Rory and disintegrating stone in sand

[Swisstrader98]

Yet another beyond dumb rules call...appears Rory, when his ball was in the sand at Liberty National today, went to remove what he thought was a loose impediment aka a small rock but it ended up being just a clump of sand. Gets a 2 stroke penalty for “touching the sand.”

 

Can you say punishment doesn’t fit the crime??

 

I give Rory a lot of credit though. Made his case in a very strong fashion but when the rules official stated 2 strokes, he just carried on.

[sui generis]

Careless behaviors do sometimes, but not always, work against us. I wouldn't be his first mistake with sand.

[Newby]

Clumps of compacted soil are loose impediments. Sand and Loose Soil are not.

Was he penalised for improving his lie?

There no penalty for just touching the sand unless testing the sand.

[jpdx]

I started watching as the discussion was going on. can someone explain it in layman terms to me without complicated rules jargon?

[Fade]

Unlucky, perhaps, but otherwise no big deal. Do you want the official to reduce the penalty to 1 stroke if he agrees that it looked just like a stone?

[jpdx]

> @Newby said:

> Clumps of compacted soil are loose impediments. Sand and Loose Soil are not.

> Was he penalised for improving his lie?

> There no penalty for just touching the sand unless testing the sand.

 

didn't they say he "improved the lie"?

edit: they did not I guess...the guy on the radio said something about "not touching the sand in front, behind, or beside the ball" but he wasn't testing the sand...so why the penalty? it doesn't seem like there was an explanation on air.

[sui generis]

> @jpdx said:

> > @Newby said:

> > Clumps of compacted soil are loose impediments. Sand and Loose Soil are not.

> > Was he penalised for improving his lie?

> > There no penalty for just touching the sand unless testing the sand.

>

> didn't they say he "improved the lie"?

> edit: they did not I guess...the guy on the radio said something about "not touching the sand in front, behind, or beside the ball" but he wasn't testing the sand...so why the penalty? it doesn't seem like there was an explanation on air.

 

I'd not recommend relying on TV announcers always giving reliable Rules advice. Read Rule 12.

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules/rules-2019/rules-of-golf/rules-and-interpretations.html#!ruletype=pe&section=rule&rulenum=12

[North Butte]

Wait. Are you saying a superstar professional golfer, while trying his very best to follow the Rules, is penalized two strokes for an unforseeable, totally random occurance totally outside of his control?

 

Why that's never happened before, has it?

[straightshot7]

Given this explanation (https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules-hub/rules-modernization/major-changes/moving-or-touching-loose-impediments-or-sand-in-a-bunker.html)...how was this a penalty?

 

He did not intend to test the condition of the sand.

[bradski]

I watched this and I wouldn't have been as calm and cool as Rory. it was a garbage call and the course should buy better qualify sand. the bunkers where horrible and you can't blame rory for mistaking it for a rock because it looked like one on tv.

 

[596]

I saw it on TV..... The "pebble" was within an inch of the back of his ball. He actually pointed to it for the official. He intended, within the rules, to remove the pebble thus improving his lie. It was not a pebble and it was sand. Apparently you are not allowed to touch the sand. 2 strokes. Harsh, yes, but next time look closely before you assume it's a pebble!!

[Malvern]

Sir Nick Dildo was rabbitting on as usual about putting more "fairness" into the rules, but again with no path to do it and IMO bound to cause more issues. The more punters get the hands on the golf ball or around their lie the less I like. I feel for Rory, he launched a decent defence but he knew what was coming.

[straightshot7]

> @596 said:

> I saw it on TV..... The "pebble" was within an inch of the back of his ball. He actually pointed to it for the official. He intended, within the rules, to remove the pebble thus improving his lie. It was not a pebble and it was sand. Apparently you are not allowed to touch the sand. 2 strokes. Harsh, yes, but next time look closely before you assume it's a pebble!!

 

Removing a pebble does not mean you were intending to improve your lie.

 

And so far I haven't seen a rule that says it's a 2 stroke penalty to touch the sand with your hand. It only says it's a penalty if the intention is to test the condition of the sand.

[TerpFangolfer]

Reason appears to have (finally) prevailed - penalty rescinded

[hacker49]

> @jpdx said:

> I started watching as the discussion was going on. can someone explain it in layman terms to me without complicated rules jargon?

No, I watched the whole thing play out. I can't explain it to you because I don't see based on how the rule is written he was in violation of anything. He made no intention to touch the sand. Unless you consider him intentionally touching what he believed to be a rock, but was sand, an intention of touching the sand. The moment he realized it wasn't a rock he stopped. The official on the other side of the radio said he is not allowed to touch the sand around his ball, not exact wording but same meaning.

 

[Fade]

Please fix the thread's title.

[lookylookitzadam]

> @TerpFangolfer said:

> Reason appears to have (finally) prevailed - penalty rescinded

 

I didn’t watch to the end but what did they say when they rescinded it??

 

 

[Big Ben]

12-2, no intent to touch the sand or improve his lie. The intent part is the new stuff.

[LeoLeo99]

You'd think PGATour rules officials would understand the new rules. Guess they need to attend a seminar or something. At least Slugger knows the rules.

[Newby]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/mcilroys-2-shot-penalty-for-touching-sand-rescinded/ar-AAFAAem

 

Slugger White, the PGA Tour’s vice president of rules and competitions, reviewed the incident on replay and concluded that McIlroy “didn't improve his line of play or his intended swing.”

.

