on the green to change any shot from significant distance. Yes, I know it happens, but its extremely rare. In the Amy case, I bet 80% of her chip shots would roll within a couple feet of the hole, its VERY reasonable to expect a ball within that zone MAY help her chip shot. For a shot from even 50 yards, its much less likely, less "reasonable" to expect. So, no, the answer is no. And if my opponent insists, I hit anyway, and let him make a request for a ruling, per rule 20.1.b(2).. By the way, this rule hasn't changed much, if any, in the most recent revision.

[xxio]

^^^^ yup even though balls are left there thousands of times the situation has to be analyzed.

 

Left and long has a chance of going off the green 45 feet away. A little long and right was perfect so she could aim right and have that small but still chance that Ariya's ball could help.

[new2g0lf]

Does it happen as much in match play?

 

If referring to the OP, it's not an issue in Match Play.

 

In stroke play only:

• A player who is required to lift a ball may play first instead, and
  
• If two or more players agree to leave a ball in place to help any player, and that player then makes a stroke with the helping ball left in place, each player who made the agreement gets the general penalty (two penalty strokes).
  

In match play, the rules are different. If I tell you I want to mark my ball, you are required to wait. If you don't, you lose the hole. In fourball match, if I want your partner to mark before you play, same thing, he is required to mark it before you play. If you play before he marks it, your side loses the hole. All of this is in 15-3.a, for a ball on the putting green. There is no field to protect, I only have to protect my own interests.

So, when someone hits it to 15 feet from 221 out, they can make their opponent wait until they mark? Do any of the slow play rules prevent this? Is this rule intended to simplify the rules, speed things up or just bring in the possibility of gamesmanship?

You should read the rule, 15.3.a. "If a person reasonably believes that a ball on the putting green might help anyone's play.....". A key word is "reasonably", and its not reasonable to expect a ball on the green to change any shot from significant distance. Yes, I know it happens, but its extremely rare. In the Amy case, I bet 80% of her chip shots would roll within a couple feet of the hole, its VERY reasonable to expect a ball within that zone MAY help her chip shot. For a shot from even 50 yards, its much less likely, less "reasonable" to expect. So, no, the answer is no. And if my opponent insists, I hit anyway, and let him make a request for a ruling, per rule 20.1.b(2).. By the way, this rule hasn't changed much, if any, in the most recent revision.

 

Dead on, Amy wanted the ball there as it doubled the number of backstops she'd have to stop the ball and allowed her to be a bit more confident about going past the flag.

[FairwaysToHeaven]

those demanding actual proof of intent...suggesting that anything short of the player announcing to everyone that they prefer to leave the ball in place as possible insurance if they don't hole the shot...seems like an impossible standard to reach

 

by this logic every weekend warrior who swings and misses their ball could simply declare it a 'practice' swing because its impossible to prove intent unless the player declared they were now going to try to hit the ball.

 

this really shouldn't be that hard, if there is a reasonable chance the ball could affect play you mark. its common sense to anyone who plays golf regualry, especially the pros, and there really shouldn't even be a debate when the ball sits two feet from the hole. had this been a ball 10 feet left of pin, theres room for debate.

 

and to those arguing this doesn't happen enough to matter. in pro golf, when it does happen it can shift hundreds of thousands of dollars. and who's tracking when this happens off camera or on lower level competitions that have significance outside of dollars, whether its mini tours, college competitions, etc .

 

i think as it is unless the rule is changed to be less vague, or unless the pga starts to actually enforce penalties so players begin to error on the side of marking, nothing changes.

 

its funny it seems the the only time pro golfers claim to be concerned about their pace of play is when they can use the rules to their benefit.

[Shilgy]

Now you know that's splitting hairs. How is it enforceable ? Can't use zoom. Can't even tell with zoom. So you ask " do you anchor. ". If yes. " did you mean to ". If no. Then everyone is good. Can't be enforced. Same as this rule.

You keep stating this "intent" idea. Please point me to where in the 2019 rules or interpretations this exists.

Hint, the rule is 10.1b

 

Repeatedly said " in practice ". Not quoted any rule. If intent didn't come in then why wasn't a penalty assessed ? It was said that there wasn't because no conspiracy to help another player was present . That speaks of the intent of the two players.

 

And if you are talking about the anchor rule please go to the r and a listing for the rule and review the pics.

 

Clearly shows forearm and hand well away as ok. Then it shows forearm touching as not ok. That's the anchor point that's used today. Not the top hand. It's not just the hand.

 

If it's not subject to intent and very much a judgment call. Then why did every long putter player go to the rules officials and actually have their stroke watched and certified ? If it's so black and white that wouldn't be needed .

Any of the body parts can be touched/brushed by an arm or hand. Touching the shirt or jacket is not anchored. Heck, a player could go shirtless and brush against his chest and that would not be anchored. Per some had an official look at their stroke because then the official can get close enough to see the movement of the arm or hand in detail so they can truly tell it is not anchored?

 

It is not the players job to be certain that those on the internet or watching on television are satisfied. It is their job to make putts without actually anchoring. Which they are doing.

[sui generis]

Now you know that's splitting hairs. How is it enforceable ? Can't use zoom. Can't even tell with zoom. So you ask " do you anchor. ". If yes. " did you mean to ". If no. Then everyone is good. Can't be enforced. Same as this rule.

You keep stating this "intent" idea. Please point me to where in the 2019 rules or interpretations this exists.

Hint, the rule is 10.1b

 

Repeatedly said " in practice ". Not quoted any rule. If intent didn't come in then why wasn't a penalty assessed ? It was said that there wasn't because no conspiracy to help another player was present . That speaks of the intent of the two players.

