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

[beck]

I am confused about the ruling Nelly got yesterday at the Seri Park Tournament. I don't remember the hole but as Nelly was addressing the ball her ball moved. I don't think she caused the ball to move and therefore it would have been natural forces that caused the ball to move. My understanding was that if natural forces caused the ball to move you played it from its new position yet the rules official ruled that she could replace the ball. She then proceeded to chip in for an eagle. Where am I going wrong? 

[PedronNiall]

The only thing I could gather was that it was because it apparently moved via the wind, but rolled back into her club on its way down the hill. Couldn't find anything specific in the rules for that, and normally on the green is the only time I saw that it should be replaced and not played where it comes to rest. 

 

There's no penalty for accidentally causing it to move when applying other rules, or for most actions when actually on the green, but unsure how any other cases would apply for her situation. 

[st1800e]

Posting in the rules forum will get you more “looks”.  And potential correct answers.  

[Argonne69]

I think they messed up. Rule 9-3 (Ball Moved by Natural Forces) states that a ball that is moved by natural forces must be played from the new spot with no penalty. The exception is when the ball is on the putting surface. Since her ball was off the green, it should have been played in its new spot with no penalty.

 

Edited March 23 by Argonne69

[ChronicSlicer]

So if she goes on to win, will she officially be a cheater?

[Argonne69]

41 minutes ago, ChronicSlicer said:

So if she goes on to win, will she officially be a cheater?

 

I think the majority of the fault lies with the rules official. No reason why an official shouldn't know the rule at this point. 

 

[PedronNiall]

2 hours ago, ChronicSlicer said:

So if she goes on to win, will she officially be a cheater?

She certainly didn't cheat. What I don't know is the way, if any, situations are handled when a player takes an incorrect action after being directly advised by officials. If there's policy I'd imagine it's no penalty. Otherwise I'd assume it's like Tiger's issue at Augusta a few years ago where a penalty was assessed after the fact; not the same situation, but one in which the card had been signed and the officials later assessed a penalty. AFAIK it doesn't matter what someone tells you, only what the reality of the rule is, hence players even being DQ'd for riding on carts when they were offered by people they assumed knew what they were doing. 

 

Wish the LPGA coverage had someone on hand as PGA coverage does to discuss things like that in the moment. Still unclear where they came up with that ruling. 

[ChronicSlicer]

11 hours ago, Argonne69 said:

 

I think the majority of the fault lies with the rules official. No reason why an official shouldn't know the rule at this point. 

 

Agreed, it would be a mental overload for the player to actually know the rules to the very sport they play, they have enough going on already with knowing yardage, wind, pin placement, green contours, club selection.  Oh wait..someone does all that and more for them 😉

 

While I know golf has what I believe is an over complicated set of rules, as we've talked before, I do feel the players should have a little better grasp on some of the more common rulings. Perhaps a nice memo every year could be put out listing the top 10 reasons a rules official was called in and what the proper solution was for said question. Maybe have the list embroidered on all caddy bibs 😁

[ChronicSlicer]

9 hours ago, PedronNiall said:

She certainly didn't cheat. 

If she knew 100%, the rules official was wrong and played the shot anyway, giving her an advantage I'd say that would be cheating. But, I assume she genuinely just doesn't know the rules.

[Dpavs]

13 hours ago, Argonne69 said:

I think they messed up. Rule 9-3 (Ball Moved by Natural Forces) states that a ball that is moved by natural forces must be played from the new spot with no penalty. The exception is when the ball is on the putting surface. Since her ball was off the green, it should have been played in its new spot with no penalty.

 

 

I think there are two things to add regarding this. The exception regarding a ball on the green only applies if the ball has been lifted, marked and replaced by the player prior to it's moving, otherwise it is played from the new position like anywhere else on the course. There is a second exception for playing it from the new position when moved by natural forces and that is when relief was taken prior to the ball moving either by drop or by placing the ball pursuant to the rules.

 

[Argonne69]

42 minutes ago, Dpavs said:

 

I think there are two things to add regarding this. The exception regarding a ball on the green only applies if the ball has been lifted, marked and replaced by the player prior to it's moving, otherwise it is played from the new position like anywhere else on the course. There is a second exception for playing it from the new position when moved by natural forces and that is when relief was taken prior to the ball moving either by drop or by placing the ball pursuant to the rules.

