BOB MACINTYRE, ITALIAN OPEN, 17th HOLE - POTENTIAL RULE BREACH 17th

[Pastit]

FINAL ROUND TODAY: He was off the green with his par 3 tee shot in scraggly rough. He soled a hybrid behind the ball which clearly moved *1. 
 

He then took the club away before resoling and parred the hole, going onto win.

 

*1 = The old definition of “ ball moving “ was it coming to rest in another place. I assume merely rocking of the ball might not be a movement. But I have and would penalise myself in these cases. Mark O’Meara was good at this bad habit. Any views.

[nsxguy]

Moved

When a ball at rest has left its original spot and come to rest on any other spot, and this can be seen by the naked eye (whether or not anyone actually sees it do so).

 

This applies whether the ball has gone up, down or horizontally in any direction away from its original spot.

 

If the ball only wobbles (sometimes referred to as oscillating) and stays on or returns to its original spot, the ball has not moved.

[MikeyGSki]

I saw it move 1039 am ET yes and then either back in same spot simple but it did shift .  Tigers like spun but did not move lie as location this one with Nacintyre like moved to the right then almost came back with the turf. I thought this is considered ",deemed to have caused it to move just like Jon Rahm 2 shots penalty in Memorial 2020 andacibtyre would finish 1 back 2nd place to Fitzpatrick'

[antip]

6 hours ago, nsxguy said:

Moved

When a ball at rest has left its original spot and come to rest on any other spot, and this can be seen by the naked eye (whether or not anyone actually sees it do so).

 

This applies whether the ball has gone up, down or horizontally in any direction away from its original spot.

 

If the ball only wobbles (sometimes referred to as oscillating) and stays on or returns to its original spot, the ball has not moved.

Precisely. Very straightforward to apply if you have the facts.

 

[Pastit]

14 hours ago, antip said:

Precisely. Very straightforward to apply if you have the facts.

 

Yes. Against grass, there is no clear evidence but is Golf not a game of honour ? EG:

 

Years ago I shot a nett 66 in a club comp but when I took a close look at my ball on closing out on the 18th, though it was identical in maker’s markings, it did not look like my ball in small ways. I noted my worries on the completed card and stated I was happy to scratch out the score.

 

I had played the ball out from under an OB fence and hedge on the 16th so there was every chance of my playing an identical ball.

 

MacIntyre’s win leaves a sour taste for me. Having said this, this is a common occurrence amongst Tour pros. I think the ET should look at this.

Edited September 19, 2022 by Pastit

[Golferpaul]

20 hours ago, Pastit said:

FINAL ROUND TODAY: He was off the green with his par 3 tee shot in scraggly rough. He soled a hybrid behind the ball which clearly moved *1. 
 

 

"Clearly moved" when watching on TV?  But that is not the test.  Did it clearly move while watching from above as a golfer would see?  I don't know, but maybe not.

[Pastit]

6 minutes ago, Golferpaul said:

"Clearly moved" when watching on TV?  But that is not the test.  Did it clearly move while watching from above as a golfer would see?  I don't know, but maybe not.

I believe a large majority of tour pros make this dodgy move in similar situations. It’s taking a chance and not on, nor is it necessary. 
 

It can be, of course, an old trick to flatten the grass behind the ball. . I played with and against club pros in what we call over here “ Winter Alliances “. My pro partner showed me all the moves made by the opposition.

 

What we have here is a probable Ryder Cup qualifier using dodgy technique. It’s clearly a random event if the ball moves or not. The ET should be onto this. 

Edited September 19, 2022 by Pastit

[nsxguy]

5 hours ago, Pastit said:

I believe a large majority of tour pros make this dodgy move in similar situations. It’s taking a chance and not on, nor is it necessary. 
 

It can be, of course, an old trick to flatten the grass behind the ball. . I played with and against club pros in what we call over here “ Winter Alliances “. My pro partner showed me all the moves made by the opposition.

 

What we have here is a probable Ryder Cup qualifier using dodgy technique. It’s clearly a random event if the ball moves or not. The ET should be onto this. 

 

I think you might want to move past-it.

[Colin L]

6 hours ago, Pastit said:

I believe a large majority of tour pros make this dodgy move in similar situations. It’s taking a chance and not on, nor is it necessary. 
 

