Can someone give me the fairness and logic to this?

[Herbie]

The rule relating to a ball moving on the green during address?
This normally occurs when the ball is on a slope on the green or during windy conditions.
Why is it deemed the responsibility of the player leading to penalty should the ball move at address?
Now I know the rule, but this one as with one or two others raises the question of fairness or even justification.

Now the ball could move at address simply because the air flow over the ball is changed by the position of the putter, or vibration could dislodge it from its position, but whatever reason the ball moves, if the player has not touched it then what is justification for a penalty is there should the player simply replace it? What has the player gained?
What is the advantage?
How is it fair?
What is the logic behind the penalty?


I have had this explained to me once before and still do not see how a player can be fairly penalised for this. I dont see a gain on improved lie, line or distance, I have never seen a deliberate action by players to make this happen, what would be the purpose on greens?
I can see reason for this elsewhere on the course but to me, applying this rule to the greens is just very unfair, to the unlucky few who suffer this through no fault of their own.

What are your thoughts and how could you justify such a rule application on the greens if you had to make the rule in the first place?

 

[Ste_Denial]

i agree totaly with what you are saying. this is what happened to padraig not so long ago and my first thought was, how is it fair that the player gets penalised because of it.

however i cant give a reason behind the rule, surely there is one tho

 

[birdieman]

I think it's to avoid that grey area of "did he touch it or not?".

A ball may move because someone has accidentally touched it and it's moved - that is rightly a shot incurred. It may also move because the wind or slope has caused it to move. How do you tell the difference between the two if the player has already addressed the ball?
If this rule wasn't in place then many players of dubious morals would be saying "the wind moved it" when they'd actually touched it.

If it happens just suck it up and move on. If it is on a slope I wouldn't ground the putter for fear of moving the ball. I would also get on with it quick if I thought the wind was a factor.

Rule has to be there to control this aspect.

 

[freddielong]

for me and I am not saying this is right or fair I assume that it is to stop people blameing something else for moving the ball once they have addressed it

 

[Herbie]

I think it's to avoid that grey area of "did he touch it or not?".

A ball may move because someone has accidentally touched it and it's moved - that is rightly a shot incurred. It may also move because the wind or slope has caused it to move. How do you tell the difference between the two? If this rule wasn't in place then many players of dubious morals would be saying "the wind moved it" when they'd actually touched it.

If it happens just suck it up and move on. If it is on a slope I wouldn't ground the putter for fear of moving the ball. I would also get on with it quick if I thought the wind was a factor.

Rule has to be there to control this aspect.

Then surely the etiquette of self policing the game is then taken away from golfers? Your reply suggests everyone cheats, yet my experience of this suggests that everyone owns up.
Also in the modern game, no player is likely to miss such an event for fear of being caught ot on TV or by the crowd.

What you suggest is the acceptance of an unfair rule rather than reasoning for its existance.
If someone is a cheat they are more likely to cheat by not saying anything when it moves, knowing its a penalty to replace it, no more or less likely than a cheat who may suggest the wind moved it and they had not addressed it.

 

[USER1999]

If the ball was always replaced if it moved, without penalty, there would be no point in moving it deliberately at address (cheating), as there would be nothing gained. On the greens only though. If it moved then the player either takes it as a shot, or puts it back.

 

[Herbie]

If the ball was always replaced if it moved, without penalty, there would be no point in moving it deliberately at address (cheating), as there would be nothing gained. On the greens only though. If it moved then the player either takes it as a shot, or puts it back.

Thats the logic and sense I understand, but I dont understand this rule.(greens only I mean)

 

[freddielong]

I think it's to avoid that grey area of "did he touch it or not?".

A ball may move because someone has accidentally touched it and it's moved - that is rightly a shot incurred. It may also move because the wind or slope has caused it to move. How do you tell the difference between the two? If this rule wasn't in place then many players of dubious morals would be saying "the wind moved it" when they'd actually touched it.

If it happens just suck it up and move on. If it is on a slope I wouldn't ground the putter for fear of moving the ball. I would also get on with it quick if I thought the wind was a factor.

Rule has to be there to control this aspect.

Then surely the etiquette of self policing the game is then taken away from golfers? Your reply suggests everyone cheats, yet my experience of this suggests that everyone owns up.
Also in the modern game, no player is likely to miss such an event for fear of being caught ot on TV or by the crowd.

What you suggest is the acceptance of an unfair rule rather than reasoning for its existance.
If someone is a cheat they are more likely to cheat by not saying anything when it moves, knowing its a penalty to replace it, no more or less likely than a cheat who may suggest the wind moved it and they had not addressed it.

True but if a playing partners sees it move it is a stroke - there is no argueing that the player did not touch it although if he didn't ground the club, he could argue that he hadn't addressed the ball Hmmm. No your right it is a strange one - I did hear that it is something that the R&A were looking into after last years Open so hopefully we will get a fairer rule going forward.

 

[RGDave]

Hooray......this is a good one.

I agree. 100%.....

If you've not grounded your putter and not touched the ball, it should be no penalty (as it is!)
If you've grounded you putter but with not enough significant force to stir the lie (?) it should be no problem also.
Where you draw the line, who knows?