 

 

Prior to the rule change, Rickie Fowler was bit at the Waste Management when he took a penalty drop near a PA, and then the ball rolled down the bank and back into the PA before he could play his shot. 

 

[Dpavs]

1 minute ago, Argonne69 said:

 

Prior to the rule change, Rickie Fowler was bit at the Waste Management when he took a penalty drop near a PA, and then the ball rolled down the bank and back into the PA before he could play his shot. 

 

 

I remember that. I think that is one of the reasons they changed the rule.

[lchang]

Didn't see this discussed anywhere, and I didn't understand it. Korda was at her ball greenside for her 3rd shot. She said she hovered her wedge behind the ball and looked at the hole. When she looked back down, the ball had rolled a few inches downhill and was resting against her clubface. She moved her club out of the way and the ball rolled a few yards downhill (farther from the hole). Rules officials told her to replace the ball to its original location (or where it hit her club?). Can someone explain the ruling?

 

Incidentally, she holed out the ensuing chip for an eagle!

[antip]

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)).

[lchang]

6 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)).

Ah, thanks. Makes sense. Good thing her club was there as she was evaluating the shot. Otherwise, she would have been hitting her third from a few yards down the hill, maybe wouldn’t have made eagle, and maybe doesn’t make the playoff and win?!  

[Argonne69]

Very interesting. Didn't realize that a club in hand is considered a moveable obstruction. I would have thought that a club laying on the ground would be considered a MO, but not one in hand. Is there a definition of a moveable obstruction, or a ruling that clearly states that a grounded club behind the ball is a MO?

 

I'm almost certain that Nelly didn't intend to stop the ball from rolling down the hill, but this situation is surely ripe for abuse.  A player arrives at their ball that's sitting on a downslope off the green. Unable to mark it, but knowing that there's a very good chance that the the ball roll down the hill, they quickly grab a club and address the ball. If the club sitting behind the ball stops it, lucky break. Hmmm.

 

Edited March 25 by Argonne69

[Newby]

7 minutes ago, Argonne69 said:

Very interesting. Didn't realize that a club in hand is considered a moveable obstruction. I would have thought that a club laying on the ground would be considered a MO, but not one in hand. Is there a definition of a moveable obstruction, or a ruling that clearly states that a grounded club behind the ball is a MO?

 

Obstruction

Any artificial object except for integral objects and boundary objects.

Examples of obstructions:

    Player equipment, flagsticks and rakes.

 

Movable Obstruction

An obstruction that can be moved with reasonable effort and without damaging the obstruction or the course.

Edited March 25 by Newby

[Argonne69]

Just now, Newby said:

Obstruction

Any artificial object except for integral objects and boundary objects.

Examples of obstructions:

    Player equipment, flagsticks and rakes.

 

Movable Obstruction

An obstruction that can be moved with reasonable effort and without damaging the obstruction or the course.

 

Doesn't say clearly that the club must be out of hand. 

 

[Newby]

Just now, Argonne69 said:

 

Doesn't say clearly that the club must be out of hand. 

 

Why would it have to? It doesn't make any difference.

[GoGoErky]

3 minutes ago, Argonne69 said:

 

Doesn't say clearly that the club must be out of hand. 

 

It can be moved with reasonable effort and doesn’t damage the course whether in hand or laying on the ground. Doesn’t need to specify in hand or not 

[Argonne69]

45 minutes ago, Newby said:

Why would it have to? It doesn't make any difference.

 

So am I allowed to walk up to my ball on a downslope and lay a club on the ground behind the ball with the intention of preventing it from rolling away?

 

Since there is no longer a penalty for a ball hitting one's equipment, it sure seems ripe for abuse.

 

Edit: Looks like clarification 11.2a/1 covers the case where a player deliberately places equipment in a position that could be beneficial, but that doesn't seem to cover a club in hand when addressing the ball. Seems to be a big 'ol loophole.

 

Since the rule changed regarding balls moving on the green after being marked and replaced, we've seen plenty of players rush up to mark a ball on the green to secure a spot. 

 

Seems like the wise thing to do now when a ball is off the green and at risk of rolling down a hill would be to grab a club and address the ball. In many cases I'd rather guarantee a spot near the putting surface even if it meant not getting a read on the green vs. playing the ball well below the green after watching the ball roll down a hill. 

 

Edited March 25 by Argonne69

[GoGoErky]

45 minutes ago, Argonne69 said:

 

So am I allowed to walk up to my ball on a downslope and lay a club on the ground behind the ball with the intention of preventing it from rolling away?