 

And if you are talking about the anchor rule please go to the r and a listing for the rule and review the pics.

 

Clearly shows forearm and hand well away as ok. Then it shows forearm touching as not ok. That's the anchor point that's used today. Not the top hand. It's not just the hand.

 

If it's not subject to intent and very much a judgment call. Then why did every long putter player go to the rules officials and actually have their stroke watched and certified ? If it's so black and white that wouldn't be needed .

Any of the body parts can be touched/brushed by an arm or hand. Touching the shirt or jacket is not anchored. Heck, a player could go shirtless and brush against his chest and that would not be anchored. Per some had an official look at their stroke because then the official can get close enough to see the movement of the arm or hand in detail so they can truly tell it is not anchored?

 

It is not the players job to be certain that those on the internet or watching on television are satisfied. It is their job to make putts without actually anchoring. Which they are doing.

 

Don't waste your breath (or typing fingers). Some take great pride in their intransigence.

[North Texas]

those demanding actual proof of intent...suggesting that anything short of the player announcing to everyone that they prefer to leave the ball in place as possible insurance if they don't hole the shot...seems like an impossible standard to reach

 

by this logic every weekend warrior who swings and misses their ball could simply declare it a 'practice' swing because its impossible to prove intent unless the player declared they were now going to try to hit the ball.

 

this really shouldn't be that hard, if there is a reasonable chance the ball could affect play you mark. its common sense to anyone who plays golf regualry, especially the pros, and there really shouldn't even be a debate when the ball sits two feet from the hole. had this been a ball 10 feet left of pin, theres room for debate.

 

and to those arguing this doesn't happen enough to matter. in pro golf, when it does happen it can shift hundreds of thousands of dollars. and who's tracking when this happens off camera or on lower level competitions that have significance outside of dollars, whether its mini tours, college competitions, etc .

 

i think as it is unless the rule is changed to be less vague, or unless the pga starts to actually enforce penalties so players begin to error on the side of marking, nothing changes.

 

its funny it seems the the only time pro golfers claim to be concerned about their pace of play is when they can use the rules to their benefit.

 

Totally agree with the common sense part about marking your ball if it could affect play. Our group is smart enough to do this on regular basis.

 

It's also total BS to say this doesn't happen that often. I play 2-3 times a week and it pretty much happens every round sometimes multiple times.

 

And the pace of play explanation was also total BS. It would have had absolutely no effect on the pace of play had Amy waited for Ariya to mark her ball since they were waiting on a ruling in their group anyway.

[bladehunter]

Now you know that's splitting hairs. How is it enforceable ? Can't use zoom. Can't even tell with zoom. So you ask " do you anchor. ". If yes. " did you mean to ". If no. Then everyone is good. Can't be enforced. Same as this rule.

You keep stating this "intent" idea. Please point me to where in the 2019 rules or interpretations this exists.

Hint, the rule is 10.1b

 

Repeatedly said " in practice ". Not quoted any rule. If intent didn't come in then why wasn't a penalty assessed ? It was said that there wasn't because no conspiracy to help another player was present . That speaks of the intent of the two players.

 

And if you are talking about the anchor rule please go to the r and a listing for the rule and review the pics.

 

Clearly shows forearm and hand well away as ok. Then it shows forearm touching as not ok. That's the anchor point that's used today. Not the top hand. It's not just the hand.

 

If it's not subject to intent and very much a judgment call. Then why did every long putter player go to the rules officials and actually have their stroke watched and certified ? If it's so black and white that wouldn't be needed .

Any of the body parts can be touched/brushed by an arm or hand. Touching the shirt or jacket is not anchored. Heck, a player could go shirtless and brush against his chest and that would not be anchored. Per some had an official look at their stroke because then the official can get close enough to see the movement of the arm or hand in detail so they can truly tell it is not anchored?

 

It is not the players job to be certain that those on the internet or watching on television are satisfied. It is their job to make putts without actually anchoring. Which they are doing.

I posted that purely off the R and A detailed picture examples.

[Shilgy]

Now you know that's splitting hairs. How is it enforceable ? Can't use zoom. Can't even tell with zoom. So you ask " do you anchor. ". If yes. " did you mean to ". If no. Then everyone is good. Can't be enforced. Same as this rule.

You keep stating this "intent" idea. Please point me to where in the 2019 rules or interpretations this exists.

Hint, the rule is 10.1b

 

Repeatedly said " in practice ". Not quoted any rule. If intent didn't come in then why wasn't a penalty assessed ? It was said that there wasn't because no conspiracy to help another player was present . That speaks of the intent of the two players.

 

And if you are talking about the anchor rule please go to the r and a listing for the rule and review the pics.

 

Clearly shows forearm and hand well away as ok. Then it shows forearm touching as not ok. That's the anchor point that's used today. Not the top hand. It's not just the hand.

 

If it's not subject to intent and very much a judgment call. Then why did every long putter player go to the rules officials and actually have their stroke watched and certified ? If it's so black and white that wouldn't be needed .

Any of the body parts can be touched/brushed by an arm or hand. Touching the shirt or jacket is not anchored. Heck, a player could go shirtless and brush against his chest and that would not be anchored. Per some had an official look at their stroke because then the official can get close enough to see the movement of the arm or hand in detail so they can truly tell it is not anchored?

 

It is not the players job to be certain that those on the internet or watching on television are satisfied. It is their job to make putts without actually anchoring. Which they are doing.

I posted that purely off the R and A detailed picture examples.

But you described it incorrectly. Touching the forearm to the shirt is not a penalty, nor is brushing the forearm against the body. What is a penalty is locking it against the body. AKA anchoring.