John Rahm's ball repositioning

[drdel]

Couple of Golf Channel's talking head suggest he should be docked 2 points when replacing his ball. Ref on sight said new position was within a few millimetres, the pundits have stretched it to 9inches. I guess they are short of things to say !

Well done the lad, I say.

 

[Fish]

http://forums.golf-monthly.co.uk/showthread.php?92827-Portstewart-this-week

 

[Tarkus1212]

This was sorted on the day by the people who were meant to sort it. They made the right decision in the spirit of the game and in line with their expert interpretation of the rules. Good job done by all involved.

 

[Tiger Woods]

Id love to see the media uproar if this was me involved with the ruling. LiverpoolPhil would have a fit.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Id love to see the media uproar if this was me involved with the ruling. LiverpoolPhil would have a fit.

Brilliant. Go on, I double dare you!!!

 

[Pin-seeker]

Id love to see the media uproar if this was me involved with the ruling. LiverpoolPhil would have a fit.

😂😂😂
Love it.

 

[chrisd]

Id love to see the media uproar if this was me involved with the ruling. LiverpoolPhil would have a fit.

🤣🤣🤣

 

[Pin-seeker]

Brilliant. Go on, I double dare you!!!

Should we tell Homer? 🤔

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Id love to see the media uproar if this was me involved with the ruling. LiverpoolPhil would have a fit.

Don't worry Mr Woods you will no doubt get away with it :thup: enjoy the drugs :thup:

 

[Tashyboy]

Al be your Driver for the next year or so Tiger, if you help me with my driver 👍

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Al be your Driver for the next year or so Tiger, if you help me with my driver 👍

You might struggle with timings for pick ups and drop offs mate

 

[Yant]

I make Jimmy Walker right. His intention is irrelevant. He didn't replace the ball in the same spot as where he marked it. That's a breach of the rules and he should've been penalised for it.

I noticed when he did it, when watching live yesterday and wondered if anyone was going to pick up on it.

I understand the new ruling around common sense and reasonable judgement but that's clearly a breach of the rules imo.

 

[the_coach]

possible rule infringements for sure should be dealt with in real time during tournaments most rulings will be correct occasionally ruling the judgements are questionable & not correct

but for sure there should not be any retrospective rulings issued after competition results declared - any ruling decisions made will either be correct or not

my take on it - say someone inadvertently/unintentionally teed up one ball forwards of the tee-box markers there would be an automatic 2 stroke penalty issued - they were not doing it to gain an advantage but nevertheless it would be a 'rule break' & would receive an automatic penalty

should that outcome of a ruling be any different to someone inadvertently/unintentionally putting the ball down one inch in front of the marker (if they hadn't marked the ball in the first place with marker 1" behind the ball)
answer to should be no it should not be providing it was clear the ball had been replaced wrongly - so rule infringement - penalty should be given

 

[TheJezster]

My take is that they did the right thing. For the sport too. Far too many issues which the non golfing world don't 'get' so i think this was a step in the right direction myself.

 

[Imurg]

My take is that they did the right thing. For the sport too. Far too many issues which the non golfing world don't 'get' so i think this was a step in the right direction myself.

In a way, I think it actually confuses the issue.
It seems it's now ok to replace your ball in the wrong place as long as you've done it within a margin of error that is defined by you believing you've put it in the right place...
Introduces a grey area where I thought the rules of golf were pretty black or white..
After all, in the aftermath of the Lexi incident, plenty of people were saying " how difficult is it to replace your ball in the right place"

 

[garyinderry]

He made a mistake in a rush because of the rain.

They let him off. Thats pretty clear to me.


If that was the right thing or not I am not too sure. If it was me I would have given the penalty.

 

[Jacko_G]

Rahm in my opinion should have been given the two shot penalty.

Lexi Thomson on the other hand. Well let's just say she would be banned from tour if I had been in charge.

 

[ger147]

In a way, I think it actually confuses the issue.
It seems it's now ok to replace your ball in the wrong place as long as you've done it within a margin of error that is defined by you believing you've put it in the right place...
Introduces a grey area where I thought the rules of golf were pretty black or white..
After all, in the aftermath of the Lexi incident, plenty of people were saying " how difficult is it to replace your ball in the right place"

I agree, and the Coach's example re. the tee box is the perfect example. I get penalised if I'm slightly in front of the blocks no matter what, the end. And that's the way it should be, both on the tee box and on the green when marking and replacing balls.

 

[duncan mackie]

In a way, I think it actually confuses the issue.
It seems it's now ok to replace your ball in the wrong place as long as you've done it within a margin of error that is defined by you believing you've put it in the right place...
Introduces a grey area where I thought the rules of golf were pretty black or white..
After all, in the aftermath of the Lexi incident, plenty of people were saying " how difficult is it to replace your ball in the right place"

I agree with you principle.

However I also feel that other principles are getting slightly mixed up here.

When marking and replacing the ball the rules require you to use an appropriate marker and anyone is expected to be able to replace it their ball pretty much where it was removed from through that simple, one step, process.

Where a marker is required (by the rules!) to be moved, you bring in scope for increased tolerance in the replacement. This is quite natural and a direct function of the recommended methodology.

Finally, how you mark the ball and the associated procedures are also recommendations and the ultimate issue is whether the ball is replaced. You can mark it in front, to the side or behind. You could use one combination to move it and a different one to replace it providing the combinations have the same effect.

Once you have established this increased tolerance the issue on making the ruling in this case becomes one of whether the ball ended up back at a point that meets it rather than whether he did, or didnt, reverse his exact procedure. The judgement in aligning the putter head to a distant object twice, combined with the relationship between ball and either end of the putter head twice, has obvious scope for error that far exceed that associated with the suggested error one step of the process applied.

The ruling was that the ball was replaced at an acceptable point ie he didn't play from a wrong place. It was based on the detailed assessment of the available evidence by those tasked to do so.

Given some contributions, it is also relevant to note that this same assessment procedure accepted the validity of TW drop from a water hazard as being with tolerance for the situation (bigger scale - much bigger and clearly seen 'error') - it was only when he subsequently claimed he had deliberately dropped the ball there Tongan an advantage over dropping it in the correct place that problems kicked in!

 

[drdel]

I agree with you principle.

However I also feel that other principles are getting slightly mixed up here.

When marking and replacing the ball the rules require you to use an appropriate marker and anyone is expected to be able to replace it their ball pretty much where it was removed from through that simple, one step, process.

Where a marker is required (by the rules!) to be moved, you bring in scope for increased tolerance in the replacement. This is quite natural and a direct function of the recommended methodology.

Finally, how you mark the ball and the associated procedures are also recommendations and the ultimate issue is whether the ball is replaced. You can mark it in front, to the side or behind. You could use one combination to move it and a different one to replace it providing the combinations have the same effect.

Once you have established this increased tolerance the issue on making the ruling in this case becomes one of whether the ball ended up back at a point that meets it rather than whether he did, or didnt, reverse his exact procedure. The judgement in aligning the putter head to a distant object twice, combined with the relationship between ball and either end of the putter head twice, has obvious scope for error that far exceed that associated with the suggested error one step of the process applied.

The ruling was that the ball was replaced at an acceptable point ie he didn't play from a wrong place. It was based on the detailed assessment of the available evidence by those tasked to do so.

Given some contributions, it is also relevant to note that this same assessment procedure accepted the validity of TW drop from a water hazard as being with tolerance for the situation (bigger scale - much bigger and clearly seen 'error') - it was only when he subsequently claimed he had deliberately dropped the ball there Tongan an advantage over dropping it in the correct place that problems kicked in!

Perhaps if the 'Rules' require precise replacement then the device(s) authorised for marking must be specified by the R&A/PGA. This would remove any need for a tolerance.

OTT in my opinion: the real advantage gained by replacing a ball within an acceptable tolerance (<2cm) is pretty marginal and not worth creating a stink about.