• We'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas from all at Golf Monthly. Thank you for sharing your 2025 with us!

Influencing a ball in flight

Jimaroid said:
I would say the key aspect is "ball in motion" as we understand our physical universe. Golf is a game based on some philosophical truths, although not stated we assume these to be true; golf is game played within our universe of natural philosophy (physics) and it is implied impossible for a human to influence a ball under motion of "nature's flight". The challenge of the game is to get the ball to a target within the natural philosophy of constraints and all a human can do is determine the input characteristics - we calculate the intended directional inputs and hope we get close to our prediction after the ball is struck.

If the conundrum is a unique human able to control a ball in motion, playing in this universe of physical truths, then I would say its cheating.

If the conundrum is a unique human playing in a different universe of physical truths, where the ability to affect a ball in motion must exist by definition, it isn't cheating as it would be consistent with the natural philosophy of the game in that universe.

So I think the answer lies with you as the writer of this fiction. Has the protagonist moved universe perhaps?
Click to expand...
My ball looks to be heading into the lake and I exclaim 'please God - don't let my ball go into the water' (maybe it's my only ball :) ), and - phew! It doesn't. Now did my God influence my ball? Even I will tell you - No - my God, of whatever nature that God might be, didn't influence the flight of the ball and stop it dropping into the lake.

And so if 'my God' can't influence the flight of my ball then I'd suggest that neither could 'yer man'.

Anyway - it seems to me that the rules are quite specific about what an influencing action is. And the strictures don't include mind-control - even though the player who thinks his ball was so influenced might exclaim 'thank Bob for that'. Well he can if he wishes.
 
Isn't it going to come down to the nature of the influence. 11.2 says "...A person deliberately touches the ball in motion ...", so if the person is influencing the ball directly then it could be argued that they have touched the ball, albeit not physically, so penalty applies.. If the person influences the ball by causing the wind to blow, changing the air pressure, appealing to diety, etc, then they haven't touched the ball, so no penalty.

Actually thinking about it. Back in the real world - ball is hanging on the lip of a hole but not dropping. I assume blowing the ball into the hole is a penalty, which would imply you don't have to physically touch a ball to influence it.
 
Jimaroid said:
But that's the paradox. If it were known to be possible the rules would state you can't. Theoretically speaking.
Click to expand...
John Thornton said:
OK, looks like I've worn out my welcome here. Feel free to keep beating me if you like.
All the best
Click to expand...
Hypothetically if it was possible to influence the ball.
Then the rules would have to change to penalise this.
Could a OEM manufacture a ball that was resistant to mind control?
It’s a Chicken and Egg question.
Good one though, and peoples answers very varied to say the least!
 
rulefan said:
If it doesn't say you can't, then you may.

There is no other rule than 11.2 which involves deliberately influencing a ball in motion.
11.2 is specifically restricted to the actions :
  • A person deliberately touches the ball in motion, or
  • The ball in motion hits any equipment or other object
Therefore , "using only his mind" is not prohibited and so there is no penalty.
Click to expand...
So if your ball was on the edge of the hole and you blew on it it would be OK as you have not touched it or used any equipment? I don't think so!

If you use the test of "known or virtually certain" on your action I cannot see there ever being proof that there is a cause and effect between trying to influence the ball using mental kinetics. Thus it cannot be a penalty. Imagine being called in front of the competition committee for cheating by telling your ball to "get over a bunker" or to "sit down on the green".

However, John Travolta in Phenomenom moved things with his mind and that was Hollywood so it must be true!
 
Rulefan has given the answer. But in addition, also worth pointing out that rule 11.2 only applies if it is known or virtually certain that someone has deliberately deflected the ball in motion. And the OP stated that no-one knows, nor could anyone prove, that the person is doing it. So it can't be against the rules.

But, I would say that it's outwith the spirit of the game. And things outwith the spirit of the game are not unheard of. If he's looking for a dilemma to discuss, perhaps that's where he should focus?
 
I'm not sure that I would want to even play golf if I had that power. For me half the challenge is to hit the ball where I'm trying to hit it, if I could just hit anywhere and then change the ball flight/ direction with my thoughts, it would kind of take the fun and skill out of the game. It would certainly feel like I was cheating, even if not against the rules, unless I was able to do it to other peoples ball too :p:cool: . But if he was some kind of superhero, that may make a difference, I'm sure the Scarlet Witch could mess with Ironman's game

avengerscover.jpg
 
An interesting premise. However, I think this "power" exists already. Taylormade employ magicians that have been able to make a new driver fly 10 yards further every year for the last 20 years. Yet I'm not able to drive the ball 200 yards further than I did 20 years ago, so somebody must be influencing the trajectory of the ball with their mind. Like a curse and counter curse?
 
I actually think what the OP proposes isnt just fantasy but actually happens on a regular basis.

The amount of times I've hit a putt and a foot out from the hole one of my fellow golfers says "great putt" or similar, only to see the ball horseshoe out or turn left at the last moment surely indicates that there is some witchcraft at work that some golfers have been able to harness?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Why are people A-Holes when playing MATCHPLAY?
5 6 7
Replies
121
Views
14K
Sid Rixon IV
S
T
Deep in the stat cave
Replies
3
Views
2K
HomerJSimpson
HomerJSimpson
Whereditgo
Fairly taking a stance
2 3
Replies
45
Views
8K
rulie
R
sjw
Went for an iron fitting yesterday, as a bit of a sceptic...
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
13K
sjw
sjw
Tashyboy
No Tattoos this time, Yaay
2
Replies
26
Views
5K
srixon 1
srixon 1
Top