 

Since there is no longer a penalty for a ball hitting one's equipment, it sure seems ripe for abuse.

 

Edit: Looks like clarification 11.2a/1 covers the case where a player deliberately places equipment in a position that could be beneficial, but that doesn't seem to cover a club in hand when addressing the ball. Seems to be a big 'ol loophole.

 

It’s not a loophole. The ball moved by outside forces and therefore there was not penalty. Even if her club wasn’t there she would ha just picked up the ball from wherever it rolled to and put it back to where it was originally. The difference here is her club wasn’t being used to prevent a ball from rolling away per the rule you mentioned. The club in her case wasn’t beneficial to her. 

 

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

It’s not a loophole. The ball moved by outside forces and therefore there was not penalty. Even if her club wasn’t there she would ha just picked up the ball from wherever it rolled to and put it back to where it was originally. The difference here is her club wasn’t being used to prevent a ball from rolling away per the rule you mentioned. The club in her case wasn’t beneficial to her. 

 

If it moved by outside forces she'd play it from the new spot. That it stopped against a movable obstruction is why she put it back there, not the original spot.

 

https://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-clarifications/rules-and-clarifications.html#!ruletype=fr&section=rule&rulenum=9&subrulenum=3

[Argonne69]

9 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

It’s not a loophole. The ball moved by outside forces and therefore there was not penalty. Even if her club wasn’t there she would ha just picked up the ball from wherever it rolled to and put it back to where it was originally. The difference here is her club wasn’t being used to prevent a ball from rolling away per the rule you mentioned. The club in her case wasn’t beneficial to her. 

 

 

That's not correct. If her ball is off the green, she'd be required to play the ball from it's new spot (Rule 9.3 - There is no penalty, and the ball must be played from its new spot.) The ball could have rolled down the hill. The ball was moved by an outside force, not an outside agency. 

 

Edited March 25 by Argonne69

[Newby]

1 hour ago, Argonne69 said:

 

So am I allowed to walk up to my ball on a downslope and lay a club on the ground behind the ball with the intention of preventing it from rolling away?

 

a. When Rule 11.2 Applies

This Rule applies only when it is known or virtually certain that a player’s ball in motion was deliberately deflected or stopped by a person, which is when:

• The ball in motion hits any equipment ....... before the ball was played or otherwise went into motion) ..... that a player deliberately positioned or left in a particular location so that the equipment, ..... might deflect or stop the ball in motion.

[GoGoErky]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

 

If it moved by outside forces she'd play it from the new spot. That it stopped against a movable obstruction is why she put it back there, not the original spot.

 

https://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-clarifications/rules-and-clarifications.html#!ruletype=fr&section=rule&rulenum=9&subrulenum=3

Agree. I was tying in between sets at the gym and left that part out 

[antip]

2 hours ago, GoGoErky said:

It’s not a loophole. The ball moved by outside forces and therefore there was not penalty. Even if her club wasn’t there she would ha just picked up the ball from wherever it rolled to and put it back to where it was originally. The difference here is her club wasn’t being used to prevent a ball from rolling away per the rule you mentioned. The club in her case wasn’t beneficial to her. 

 

The language is 'natural forces' or 'outside influence'. And there is no outside influence in the initial scenario of the ball moving from where it came to rest near the green, there are only two possibilities. 1. Player action of grounding club caused the ball to move. If so, player gets penalty and replaces ball. 2. Natural forces moved ball. If so, ball is played from where it now lies (unless the special circumstances of 9.3 Exception 2 apply).

Edited March 25 by antip

[antip]

2 hours ago, Argonne69 said:

 

 

Seems like the wise thing to do now when a ball is off the green and at risk of rolling down a hill would be to grab a club and address the ball. In many cases I'd rather guarantee a spot near the putting surface even if it meant not getting a read on the green vs. playing the ball well below the green after watching the ball roll down a hill. 

 

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. 

[AKL Kiwi]

On 3/24/2024 at 11:37 AM, Argonne69 said:

I think they messed up. Rule 9-3 (Ball Moved by Natural Forces) states that a ball that is moved by natural forces must be played from the new spot with no penalty. The exception is when the ball is on the putting surface. Since her ball was off the green, it should have been played in its new spot with no penalty.

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.... 

Edited March 26 by AKL Kiwi

[Augster]

I have zero idea how this could possibly be abused.