Jimmy Walker admits to regularly breaking rule of golf on Twitter

[Finbarr Saunders]

I like that your picking up what i'm putting down, now as i said rules are everything (The Rules of Amateur Status do not apply to betting or gambling by amateur golfer

on the results of a competition limited to or specifically organised for professional golfers.) so Jack ends up with 16 to tigers 10

 

That's awesome! I think it would be a very good idea for almost every amateur that qualifies for the US Open or any pro event to get some money and bet the s*** out of it so they can maybe net some profit on the tourney from their own play! You know? Run end around the stupid rules prohibiting amateurs from taking prize money. Great loophole with which I'm sure the USGA is OK. They could do it for years and still win US Amateurs!

 

EDIT: Bummer, that link was to some other governing body that doesn't conduct the US Amateur. Also, it mentions "not for financial gain". Dang. Also, I'm pretty sure it might change if the "amateur" golfer admitted he gambled on an event in which he actually played. Oof. So, back to 15-10, Nicklaus.

 

I see your angle.

 

Is this ok

The Rules of Amateur Status do not apply to betting or gambling by amateur golfers on the results of a competition limited to or specifically organized for professional golfers.

 

16-10

[legitimategolf]

Screw Jimmy Walker, screw the PGA TOUR, screw all these guys. I will be voting with my remote control.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

I like that your picking up what i'm putting down, now as i said rules are everything (The Rules of Amateur Status do not apply to betting or gambling by amateur golfer

on the results of a competition limited to or specifically organised for professional golfers.) so Jack ends up with 16 to tigers 10

 

That's awesome! I think it would be a very good idea for almost every amateur that qualifies for the US Open or any pro event to get some money and bet the s*** out of it so they can maybe net some profit on the tourney from their own play! You know? Run end around the stupid rules prohibiting amateurs from taking prize money. Great loophole with which I'm sure the USGA is OK. They could do it for years and still win US Amateurs!

 

EDIT: Bummer, that link was to some other governing body that doesn't conduct the US Amateur. Also, it mentions "not for financial gain". Dang. Also, I'm pretty sure it might change if the "amateur" golfer admitted he gambled on an event in which he actually played. Oof. So, back to 15-10, Nicklaus.

 

I see your angle.

 

Is this ok

The Rules of Amateur Status do not apply to betting or gambling by amateur golfers on the results of a competition limited to or specifically organized for professional golfers.

 

16-10

 

It's the same analysis. That says nothing about an am gambling when he's in the field.

I'm pretty sure the USGA would come down hard on an amateur in the field at the US Open this week openly gambling on the event, and then winning the US Am next year.

I would bet (haha) the player wouldn't even be allowed to tee it up in the US Am.

 

15-10.

[Ben Martinez]

A strange admission, but under R22 is a player actually required to lift his ball? The wording there is "may" not "must" and unless he doesn't lift when asked and there is no agreement to waive the rule, I'm not sure what there is to penalize.

 

Is a rule actually being broken?

agreed......

[QEight]

A strange admission, but under R22 is a player actually required to lift his ball? The wording there is "may" not "must" and unless he doesn't lift when asked and there is no agreement to waive the rule, I'm not sure what there is to penalize.

 

Is a rule actually being broken?

agreed......

 

Read the JW confession and the whole rule.

[Stuart_G]

A strange admission, but under R22 is a player actually required to lift his ball? The wording there is "may" not "must" and unless he doesn't lift when asked and there is no agreement to waive the rule, I'm not sure what there is to penalize.

 

Is a rule actually being broken?

agreed......

 

Read the JW confession and the whole rule.

 

I read the first few of his twiter comments in the original link and there was no admission of any agreement between him and other players that I saw. Was there some other comments you're referring to?

[FiveSixAce]

A strange admission, but under R22 is a player actually required to lift his ball? The wording there is "may" not "must" and unless he doesn't lift when asked and there is no agreement to waive the rule, I'm not sure what there is to penalize.

 

Is a rule actually being broken?

agreed......

 

Read the JW confession and the whole rule.

 

I read the first few of his twiter comments in the original link and there was no admission of any agreement between him and other players that I saw. Was there some other comments you're referring to?

 

He asks players if they would like him to mark or leave it...

[FiveSixAce]

Just saw his interview on this and think he mirrors what I said earlier. That he is just telling us how it is On tour. He said " I'll just say , do you want me to put a mark on that "? And he moves accordingly. I say the same if a person is pitching and ready to go. Purely to not jump in the way. Immelmann just said he did the same.

 

But that isn't what he said on twitter. He said he leaves it for guys he likes and marks for others?

[davep043]

A strange admission, but under R22 is a player actually required to lift his ball? The wording there is "may" not "must" and unless he doesn't lift when asked and there is no agreement to waive the rule, I'm not sure what there is to penalize.