I can't see how the referee got it wrong in the first place. McIlroy didn't

Deliberately touch sand in the bunker with a hand, club, rake or other object **to test the condition of the sand to learn information for the next stroke,** or

Touch sand in the bunker with a club:

[Newby]

> @LeoLeo99 said:

> You'd think PGATour rules officials would understand the new rules. Guess they need to attend a seminar or something. At least Slugger knows the rules.

 

But he didn't get it right when asked by the referee at the time.

.

"So they got the USGA involved, rang them, they sort of went back and forth a little bit and it came down to that. In a way, it came down to me and they said 'OK, are you comfortable telling us you didn't improve your lie?' For me, I am comfortable saying that."

[antip]

This was a significant rules officials blunder all the way until the penalty was removed. Touching the sand intentionally with a hand in the circumstance he did is simply not a penalty. Touching only gets a penalty if it is to test the condition of the sand to learn information and that was very clearly not the case. The only other way a penalty could be justified is if he had improved the conditions affecting the stroke and that was clearly not the case also. So this error was down to Slugger, he was the decision maker after the official on the ground referred it upstairs, although the official's instincts here were also wrong in telling Rory it is probably a penalty for touching sand. Unless the PGA follows up now and explains things thoroughly, including the mistake of the officials, then they are just compounding misinformation and ignorance about the rules. The current stuff the PGA has stated is horribly deficient.

 

Another major blunder in the coverage is the suggestion that intent is relevant to whether conditions affecting the stroke are improved - it has no role. If conditions are improved in a way that breaches the rule it is a penalty, if not, no penalty. Again, PGA statements appear to be fogging this issue up.

[Malvern]

> @"Big Ben" said:

> 12-2, no intent to touch the sand or improve his lie. The intent part is the new stuff.

 

If he isn't "intending" to improve his lie, he could have just hit it. Of course he was trying to improve his lie. Good to be one of the popular guys so decisions go your way.

 

[OutBackHack]

> @Malvern said:

> > @"Big Ben" said:

> > 12-2, no intent to touch the sand or improve his lie. The intent part is the new stuff.

>

> If he isn't "intending" to improve his lie, he could have just hit it. Of course he was trying to improve his lie. Good to be one of the popular guys so decisions go your way.

>

 

Yep, he was absolutely intending to improve his lie, and as is allowed in the rules he was removing a rock that he thought may have made his shot more difficult to execute. Turns out it wasn't a rock and he moved sand to improve his lie. He definitely intended to improve his lie, he made an error in judgement about what he was moving to do so.

 

[antip]

> @OutBackHack said:

> > @Malvern said:

> > > @"Big Ben" said:

> > > 12-2, no intent to touch the sand or improve his lie. The intent part is the new stuff.

> >

> > If he isn't "intending" to improve his lie, he could have just hit it. Of course he was trying to improve his lie. Good to be one of the popular guys so decisions go your way.

> >

>

> Yep, he was absolutely intending to improve his lie, and as is allowed in the rules he was removing a rock that he thought may have made his shot more difficult to execute. Turns out it wasn't a rock and he moved sand to improve his lie. He definitely intended to improve his lie, he made an error in judgement about what he was moving to do so.

>

 

You need to find the full footage, because large parts of this post are just plain wrong. He moved nothing. He improved nothing. The only errors were by the rules officials, which were subsequently corrected.

[Newby]

> @OutBackHack said:

 

> Turns out it wasn't a rock and he moved sand to improve his lie.

>

He didn't move sand. The lump was still there when he showed the referee where it was.

 

[SkiSchoolPro]

> @Malvern said:

> > @"Big Ben" said:

> > 12-2, no intent to touch the sand or improve his lie. The intent part is the new stuff.

>

> If he isn't "intending" to improve his lie, he could have just hit it. Of course he was trying to improve his lie. Good to be one of the popular guys so decisions go your way.

>

 

In some cases, I think stones can damage clubs even if removing them does not make the shot any easier.

[sui generis]

Stones are loose impediments, by Definition.

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules/rules-2019/rules-of-golf/rules-and-interpretations.html#!ruletype=fr&section=definitions&subrulenum=34

Since 2019, "Without penalty, a player may remove a loose impediment anywhere on . . . the course,"

(There is some accompanying fine print, of course.)

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules/rules-2019/rules-of-golf/rules-and-interpretations.html#!ruletype=fr&section=rule&rulenum=15

[Pete O'Tube]

> @Malvern said:

> > @"Big Ben" said:

> > 12-2, no intent to touch the sand or improve his lie. The intent part is the new stuff.

>

> If he isn't "intending" to improve his lie, he could have just hit it. Of course he was trying to improve his lie. Good to be one of the popular guys so decisions go your way.

>

 

He was trying to follow the rules of golf. If that was a real rock behind the ball and the rules said that removing stones from bunkers was legal, then he was acting entirely within the rules, just as you or I would. The fact that he mistook it for a pebble and tried to pick it up shows that there was never any intent to improve his lie.

I take it you never move loose impediments while playing; especially that rock in the bunker that you're allowed to move but won't because you need a new sand wedge?

[Sawgrass]

It's useful to remember the defintion of "improve":

 

Improve

 

To alter one or more of the conditions affecting the stroke or other physical conditions affecting play so that a player gains a potential advantage for a stroke.

 

And it's further useful to realize that one may slightly alter a condition without actually improving it -- thereby not achieving an advantage.

 

I will be interested in seeing detailed comments on this from the USGA should they be issued, but IMO the fact that Rory did not end up removing the clump satisfied the concept of his not improving the conditions for his next stroke.

 

Even more important to me though was Rory's impeccable behavior during the incident. I have been critical of his reactions to rulings before, when he was dead wrong. This time, even though he was initially hurt by the wrong ruling, his behaved ideally as the video here shows: