Ancer Penalty

[Argonne69]

1 hour ago, jordan2240 said:

The penalty was called based on the close-up video evidence, wasn't it?  Has there been any determination as to why the shot was even looked at?  Did one of his playing partners think he saw the sand move during the backswing?

 

I would expect a lot of shots to be looked at. That's basically the job of the official monitoring the video feed. 

 

If I'm a rules official watching the feed, I'm looking at every single bunker shot, and shot out of the rough. We've seen more than enough examples of players improving their lies by grounding their club behind the ball. 

 

 

Edited April 9, 2021 by Argonne69

[Shilgy]

7 hours ago, jordan2240 said:

"Naked eye - unassisted vision, without a telescope, microscope, or other device."  Wouldn't 'other device' also include a camera closeup?  There is no way anyone would have seen that sand move during his backswing with the 'naked eye'.

Psst....you don’t need to see the sand move. As he addresses the ball there is a clump of sand about a 1/2” high. After the backswing starts the clump is gone/flattened obviously by the club before the backswing started.

 

What else could you possibly need for evidence?

Edited April 10, 2021 by Shilgy

[mwkbmw]

I'm pretty sure that on the Masters app, you can view every shot by every player. You can throw out the old argument that some high-profile players are scrutinized more than other, lesser known players.

[bladehunter]

We should film our Saturday morning dogfight.   I have one guy in particular that will throw as much sand out on the backswing as the actual strike.  🤦‍♂️
 

 

 

[naval2006]

2 hours ago, Shilgy said:

Psst....you don’t need to see the sand move. As he addresses the ball their is a clump of sand about a 1/2” high. After the backswing starts the clump is gone/flattened obviously by the club before the backswing started.

 

What else could you possibly need for evidence?

I saw the clump of sand gone on a close view. Absolutely, rules are rules and I don’t know how much they had to zoom in to catch it. But the evidence is out there without roundabouts. 

[Samps]

What would have been the penalty if he had noticed it when it happened?  
 

I think if they determine something happened after the fact then you shouldn’t be charged with a bogus scorecard.  Instead just assessed the penalty for what happened during play.   

[sailfishchris]

I just want to thank my kids for the Super HD TV for Christmas. I honestly was shocked that it was Fred Ridley who answered the phone when I called it in..... but, he did thank me and I got four tickets for next years Master's out of it. #Sorry Abe not sorry.

[Creedo77]

20 minutes ago, Samps said:

What would have been the penalty if he had noticed it when it happened?  
 

I think if they determine something happened after the fact then you shouldn’t be charged with a bogus scorecard.  Instead just assessed the penalty for what happened during play.   

Same penalty that happened to him after they reviewed it. 

[Samps]

2 strokes for accidentally touching the sand seems excessive.  I had thought maybe it was one stroke and an additional stroke for the incorrect scorecard.  

[bladehunter]

8 minutes ago, Samps said:

2 strokes for accidentally touching the sand seems excessive.  I had thought maybe it was one stroke and an additional stroke for the incorrect scorecard.  

It’s designed to stop the scoopers who move a shovel full on the way back.    This is why learning to actually hover the club is a skill.  A very valuable one.  
 

the reason why you don’t want to allow moving sand is that a shallow entry into the ball is how you create spin out of a trap.  Anybody can hack down on it and chunk it out.   But clipping it nearly level with the ground is how you control the runout. 

Edited April 10, 2021 by bladehunter

[Shilgy]

22 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

It’s designed to stop the scoopers who move a shovel full on the way back.    This is why learning to actually hover the club is a skill.  A very valuable one.  
 

the reason why you don’t want to allow moving sand is that a shallow entry into the ball is how you create spin out of a trap.  Anybody can hack down on it and chunk it out.   But clipping it nearly level with the ground is how you control the runout. 

That to but remember not all bunkers are green side. The same rules apply to fairway bunkers.

 

Should be pretty easy to understand why scooping the sand behind the ball out of the way from a fairway bunker would be advantageous.

[davep043]

10 hours ago, Samps said:

What would have been the penalty if he had noticed it when it happened?  
 

I think if they determine something happened after the fact then you shouldn’t be charged with a bogus scorecard.  Instead just assessed the penalty for what happened during play.   

You might want to review Rule 3.3b(3).

[Raving Shanker]

On 4/9/2021 at 10:11 PM, third-times-a-charm said:

 

I dont care.

 

Like I said. Not a penalty, to me.

If I play against you, we are playing by different rules then. Now THAT really sucks.

[PowerFade36]

Wow I'm surprised this doesn't happen more often.

 

To quote Shaq:

"People paid good money to come watch these athletes play and [the refs] try to take over the f---ing game!"