 

Is a rule actually being broken?

agreed......

 

Read the JW confession and the whole rule.

 

I read the first few of his twiter comments in the original link and there was no admission of any agreement between him and other players that I saw. Was there some other comments you're referring to?

 

He asks players if they would like him to mark or leave it...

And sometimes the decision whether to mark is based at least partly on whether the guy is a friend or not, so he's intentionally trying to give a potential advantage to only select players.

[Stuart_G]

He asks players if they would like him to mark or leave it...

And sometimes the decision whether to mark is based at least partly on whether the guy is a friend or not, so he's intentionally trying to give a potential advantage to only select players.

 

While certainly an interesting issue in the context of morality or ethics, that's not always the same as being an explicit violation of the rule.

[sui generis]

He asks players if they would like him to mark or leave it...

And sometimes the decision whether to mark is based at least partly on whether the guy is a friend or not, so he's intentionally trying to give a potential advantage to only select players.

 

While certainly an interesting issue in the context of morality or ethics, that's not always the same as being an explicit violation of the rule.

 

Tacit agreements or verbal agreements made in the parking lot prior to the round are still agreements?

[davep043]

He asks players if they would like him to mark or leave it...

And sometimes the decision whether to mark is based at least partly on whether the guy is a friend or not, so he's intentionally trying to give a potential advantage to only select players.

 

While certainly an interesting issue in the context of morality or ethics, that's not always the same as being an explicit violation of the rule.

It does get to the issue of protecting the field, and a referee with the group has the authority to tell a player to mark and lift his ball, in order to protect the field. Here's a Decision:

"22/6

Competitor Requests That Ball in Position to Assist Him Not Be Lifted

 

Q.In stroke play, B's ball lies just off the putting green. A's ball lies near the hole in a position to serve as a backstop for B's ball. B requests A not to lift his ball. Is such a request proper?

 

A.No. If A and B agree not to lift a ball that might assist B, both players are disqualified under Rule 22-1.

That doesn't say that they competitors have to mention the possibility that the ball might assist, the ball simply has to be there. A question "Do you want me to lift this" and answer "No, leave it" is enough, to me, to indicate that they've agreed, even if they don't talk about the potential to assist. If the ball is a foot pasts the hole, its potential to assist is evident to anyone.

[Stuart_G]

Tacit agreements or verbal agreements made in the parking lot prior to the round are still agreements?

 

No disagreement. I could have missed something (which is why I asked the question in the first place), but I didn't see any admission of any such agreement in his posts. There was no indication or even hint of any inherent reciprocation that I could see (which is a prerequisite for an agreement). I would judge his decision is based more on a whim than any agreement. But that's just my interpretation of what he said.

 

Here's a Decision:

"22/6

Competitor Requests That Ball in Position to Assist Him Not Be Lifted

 

deja vu ;-)

[jaygween]

A bit of an update on Jimmy from today:

 

 

 

 

[Jasonic]

Did anybody post these yet?

 

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/10/golf-rules-tony-finau-justin-thomas-usga-video-golf-channel

 

Balls on the green should be marked when other people are chipping - Period.

 

 

Do they paint a line around every green to dictate the “must mark” zone?

 

Not needed if you’re a smart person who can think for themselves. Pretty obvious if you’ve golfed more than once.

 

 

Lol what? Your response is as vague as the issue at hand. Your attempt at insult doesn’t bother me either btw.

 

Cool. It’s not hard to understand when to mark your ball. It’s not an insult but an easy observation.

[Jasonic]

I cant believe this counted... should have been DQed right away!!!!

 

[media=]

[/media]

 

 

Obviously should’ve been marked! A smart person that had golfed more than once would know that!

 

Alright I understand this is sarcasm, or at least I hope, but to clarify for anyone who might see this otherwise, shots like this aren't what people in this thread are complaining about.

 

What we're talking about is, if around the green you have time to mark before your partner chips, ESPECIALLY in instances where if they were to hit your ball it would benefit them, then you SHOULD mark to protect the field. Anywhere from 10 yards out is ridiculous to ask to mark.

 

That is a smart comment. Some people like to argue just to prove some point that doesn’t make sense.

[Naptime]

Meh, I think the practical impact on the field is less than when crowds and partners help search for a lost ball. If DJ hadn't gotten lucky on the lost ball we might have had a different leader after 36. Things could have gone downhill if he had had to re-tee it.

[sui generis]

Meh, I think the practical impact on the field is less than when crowds and partners help search for a lost ball. If DJ hadn't gotten lucky on the lost ball we might have had a different leader after 36. Things could have gone downhill if he had had to re-tee it.

 

Dear Newbie, it's the done thing here to stick to the topic, rather than wander off and insert your own delusions into an ongoing thread.