It can be, of course, an old trick to flatten the grass behind the ball. . I played with and against club pros in what we call over here “ Winter Alliances “. My pro partner showed me all the moves made by the opposition.

 

What we have here is a probable Ryder Cup qualifier using dodgy technique. It’s clearly a random event if the ball moves or not. The ET should be onto this. 

What we have here is armchair defamation.  You should be more careful what you say.

[MikeyGSki]

Clearly he put club behind ball too close and improved his grass base to erase grass in the way for hybrid putt (he  shoud hover club farther back and I think chipping wih love wedge or sand wedge or putt it hybrid

 

Like this looked totally stupid like Mr Bean if you saw this in a major Paul azinger Faldo Nantz woulda been all over it analyzing maybe oscillate safe (depends on committee)

but dont improve hit zone like for grassy putt shot). 1 shot penalty improving lie and 1 for moving 

Edited September 19, 2022 by MikeyGSki

[Pastit]

14 minutes ago, Colin L said:

What we have here is armchair defamation.  You should be more careful what you say.

Sorry to say this but I think it’s you who should be more careful. I’ve brand new glasses and know what I saw here and over the years from actual play in my groups of pros.
 

As others state above, it’s rather stupid to prejudice a title for a risky approach to this type of shot. The play is to hover the club and not sole it. 

[golfortennis]

28 minutes ago, MikeyGSki said:

Clearly he put club behind ball too close and improved his grass base to erase grass in the way for hybrid putt (he  shoud hover club farther back and I think chipping wih love wedge or sand wedge or putt it hybrid

Like this looked totally stupid like Mr Bean if you saw this in a major Paul azinger Faldo Nantz woulda been all over it analyzing maybe oscillate safe (depends on committee)

but dont improve hit zone like for grassy putt shot). 1 shot penalty improving lie and 1 for moving 

 

Ball returns to its original position to my eye.

[GingerBubba]

Hasn't moved for me. And that's even with zoomed in TV footage.

[MikeyGSki]

like if that's legal you do it all the time it just ruins the integrity of the game. legal means do this every chip then I'd call that personn a cheat 

[MikeyGSki]

I think it didn't return 100% to original position (too miniscule a move) it moved more out than it did back in however if you were to replace it I don't see how because it's already pretty much in same place anyway. he won in playoff great game nobody better than him especially in the playoff he proved it

[Mr. Bean]

2 hours ago, golfortennis said:

 

Ball returns to its original position to my eye.

 

I agree 100%.

[nsxguy]

4 hours ago, MikeyGSki said:

Clearly he put club behind ball too close and improved his grass base to erase grass in the way for hybrid putt (he  shoud hover club farther back and I think chipping wih love wedge or sand wedge or putt it hybrid

Like this looked totally stupid like Mr Bean if you saw this in a major Paul azinger Faldo Nantz woulda been all over it analyzing maybe oscillate safe (depends on committee)

but dont improve hit zone like for grassy putt shot). 1 shot penalty improving lie and 1 for moving 

 

Firstly, your video never shows the grass behind the ball BEFORE he placed the hybrid there.

 

Grass behind the ball pressed on lightly generally returns to its previous height.

 

There are other rules against improving the conditions affecting the stroke that would include (obviously ?) improving access to the back of the ball.

 

Secondly, the ball oscillated and therefor did NOT move according to the definition I posted earlier.

 

This is a classic example of the definition posted.

 

All that said, if it were me, I wouldn't sole the club behind the ball as this player did to avoid such an issue. Obviously he thought differently.

[Augster]

That video? Oscillating at best. I certainly can’t tell if it moved as per the rules. If he’s looking at the target, he wouldn’t even see it oscillate. 
 

Moreover, there aren’t any markings on the ball that the player would clearly see it moved. 
 

Much ado about nothing IMO. 

[Newby]

"...    this can be seen by the naked eye ...." 

 

Could it?

[oz dee cee]

I’m in the camp that it’s up to him to determine. And based on that footage if he did see it move back into its original spot, I have no issue with it. 
Secondly, do we have a shot at Bobs head at the time, he may have been looking elsewhere so was none the wiser. 
 

