Nelly Korda on Friday at the 14th hole; rule on replacing the ball

[PedronNiall]

17 hours ago, antip said:

RO considered the ball was moved by natural forces (there wasn't KVC the player caused the movement), so no penalty (see 9.2/9.3). Ball was than at rest against the club, a movable obstruction. When club was moved, ball moved and needed to be replaced where it was at rest against the club (see 15.2a(1)).

 

I'm confused as to how the ball was at rest against a moveable obstruction. She stated that she placed her club somewhere near the ball--perhaps even hovering it IIRC--and the ball began to move while she was looking at the hole. She felt/heard it hit the club, and the ball continued onward from there, ending up well below the original spot. Nothing about what she explained to the official or what the official relayed back to another indicated that the ball was resting against her club and then began to move when she moved the club.

 

I'm not sure how one would make the claim that somehow in addressing it she simply rested the club against the ball and then it set off on a journey when the club was removed as that would be a different issue.

 

 

" As a final example, if you accidentally touch your ball with your club in getting ready for a stroke and that causes your ball to move, that will also be a one-stroke penalty."

 

What would the scenario be where a ball at rest comes to be considered at rest a second time against the player's club and there is both no penalty and the player is allowed to play the ball from the original spot rather than where it comes to rest?

 

Genuinely trying to understand what's being claimed here.

[Mr. Bean]

I cannot see what is unclear. A ball started to move due to gravity and is accidentally stopped by the player's club. Once the player lifts that club the ball starts to move again. That club is a movable obstruction, and if a ball moves when a MO is removed the ball is to be replaced.

[antip]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

I cannot see what is unclear. A ball started to move due to gravity and is accidentally stopped by the player's club. Once the player lifts that club the ball starts to move again. That club is a movable obstruction, and if a ball moves when a MO is removed the ball is to be replaced.

Yes. One step at a time: ball was at rest; player comes along and takes stance, club a bit behind the ball; ball moves due to natural forces (RO's ruling) and comes to rest against the club; player moves club and ball rolls further away. Complete ruling: ball needs to be replaced where it came to rest against the club, no penalty to player. Applicable rules are 9.3 and 15.2a(1).

[Dpavs]

20 hours ago, AKL Kiwi said:

That is what I also thought was the correct rule and what should have happened. Nelly was completely honest to the rules official....as any player would knowing the cameras were thereabouts....on the audio Nelly said she did not see the ball move but had her club grounded behind it as she glanced back up on to the green then felt the ball contacting her club. She then pulled her club away and the ball continued to move down a slope away from the green. You could also argue it was possible the club moving the grass that caused the ball to move which to me was just as likely from it's position in the short cut off the green on a severe slope as the wind blowing it away. It's not like she was taking practice swings away from the ball when it moved. I did see there was some heated discussion between the other players in the group with Nelly but then not with the official. Intimidated?

As we now know this decision has had huge ramifications on the result, world rankings, LPGA stats and points.... 

 

 

Given this, unless I am missing something, it does sound like the rules official misinterpreted or misapplied the rules... perhaps one of the following..

 

9.4  Ball Lifted or Moved by Player
b. Penalty for Lifting or Deliberately Touching Ball or Causing It to Move

 

Exception 4 – Accidental Movement Anywhere Except on Putting Green While Applying Rule: There is no penalty when the player accidentally causes the ball to move anywhere except on the putting green while taking reasonable actions to:

 

    Mark the spot of the ball or lift or replace the ball, when allowed to do so (see Rules 14.1 and 14.2),

    Remove a movable obstruction (see Rule 15.2),

    Restore worsened conditions, when allowed to do so (see Rule 8.1d),

    Take relief under a Rule, including in determining whether relief is available under a Rule (such as swinging a club to see if there is interference from a condition), or where to take relief (such as determining the nearest point of complete relief), or

    Measure under a Rule (such as to decide the order of play under Rule 6.4).

 

Exception 5 – Ball Moves After Coming to Rest Against Player or Equipment: There is no penalty if, after the player’s ball comes to rest against the player or their equipment as a result of a stroke (Rule 11.1) or dropping the ball (Rule 14.3c(1)), the player causes the ball to move when they move or when they remove their equipment.

 

Note* If this is the rule relied on it would have been a mistake under either Exception 4 or 5 as there was no drop of the ball so none of the conditions in Exception 4 or 5 were met or applicable.