It's a rubbish rule. If I'd moved the ball I'd say so.

 

[slugger]

I had a thread a few weeks back after this happened to me in a medal. i didn't know about the rule at the time and i am in agreement that it's an unfair rule.

however, it was pointed out at the time, that if the wind moves the ball, there's every chance that it's going to blow closer to the hole and then you'd have an unfair advantage over whoever you were playing. That was the only explanation that made sense of it.

rubbish rule

 

[Dave3498]

You always have to think about why the rule is there in the first place. It is really to stop a player from nudging tha ball into a better lie 'through the green.' It's unfortunate that the wind moving the ball on the green gets caught up in this net, and seems to be very unfair. Also, when the rule was first implemented, greens were in a far worse condition than today's silky greens, and it was possible to improve the lie on the green with little hidden nudge.

 

[Adrena1in]

What about hitting a moving ball, is that a penalty? Because the other day on the green, windy day, I was inches away from striking the ball when it moved, and I missed a 2-foot putt because of it. Extra stroke because ball moved? Penalty shot? Does that mean 4 putts from 2 feet?!

 

[toyboy54]

TimBridle...bit of a bummer that one!!!Think its a silly rule,although another one which gets on my whatsits is that you must play out of a divot!"£<>?
WHY?????(sorry,didnt mean to hijack the thread,but lets be honest---there are some rules which do seem to go out of their way to penalise you!!!!)
GRRRR!!!!

 

[Herbie]

TimBridle...bit of a bummer that one!!!Think its a silly rule,although another one which gets on my whatsits is that you must play out of a divot!"£<>?
WHY?????(sorry,didnt mean to hijack the thread,but lets be honest---there are some rules which do seem to go out of their way to penalise you!!!!)
GRRRR!!!!

No no no, please carry on, as this is another one that gets my goat a little too! Why should anyone who hits a good drive on the fairway have to play from damage caused by another golfer? Perhaps even in the same match! I think you pose an equally good question.

 

[painterboy]

Don't believe there is a specific rule for a moving ball on the green.
The penalty of a moving ball after address is anywhere on the course and it would be too messy to have a seperate one for the greens only,(what would happen if someones ball was just off the green and was moved by the wind?)
Perhaps the powers to be could introduce a local rule for a particular time, or day if there was any chance of this happening.

 

[Herbie]

Don't believe there is a specific rule for a moving ball on the green.
The penalty of a moving ball after address is anywhere on the course and it would be too messy to have a seperate one for the greens only,(what would happen if someones ball was just off the green and was moved by the wind?)
Perhaps the powers to be could introduce a local rule for a particular time, or day if there was any chance of this happening.

If its off the green its off the green and gains can be made there. The rule has taken the path of generalising when in fairness it should not. There are rules for the greens already which do not apply to elsewhere. When a ball comes to a halt on the green, that is where the shot should be played from without penalty in my view. It would not be that difficult to determine if someone moves the ball by touching it, it is very very unfair to penalise someone should nature move it. Not only is it unfair in that sense its even more unfair that if nature moves it and the player doesnt see it move, they then get a bigger penalty for palying it. In all reason and fairness, which is what the game should be about, if it moves before a player hits it, put it back, play the shot and move on. The likelyhood of the current ruling having any effect on match outcome is remote anyway but when it does it is just unfair and golf should strive to be the fairest it can possibly be.

 

[SammmeBee]

TimBridle...bit of a bummer that one!!!Think its a silly rule,although another one which gets on my whatsits is that you must play out of a divot!"£<>?
WHY?????(sorry,didnt mean to hijack the thread,but lets be honest---there are some rules which do seem to go out of their way to penalise you!!!!)
GRRRR!!!!

No no no, please carry on, as this is another one that gets my goat a little too! Why should anyone who hits a good drive on the fairway have to play from damage caused by another golfer? Perhaps even in the same match! I think you pose an equally good question.

When does a divot become a bit of ground with no grass on it....?

 

[toyboy54]

Sammeebee...are yu taking the mick???
Its when its a hole in the normal terra firma that we call the course!
Its when you get to the ball after a lovely 3 wood off the tee,you know its an easy 7i to the heart of the green----and you now hve to dig it out of some numpties hole(hmm,that does'nt sound right!)
Do you think thats fair??

 

[HomerJSimpson]

At the endo fo the day whilst I can understand the frustration of these rules (you can add flooded bunkers to the list) we all know the rules before we go out so accept the challenges when we peg it up on the 1st.

All this questioning about when does it become unfair, why penalise when there is no advantage etc is mute. They are the rule of the game as laid down by the R&A and are the same for everyone. Until such time as these rules are revisited (I think the moving ball on the greens is one that will definitely get looked at soon) they stay in place. Get on with it

 

[toyboy54]

Homer...see where you are coming from,please do the same for our points!
Thought this forum was for all creeds and views,or am I wrong?
Maybe just maybe someone from the R&A could be reading these posts??
It would be nice to think that someone up there is keeping an eye(and ear)on what the ordinary joes out there on the best forum are discussing.....don't you think???