Ball moved during backswing.

[delc]

Putting on a very slick fast green today, I had my ball move slightly after I started my backswing on a putt. I did not do anything that would have caused the ball to move. I continued with my stroke as I thought that you would not be penalised, but having read the definition of a stroke I am now not so sure, as it is defined as a forward movement of the club with the intention of striking and moving the ball. So is the backswing considered to be part of the stroke if you can't reasonably stop it?

 

[rulie]

Putting on a very slick fast green today, I had my ball move slightly after I started my backswing on a putt. I did not do anything that would have caused the ball to move. I continued with my stroke as I thought that you would not be penalised, but having read the definition of a stroke I am now not so sure, as it is defined as a forward movement of the club with the intention of striking and moving the ball. So is the backswing considered to be part of the stroke if you can't reasonably stop it?

Also read Rule 14-5, Playing a Moving Ball. It clarifies the situation regarding the backswing.

If you didn't cause the ball to move, why did it move?

 

[delc]

Also read Rule 14-5, Playing a Moving Ball. It clarifies the situation regarding the backswing.

If you didn't cause the ball to move, why did it move?

So I was right in thinking that I should not be penalised in this circumstance then? I definitely did not touch the ball at address, stamp my feet, or do anything else that would have caused the ball to move. As I said, it was a very fast and slick green and there was a bit of a gusty wind this morning, so that was the most likely explanation for the movement. I realise that under the old rule 18-2b I would be presumed to be guilty unless proven innocent, but fortunately that rule no longer applies.

 

[Beezerk]

What about ball moving after being addressed ie Lowry and DJ the other month? Is that applicable here?

 

[Colin L]

So I was right in thinking that I should not be penalised in this circumstance then? I definitely did not touch the ball at address, stamp my feet, or do anything else that would have caused the ball to move. As I said, it was a very fast and slick green and there was a bit of a gusty wind this morning, so that was the most likely explanation for the movement. I realise that under the old rule 18-2b I would be presumed to be guilty unless proven innocent, but fortunately that rule no longer applies.

There is no penalty for hitting the moving ball if it started to move after you began your backswing. That's what the Exception to Rule 14-4, which "rulie" referenced, tells you. It also tells you that you are not exempt from an 18-2 penalty if you caused the ball to move. As you are sure you did not cause your ball to move, there is no penalty.

What about ball moving after being addressed ie Lowry and DJ the other month? Is that applicable here?

Since January of this year, the change of rule that "delc" refers means that it makes no difference whether you have addressed a ball or not. If you cause the ball to move, you incur a penalty. If you didn't, there is no penalty.

 

[Beezerk]

Thanks Colin, will teach me to watch the golf under the influence. I didn't think Lowry had caused his ball to move and incurred the penalty as it moved after he'd addressed it.

 

[Crow]

I thought that there had to be something that could be adjudged to have moved the ball, ie gust of wind, otherwise it is assumed that the player caused it to move.

 

[backwoodsman]

I thought that there had to be something that could be adjudged to have moved the ball, ie gust of wind, otherwise it is assumed that the player caused it to move.

It's still not quite that clear cut, but it is evidence based. You consider what may have caused the ball to move, but given that a stationary ball will not move of its own accord, there must be something that caused it to do so. If you can't find any outside reason why it might have moved , you are left with the reasonable conclusion of "in which case it must have been the player" (even if you don't quite know how). I'm pretty sure that was what the case was with DJ

 

[bladeplayer]

As per crow's post

When im asked re this , I approach it along the lines of ,
Was the ball at rest ? if so tell me what caused it to move .. , if you cant tell me of an outside agency that existed to cause the ball to move , then it must be down to the players actions , & its a pen

 

[Colin L]

As per crow's post

When im asked re this , I approach it along the lines of ,
Was the ball at rest ? if so tell me what caused it to move .. , if you cant tell me of an outside agency that existed to cause the ball to move , then it must be down to the players actions , & its a pen

That is not a valid approach. You should read through Decision 18-2/2.05 and this sentence in particular:

If the weight of evidence indicates that it is more likely than not that the player caused the ball to move, even though that conclusion is not free from doubt, the player incurs a one-stroke penalty

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-18,d18-2-0.5

There has to be a "weight of evidence" that the player caused the ball to move for him to be penalised.

 

[rulie]

That is not a valid approach. You should read through Decision 18-2/2.05 and this sentence in particular:

If the weight of evidence indicates that it is more likely than not that the player caused the ball to move, even though that conclusion is not free from doubt, the player incurs a one-stroke penalty

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-18,d18-2-0.5

There has to be a "weight of evidence" that the player caused the ball to move for him to be penalised.

Which is not the same as "we can't discover any other reason for the ball to have moved", therefore he must have caused it to move.

 

[Crow]

So what would comprise such weight of evidence?

Walking near the ball? And how close would you need to be walking?
Grounding the club?
Grounding the club, then walking away and the ball subsequently moves?

I thought that one of the golden tenets of the rules was to remove ambiguity wherever possible, this seems very open to individual interpretation.

 

[rulie]

So what would comprise such weight of evidence?

Walking near the ball? And how close would you need to be walking?
Grounding the club?
Grounding the club, then walking away and the ball subsequently moves?

I thought that one of the golden tenets of the rules was to remove ambiguity wherever possible, this seems very open to individual interpretation.

See Decision 18-2/0.5
http://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-18,d18-2-0.5