 

9.6  Ball Lifted or Moved by Outside Influence

If it is known or virtually certain that an outside influence lifted or moved your ball there is no penalty. The ball must be replaced on its original spot (which if not known must be estimated).

 

Note* Outside influence includes-
Any natural or artificial object or anything else (including another ball in motion), except for natural forces...

 

So if they relied on 9.6 it would also have been a mistake as it should have been determined that the movement was not caused by an outside influence.

 

Edited March 26 by Dpavs

[Argonne69]

12 hours ago, antip said:

Be careful here. Rushing up and grounding your club in case the ball moves is a fraught process. There must be an assessment of why the ball moved, if the cause is the player's actions then the player gets a penalty. For example, if there is no timing separation between the grounding process and the ball moving, or simply touching the club into the vegetation and the ball moving, there is highly likely to be a penalty situation.

 

Knowledge or Virtual Certainty/1 expands on these themes and identifies other factors that could be critical. For example, if the ball is on a precarious slope, ANY grounding of the club close to the ball is likely to cause the ball to move. While lightly grounding the club and having that result in improved CATS is not a penalty, lightly grounding the club resulting in the ball moving is a penalty. 

 

I guess hovering the club a half inch above the ground, and two inches behind the ball the would be the better option then, as it would be virtually certain that the action didn't cause the ball to move. I never ground my club behind the ball if there's even a remote chance of the ball moving.

 

[Argonne69]

There's a discussion going on in the rules section. Apparently Nelly's club is a moveable obstruction. When the ball started rolling due to natural forces, it would have been played where it stopped. In this case it stopped when it hit her club, a moveable obstruction. Similar to a ball being stopped by a rake. 

 

Now, when the club was removed the ball started moving again. In this case one is required to return the ball to its original spot prior to moving the moveable obstruction. Thus, she was allowed to place the ball in the spot where it came to rest against her club.

 

My confusion was that I wasn't aware that a club in hand is considered a moveable obstruction, even if one is addressing the ball. Prior to the last rules revision, a ball hitting a player or their equipment resulted in a penalty stroke. Now there's no penalty.

 

[Seamus_McDuff]

25 minutes ago, Argonne69 said:

There's a discussion going on in the rules section. Apparently Nelly's club is a moveable obstruction. When the ball started rolling due to natural forces, it would have been played where it stopped. In this case it stopped when it hit her club, a moveable obstruction. Similar to a ball being stopped by a rake. 

 

Now, when the club was removed the ball started moving again. In this case one is required to return the ball to its original spot prior to moving the moveable obstruction. Thus, she was allowed to place the ball in the spot where it came to rest against her club.

 

My confusion was that I wasn't aware that a club in hand is considered a moveable obstruction, even if one is addressing the ball. Prior to the last rules revision, a ball hitting a player or their equipment resulted in a penalty stroke. Now there's no penalty.

 

This

 

I watched it again and Nelly says she initially grounded her club but then switched to hovering the club and that’s when the ball moved. The official has her place the ball not where it originally was but where it was when it came to a stop against her club. 
 

Also, there was no “heated discussion” with her playing partners. 

[Hawkeye77]

50 minutes ago, Argonne69 said:

 

I guess hovering the club a half inch above the ground, and two inches behind the ball the would be the better option then, as it would be virtually certain that the action didn't cause the ball to move. I never ground my club behind the ball if there's even a remote chance of the ball moving.

 

Same here.

 

This comes up with pros more often than it should, IMO, but the rules are the rules and sometimes the ruling and the "optics" (depending on point of view) don't match up.  

 

I'd never thought about a club being a movable obstruction and would have thought a ball rolling into your club you are holding would be fraught with peril --- but learned something in this thread!

[Colin L]

No peril in your ball hitting you or  a club or any other object in your equipment whether in your hand or your bag or lying on the ground:

If a player’s ball in motion accidentally hits any person (including the player) or outside influence:

There is no penalty to any player.

This is true even if the ball hits the player, the opponent or any other player or any of their caddies or equipment.

[11.1a]

 

But beware the exception in stroke play of your ball in motion, played from the green, striking another ball lying on the green.

Edited March 26 by Colin L

[AKL Kiwi]

My take on this is as there is no video evidence of exactly what happened or what caused the ball to move the RO should have discussed it with the other players in the group and if they could not support Nelly's evidence the ruling should have been made to play the ball from where it eventually came to rest with no penalty.  