[Naptime]

Meh, I think the practical impact on the field is less than when crowds and partners help search for a lost ball. If DJ hadn't gotten lucky on the lost ball we might have had a different leader after 36. Things could have gone downhill if he had had to re-tee it.

 

Dear Newbie, it's the done thing here to stick to the topic, rather than wander off and insert your own delusions into an ongoing thread.

 

Been lurking here long enough to see threads wander all over the place. Was just trying to fit in :-)

[sui generis]

Meh, I think the practical impact on the field is less than when crowds and partners help search for a lost ball. If DJ hadn't gotten lucky on the lost ball we might have had a different leader after 36. Things could have gone downhill if he had had to re-tee it.

 

Dear Newbie, it's the done thing here to stick to the topic, rather than wander off and insert your own delusions into an ongoing thread.

 

Been lurking here long enough to see threads wander all over the place. Was just trying to fit in :-)

 

Well, there's fit(ting) in and there's "fitting out." :)

[FairwaysToHeaven]

https://twitter.com/...954457558249472

[davep043]

Under the old rules, if the ball was in position to help, and the two players agree to leave it there, its a penalty to both. No matter their motivation, if it COULD help, and they agree not to lift it, they were penalized. The new rules say:

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).

To me, this change means that if they leave it there for pace of play reasons, there's no penalty. I prefer the old rule. It makes me wonder if this is an unintentional result of the attempt to simplify the language used in the rules, or an intentional loophole added. If unintentional, the wording could be tweaked slightly to return to the old meaning of the rule.

"If two or more players agree to leave a ball in place, when the ball is in a position where it could help any player, and that player......"

[FairwaysToHeaven]

i didn't want to start a new thread about the lpga incident, but this was blatant cheating.... and it seems the lpga encourages it. they've since deleted the tweet...but this was straight from their twitter account. others have posted the screenshot.

 

@LPGA - "Sometimes you need a little help from your friends! @amyolson shows @jutanugarn some lover after using her ball as a backboard on her chip! "

[davep043]

i didn't want to start a new thread about the lpga incident, but this was blatant cheating.... and it seems the lpga encourages it. they've since deleted the tweet...but this was straight from their twitter account. others have posted the screenshot.

 

@LPGA - "Sometimes you need a little help from your friends! @amyolson shows @jutanugarn some lover after using her ball as a backboard on her chip! "

Was it really cheating? With the current wording of the rules, do we KNOW why they agreed to leave the ball there? If they say its for pace of play, do the rules officials on site call them liars and penalize them anyway?

[smeech8000]

i didn't want to start a new thread about the lpga incident, but this was blatant cheating.... and it seems the lpga encourages it. they've since deleted the tweet...but this was straight from their twitter account. others have posted the screenshot.

 

@LPGA - "Sometimes you need a little help from your friends! @amyolson shows @jutanugarn some lover after using her ball as a backboard on her chip! "

 

Thanks Hoosier - I just saw the GD story and wondered if anyone had posted on WRX. Here's a link to that story which references the tweet:

 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/the-latest-backstopping-incident-is-on-the-lpga-tour-and-it-doesnt-look-great

 

I just feel there will never be enough evidence to prove intent or agreement which is the burden of proof under the current language and interpretation of the rule as written.

[dropkicked]

This LPGA, backstop thing is such a non issue.. If she was accurate enough to purposely hit that ball, she could have sunk the chip.. She got lucky.. Luck isn't cheating.

[FairwaysToHeaven]

This LPGA, backstop thing is such a non issue.. If she was accurate enough to purposely hit that ball, she could have sunk the chip.. She got lucky.. Luck isn't cheating.

 

lol i don't care what side your on with this...but this is the worst take of all.

[davep043]

This LPGA, backstop thing is such a non issue.. If she was accurate enough to purposely hit that ball, she could have sunk the chip.. She got lucky.. Luck isn't cheating.

She did get lucky. But if the first player had marked and lifted her ball, she would have got the result she deserved. The two players apparently looked at each other and agreed to leave the first ball in place. If they do it to CREATE a chance to get lucky, they're breaking the rule.

[9400]

This LPGA, backstop thing is such a non issue.. If she was accurate enough to purposely hit that ball, she could have sunk the chip.. She got lucky.. Luck isn't cheating.

 

What...? By calling Ariya off from marking her ball she gained an advantage of having an additional object which her ball could hit. In this case the ball was in an extremely advantageous position about 3-feet away from her target. This is about protecting the entire field which does not have this same advantage.

 

She deliberately called off her competitor and gained an advantage, the rule may not be clear enough but this is certainly against the intent of the rules of golf as they currently stand.

[FairwaysToHeaven]

i'm all for improving pace of play, but this rule needs to be rewritten. are we going to start ignoring rules because its faster?