I do also agree they should not put their clubs so close to the ball as it changes the grass behind. 
 

so…. Play on? 🤷‍♂️😬

[rogolf]

30 minutes ago, oz dee cee said:

I’m in the camp that it’s up to him to determine. And based on that footage if he did see it move back into its original spot, I have no issue with it. 
Secondly, do we have a shot at Bobs head at the time, he may have been looking elsewhere so was none the wiser. 
 

I do also agree they should not put their clubs so close to the ball as it changes the grass behind. 
 

so…. Play on? 🤷‍♂️😬

Just to clarify from a Rules perspective - the ruling wouldn't be based on whether the player saw it or not, ie, it's not the player's "naked eye" that matters, it's whether the movement could be seen by "the naked eye" versus TV or digital close-up.  It would be up to the Committee to decide based on the evidence that they have or can collect.

Edited September 20, 2022 by rogolf

[oz dee cee]

28 minutes ago, rogolf said:

Just to clarify from a Rules perspective - the ruling wouldn't be based on whether the player saw it or not, ie, it's not the player's "naked eye" that matters, it's whether the movement could be seen by "the naked eye" versus TV or digital close-up.  It would be up to the Committee to decide based on the evidence that they have or can collect.

Oh thanks. I’m hopeless with rules. What happens if it’s not on TV? 
If we were playing and I say it went back and you said it did not, what happens then? 

[antip]

5 hours ago, oz dee cee said:

Oh thanks. I’m hopeless with rules. What happens if it’s not on TV? 
If we were playing and I say it went back and you said it did not, what happens then? 

The Ruling Bodies have provided guidance on this - Committee Procedures 6C(7):

 

(7) How to Resolve Questions of Fact

Resolving questions of fact is among the most difficult actions required of a referee or the Committee.

·         In all situations involving questions of fact, resolution of the doubt should be made in light of all the relevant circumstances and evaluation of the weight of the evidence, including the balance of probabilities where applicable. When the Committee is unable to determine the facts to its satisfaction, it should treat the situation in a way that is reasonable, fair and consistent with how similar situations are treated under the Rules.

·         Testimony of the players involved is important and should be given due consideration.

·         In some situations where the facts are not decisive, the doubt should be resolved in favour of the player whose ball is involved.

·         In others, the doubt should be resolved against the player whose ball is involved.

·         There is no set process for evaluating the testimony of the players or for assigning the weight to be given to such testimony and each situation should be treated on its own merits. The proper action depends on the circumstances in each case and should be left to the judgment of the referee, or the Committee.

·         When a player has been required to determine a spot, point, line, area or location under the Rules, the Committee should determine if the player used reasonable judgment in doing so. If so that decision will be accepted even if, after the stroke is made, the determination is shown to be wrong (see Rule 1.3b(2)).

·         Testimony of those who are not a part of the competition, including spectators, should be considered and evaluated. It is also appropriate to use television footage and the like to assist in resolving doubt, although the naked eye standard should be applied when using such evidence (see Rule 20.2c).

·         It is important that any questions of fact be resolved in a timely manner such that the competition may proceed in an orderly way. Thus, the referee may be limited to evaluating the evidence available to him or her in a timely manner. Any such ruling may be further reviewed by the referee, or the Committee if additional evidence becomes available after the initial ruling.

If a judgment is made by a referee, the player is entitled to proceed on the basis of that ruling whether it is an interpretation of the Rules of Golf or a resolution of a question of fact. In situations arising in both circumstances, if the ruling is found to be incorrect, the Committee may have the authority to make a correction (see Rule 20.2d and Section 6C(10) or 6C(11)). However, in all circumstances, including both match play and stroke play, the referee or Committee is limited in its ability to make corrections by the guidance contained in Rule 20.2d.

Where there is a question relating to the Rules where it is one player’s word against another’s and the weight of evidence does not favour either player, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the player who made the stroke or whose score is involved.

[dmecca2]

You are allowed to ground your club behind the ball. The ball returns back to its original position. Stop this ridiculousness

[Golferpaul]

On 9/19/2022 at 2:40 PM, golfortennis said:

 

Ball returns to its original position to my eye.

Correct.  No penalty.