Edited March 27 by AKL Kiwi

[Newby]

1 hour ago, AKL Kiwi said:

 ... the ruling ....

By whom?

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, AKL Kiwi said:

My take on this is as there is no video evidence of exactly what happened or what caused the ball to move the MO should have discussed it with the other players in the group and if they could not support Nelly's evidence the ruling should have been made to play the ball from where it eventually came to rest with no penalty.  

 

You have never acted as a referee, I can only assume.

[PedronNiall]

20 hours ago, antip said:

Yes. One step at a time: ball was at rest; player comes along and takes stance, club a bit behind the ball; ball moves due to natural forces (RO's ruling) and comes to rest against the club; player moves club and ball rolls further away. Complete ruling: ball needs to be replaced where it came to rest against the club, no penalty to player. Applicable rules are 9.3 and 15.2a(1).

 

I suppose the biggest issue is that I don't recall her recounting it that way, that the ball moved, was at rest against her club, she was so shocked in the moment that she proceeded to move her club out of the way(?), then it rolled further down the hill. As I recall it she said she was looking up and felt it hit her club and continue its journey down the hill, hence her looking around puzzled as she did. She relayed that to the official, who then relayed the same to another.

 

If I'm recalling incorrectly, my bad. The entire thing was the fastest I've seen a situation like that resolved and seems very odd that they just moved along without discussing it at all. Given the mention elsewhere of the other players in her group questioning what went on it seems like it would have been worth a clear explanation. At least some of the announcers were uncertain as to why the ball was replaced as well.

 

The norm on the PGA is to have an official explain the ruling as well so it's clear to viewers what happened and made aware of how to proceed should it happen in their own play.

[antip]

28 minutes ago, PedronNiall said:

 

I suppose the biggest issue is that I don't recall her recounting it that way, that the ball moved, was at rest against her club, she was so shocked in the moment that she proceeded to move her club out of the way(?), then it rolled further down the hill. As I recall it she said she was looking up and felt it hit her club and continue its journey down the hill, hence her looking around puzzled as she did. She relayed that to the official, who then relayed the same to another.

 

If I'm recalling incorrectly, my bad. The entire thing was the fastest I've seen a situation like that resolved and seems very odd that they just moved along without discussing it at all. Given the mention elsewhere of the other players in her group questioning what went on it seems like it would have been worth a clear explanation. At least some of the announcers were uncertain as to why the ball was replaced as well.

 

The norm on the PGA is to have an official explain the ruling as well so it's clear to viewers what happened and made aware of how to proceed should it happen in their own play.

We only know for sure that the RO believed/judged/accepted that the KVC standard that the player caused the initial movement was not met. And the consequence is the rest is a simple mechanical application of the Rules.

The question you seem to be asking is why did the RO come to that judgment. Not much point in me speculating about that, it is one for the RO to be comfortable with.

 

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, PedronNiall said:

The norm on the PGA is to have an official explain the ruling as well so it's clear to viewers what happened and made aware of how to proceed should it happen in their own play.

 

So far I have not yet seen or heard a referee explaining any ruling for the tv spectators. All I hear are the commentators offering their views on the subjects and those views are way too often incorrect. It would be great to have a comment from a true professional referee but, as I said, have not seen it happen yet.

[rogolf]

39 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

So far I have not yet seen or heard a referee explaining any ruling for the tv spectators. All I hear are the commentators offering their views on the subjects and those views are way too often incorrect. It would be great to have a comment from a true professional referee but, as I said, have not seen it happen yet.

It is regular on US television of PGA Tour events. It’s usually Mark Dusbabek, the Senior PGA Tour Rules official. He’s very good, and personable. 

[PedronNiall]

36 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

So far I have not yet seen or heard a referee explaining any ruling for the tv spectators. All I hear are the commentators offering their views on the subjects and those views are way too often incorrect. It would be great to have a comment from a true professional referee but, as I said, have not seen it happen yet.

 

Guessing you're referring to the ladies tours in those instances? On both the PGA & DP broadcasts they'll discuss rulings, at length in more complex cases, and at least on the PGA they have a dedicated rules official in Dusbabek/Pope that they have go in depth on anything that's not cut and dry. One or the other are on site for about 30 weeks of the year.

 

In fact, the PGA will apparently have a full-time rules hub starting in 2025. As of now, pretty much anything that could be a concern is already looked at, including with the use of playback when needed/possible, such as figuring out where a ball actually crossed a hazard. A lot more insightful for anyone watching than just breezing through more complex situations.