Edited April 10, 2021 by PowerFade36

[Halebopp]

You all might want to check Ortiz's second stroke on the 16th on the first round. 🙂

 

 

[Jay28]

He improved his lie - accidental or not.

[bladehunter]

16 hours ago, Shilgy said:

That to but remember not all bunkers are green side. The same rules apply to fairway bunkers.

 

Should be pretty easy to understand why scooping the sand behind the ball out of the way from a fairway bunker would be advantageous.

True.  For sure. 

[Brock1818]

On 4/10/2021 at 12:51 PM, Halebopp said:

You all might want to check Ortiz's second stroke on the 16th on the first round. 🙂

 

 

Ha, that’s a tough one! You have to super slow mo tell Ortiz touched the sand. Ancer had obvious evidence from flattened sand that he touched it. Ortiz did not. 

[ATLgopher]

He clearly broke the rule. No other discussion needed

[Skhacker]

Broke a rule, received a penalty. Such is life on the course. 

[zonadub]

1. Ancer accepted the penalty, seemingly without dispute

 

2. It was a close up of the ball that captured the sand movement

 

3. Considering where his club entered the sand, the movement of sand created no advantage for the shot

 

4. Ancer accepted the penalty as all professionals do. Case in point, Anna Nordquist’s penalty in the LPGA a couple years ago was for brushing a single grain of sand AND it cost her the championship.

 

Stupid rule, but where would you draw the line?

Edited April 13, 2021 by zonadub

[smashdn]

Again, I say go back to the old rule. No touching the sand period with the club prior to the stroke.  Intent then has no bearing.  Hover the club at all times or be penalized.

 

It wouldn't change anything in this scenario but it would stop the "accidental" and "no advantage" dialogue surrounding it.

[ClintDagger]

When I’m in the sand I hover the club enough that I know touching the sand at address or in the back swing isn’t a possibility.  It definitely makes the shot more difficult than what many tour pros do where they are only mm’s above the sand.  It’s a risk / reward thing which I’m sure Ancer knows.  To me that’s golf.  Surprised so many are crying foul.

[pollock21]

If anyone thinks there was intent here, they clearly don't know how to hit a proper greenside bunker shot. This wasn't a chunk of mud behind the ball in a hazard he moved out of the way, it was sand on the surface of the bunker, and if he hits that with the club during his swing, he's gonna have a bad result.

 

Anyhow, the camera BS has to go. You either put a camera guy on every player zoomed in on every shot and review post round, or you stop penalizing people for this stuff unless it's blatant and intentional. You shouldn't face penalty that other players don't due to what a camera man decided to shoot.

 

Put yourself in his shoes looking down, you're hovering the club and don't have a line of sight to what is under it. He didn't sole it in the bunker, it grazed some sand that had 0 effect on the upcoming shot and there's no way he could have known.

Edited April 14, 2021 by pollock21

[davep043]

37 minutes ago, pollock21 said:

If anyone thinks there was intent here,

Nobody who knows the rules has mentioned intent at all, because intent has nothing to do with this rule.  He touched the sand in his backswing, that's against the rules.  It was determined to be enough to be visible to the naked eye.  I wouldn't argue that he should have known, I don't think he was trying to get away with anything, it was an unfortunate mistake on his part.  He wasn't cheating, but he broke the rule, and accepted the penalty.

And as someone has said previously, put that club in the hands of Patrick Reed and listen to the accusations of cheating.  

 

[adeangelis]

Lol they needed a 4K camera zoomed x20 to see that a few grains of sand moved. This game can be so stupid sometimes...

[Hawkeye77]

5 minutes ago, adeangelis said:

Lol they needed a 4K camera zoomed x20 to see that a few grains of sand moved. This game can be so stupid sometimes...

Wish my naked eye was that good!

[sui generis]

9 minutes ago, adeangelis said:

Lol they needed a 4K camera zoomed x20 to see that a few grains of sand moved. This game can be so stupid sometimes...

 

Unless you were in the room with the Committee and watched their deliberations or otherwise have first-hand knowledge of the Committee's decision, you're just flapping your lip. 🙄

[davep043]

19 hours ago, zonadub said:

Case in point, Anna Nordquist’s penalty in the LPGA a couple years ago was for brushing a single grain of sand AND it cost her the championship.

I'm not dead sure, but I believe that the "visible to the naked eye" criteria was added shortly after that incident, and possibly in response to it.  That one I DO remember being only a couple of grains of sand, Ancer moved significantly more (still not a whole lot of sand).  My opinion only, this was a very close call from the "naked eye" standpoint, I wouldn't be able to say either decision would have been conclusively wrong.

[ray9898]

LOL....anytime anyone gets caught breaking a rule the majority of the replies are 'change the rule'.