Ancer Penalty

[ray9898]

7 hours ago, pollock21 said:

 

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.

That is why you are supposed to hover to club higher to avoid touching the sand, the 'penalty' is it results in a harder shot.  By grazing the sand he ended up with a easier shot than if it had been hovered at the proper height.

[pollock21]

17 hours ago, ray9898 said:

That is why you are supposed to hover to club higher to avoid touching the sand, the 'penalty' is it results in a harder shot.  By grazing the sand he ended up with a easier shot than if it had been hovered at the proper height.

 

No he didn't. It was a green side bunker. In no way does a small pile of fluffy sand behind the ball impact this shot. It wasn't a fairway bunker where you have to catch ball first. This makes no sense. Also, he was hovering the club, but the thing is, your eyes are unable to see through the club face, so he had no way to know.

 

As the rule is written, it's a penalty. But in no way did touching the sand where it didn't even affect his impact position help him in any way or give him an easier shot.

 

The argument about hovering higher doesn't impact these guys at all. Maybe for some it makes it harder, but these guys are pros. Kisner said it best, "This ain't no hobby". Hovering higher is simply not a big deal for these guys. I don't buy that at all.

[pollock21]

On 4/14/2021 at 1:18 PM, davep043 said:

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.  

 

Way to take my point completely out of context. 

 

But what happened could not be seen with the naked eye. Unless Ancer has Superman vision and the ability to see through his club face. An 8K camera on super zoon is not comparable to the naked eye standing directly above the ball. Sorry, don't buy that at all.

 

Sorry, but super zoomed HD cameras have no place in the game unless you put one on every shot by every player and review every single one. I hope caddy's start forcing camera guys away from their players for these shots.

[golfortennis]

I guess if this isn't a penalty, it's ok for a pitcher to use a substance to spin the ball more because the hitter wasn't going to hit the ball anyway.  Or a receiver can use stick-um because the defender wasn't going to be able to make the play.

[Samps]

I agree that is should be a penalty, it's just the two strokes that I think is excessive.   You can lose your ball in a lake and only lose 1 stroke.   But accidentally touching the sand is two strokes.   Doesn't seem like a fair punishment for the crime.  

Edited April 15, 2021 by Samps
spelling

[ctmason_98]

18 hours ago, ray9898 said:

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

“Unless it’s someone I don’t like.” 
 

I appreciate people who may be thinking his intent. I do wish officials had the flexibility to judge that. In some sports they do I suppose. I don’t think that’s actually a practical way to enforce rules. 
 

in my experience anytime you try to determine “intent” you get lawyers involved. 

[Argonne69]

37 minutes ago, Samps said:

I agree that is should be a penalty, it's just the two strokes that I think is excessive.   You can lose your ball in a lake and only lose 1 stroke.   But accidentally touching the sand is two strokes.   Doesn't seem like a fair punishment for the crime.  

 

Nobody purposefully hits their shots into the penalty area. A one stroke penalty is enough.

 

The reason it's two in this case is to provide a major disincentive to improving one's lie in the bunker. Don't want a two stroke penalty? Easy, don't get too close to the ball.

 

[DFS PFD]

My only thought, which I'm sure someone else has touched on, is that if they have rules officials reviewing video to apply penalties such as this one, they need to review 100% of the shots. Which means a camera on every single shot, which isn't realistic, but that way everyone is being held to the same standard. Otherwise the big name players (that have cameras on them more often) will be subject to this scrutiny far more often than other players who the cameras don't love. 

[QuigleyDU]

I have watched this a few times. I am a bit torn. I both feel it was warranted and ticky tack.. No one would have noticed without the use of a camera. But, the penalty was correct.. 

 

I dunno.. I guess I Switzerland.. 

[smashdn]

1 hour ago, pollock21 said:

Way to take my point completely out of context. 

 

But what happened could not be seen with the naked eye. Unless Ancer has Superman vision and the ability to see through his club face. An 8K camera on super zoon is not comparable to the naked eye standing directly above the ball. Sorry, don't buy that at all.

 

Sorry, but super zoomed HD cameras have no place in the game unless you put one on every shot by every player and review every single one. I hope caddy's start forcing camera guys away from their players for these shots.

 

I get that.  But 8k cameras on super zoom aren't going away.  How does ANGC, or PGA Tour or USGA address this scenario in the future when it occurs?  Once everyone sees the sand move the cat is sort of out of the bag.  

 

Hang on and let me re-read the rule.

 

I read it (12.2(b)(1)).  Nothing about the naked eye deal.  The rule is either broken or not.  The act occurs or it does not in the rules.

 

I think they all just have to be super careful going forward.  He flew too close to the sun and got burned.

Edited April 15, 2021 by smashdn

[OBbogey5]

The rule is the rule. And if anything, every player needs to be careful to not address the ball too closely in the sand. Period. Ancer is the one who placed his club head millimeters away from the ball. Ancer is the one who caused sand to move. Players need to be more careful. They know the rule. 
 

I’m sure Ancer didn’t notice that his club moved sand. And it is supposed to be a golf rule - you call it on yourself. So just as easily as I can say that he broke the rule, I always believe that these zoom ins or any kind of after the fact infractions should never be allowed. Are we gonna be traditionalists and go by the rules, or what?! The player calls it on him/herself. Period. 

[golfortennis]

20 minutes ago, OBbogey5 said:

The rule is the rule. And if anything, every player needs to be careful to not address the ball too closely in the sand. Period. Ancer is the one who placed his club head millimeters away from the ball. Ancer is the one who caused sand to move. Players need to be more careful. They know the rule. 
 

I’m sure Ancer didn’t notice that his club moved sand. And it is supposed to be a golf rule - you call it on yourself. So just as easily as I can say that he broke the rule, I always believe that these zoom ins or any kind of after the fact infractions should never be allowed. Are we gonna be traditionalists and go by the rules, or what?! The player calls it on him/herself. Period. 

 

Patrick Reed would like to know where to send the check.

[jordan2240]

On 4/15/2021 at 3:09 PM, smashdn said:

 

I get that.  But 8k cameras on super zoom aren't going away.  How does ANGC, or PGA Tour or USGA address this scenario in the future when it occurs?  Once everyone sees the sand move the cat is sort of out of the bag.  

 

Hang on and let me re-read the rule.

 

I read it (12.2(b)(1)).  Nothing about the naked eye deal.  The rule is either broken or not.  The act occurs or it does not in the rules.

 

I think they all just have to be super careful going forward.  He flew too close to the sun and got burned.

from rule 20.2.c:

• If the facts shown on the video could not reasonably have been seen with the naked eye, that video evidence will be disregarded even if it indicates a breach of the Rules.

I don't know how Ancer or any playing partner could have possibly seen the violation with the 'naked eye'.  The 2nd part of this rule does state that, even if it could not be seen with the naked eye, it is still a penalty if the player was aware of the breech, but I don't know how one could establish that Ancer was aware of it if he says he wasn't.

[EddieEdwards]

It's a tough break.  I believe he didn't know he did it.  

 

If Patrick Reed didn't know he did it, I don't think he is qualified to determine if a ball is imbedded.