 

You can read the details in this GD article if you're interested.

 

Heck, maybe it just happens the official called over the radio at the Fir Hills event was familiar with what was quoted to him. Simply would have been nice for a better job of communicating the ruling to be done.

[Mr. Bean]

12 minutes ago, rogolf said:

It is regular on US television of PGA Tour events. It’s usually Mark Dusbabek, the Senior PGA Tour Rules official. He’s very good, and personable. 

 

Interesting. Apparently the broadcasts we have here are different from yours. Good for you guys!

[AKL Kiwi]

At stake there was possibly the #1 Rolex world ranking, US$300,000.00, all the classes of LPGA points...nothing to worry about! 😂. All I'm saying is in the absence of any video or confirmed evidence of what happened the RO should have made Nelly play it from where it finished up especially when even Nelly did not see exactly what happened and she just made a presumption!  

[rogolf]

33 minutes ago, AKL Kiwi said:

At stake there was possibly the #1 Rolex world ranking, US$300,000.00, all the classes of LPGA points...nothing to worry about! 😂. All I'm saying is in the absence of any video or confirmed evidence of what happened the RO should have made Nelly play it from where it finished up especially when even Nelly did not see exactly what happened and she just made a presumption!  

All of the preamble about world ranking and $$ is totally irrelevant.  The credo of a Rules official is to "get it right" and they are very well trained and experienced to do so. 

What are your credentials to make a ruling from watching TV?

Edited March 27 by rogolf

[antip]

59 minutes ago, AKL Kiwi said:

 All I'm saying is in the absence of any video or confirmed evidence of what happened the RO should have made Nelly play it from where it finished up especially when even Nelly did not see exactly what happened and she just made a presumption!  

This misunderstands the rules. If a ball moved by natural forces comes to rest against any movable obstruction (including player equipment), it owns that spot. There is no circumstance that requires the ball to be played from wherever it rolls to if it moves because the obstruction is moved.  

[antip]

3 hours ago, AKL Kiwi said:

At stake there was possibly the #1 Rolex world ranking, US$300,000.00, all the classes of LPGA points...nothing to worry about! 😂. All I'm saying is in the absence of any video or confirmed evidence of what happened the RO should have made Nelly play it from where it finished up especially when even Nelly did not see exactly what happened and she just made a presumption!  

You emoji-ed confusion on my respnse to this post. What is the source of your confusion? What rule do you think supports the observation you make in the final sentence above?

[Argonne69]

8 hours ago, AKL Kiwi said:

At stake there was possibly the #1 Rolex world ranking, US$300,000.00, all the classes of LPGA points...nothing to worry about! 😂. All I'm saying is in the absence of any video or confirmed evidence of what happened the RO should have made Nelly play it from where it finished up especially when even Nelly did not see exactly what happened and she just made a presumption!  

 

99% of all rulings made on the course are made without video evidence. There just aren't that many cameras.

 

I have to believe that the RO listened to Nelly's description of the events, and made the call. She said that she grounded the club behind the ball, and looked up at the green. When she looked down the ball was touching her club and she lifted it. For a brief moment the ball must have come to rest against the club face given that she had the club grounded. 

 

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, Argonne69 said:

 

99% of all rulings made on the course are made without video evidence. There just aren't that many cameras.

 

I have to believe that the RO listened to Nelly's description of the events, and made the call. She said that she grounded the club behind the ball, and looked up at the green. When she looked down the ball was touching her club and she lifted it. For a brief moment the ball must have come to rest against the club face given that she had the club grounded. 

 

 

Exactly.

 

Referees decide on their rulings based on all available facts, emphasis on words "facts" and "available". It makes absolutely no sense to stop the entire field for one single ruling.

 

What the referee COULD  have made is to have Korda play two balls and look for the ruling afterwards from tv broadcasts or whatever but it seems that this particular referee was satisfied with Korda's (and maybe other persons' view, we do not know) description on the case and gave their ruling. This is how it works and afaik there was no protesting by the other players of her group, only some posters on WRX... 😁

 

 

Edited March 27 by Mr. Bean
typo

[Seamus_McDuff]

On 3/26/2024 at 7:25 PM, PedronNiall said:

other players in her group questioning what went on

 

At least some of the announcers were uncertain as to why the ball was replaced as well.

 

Neither of those things happened