atticusfinch
Challenge Tour Pro
There was apparently an incident with Justin Rose and an oscillating (maybe) ball. Anyone know the facts and have video links?
Justin and the moved ball
- Thread starter atticusfinch
- Start date
fundy
Ryder Cup Winner
I saw it last night but was at a poker table and only watching on the tablet.
He had missed the 18th green long into the fringe and was about to chip for his 3rd shot. As he addressed the ball he instantly walked away. They then watched it on the video I think and he and Garcia (playing with him) agreed it hadnt moved so he played on. However when it was watched by the officials on slow mo they ruled it had moved and penalised him 2 shots
Didnt see a version where it was clear to me though
He had missed the 18th green long into the fringe and was about to chip for his 3rd shot. As he addressed the ball he instantly walked away. They then watched it on the video I think and he and Garcia (playing with him) agreed it hadnt moved so he played on. However when it was watched by the officials on slow mo they ruled it had moved and penalised him 2 shots
Didnt see a version where it was clear to me though
fundy
Ryder Cup Winner
http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golf-central-blog/rose-docked-two-strokes-after-ball-moves-hair/
that gives a decent view of what happened, cant see any video of it though
that gives a decent view of what happened, cant see any video of it though
Jon321
Tour Rookie
It wasn't even an official there that made the call. A British official watching on tv called to say it had moved. That's what the golf channel were reporting anyway.
palindromicbob
Tour Winner
I thought there was going to be a stop to using hd and slomo footage to decide tese things. surely if it takes slomo and HD reply to confirm these desisions then there is no way a person could see it when it happens.
fundy
Ryder Cup Winner
Pretty sure theyve argued that Rose's reaction implied he knew it had moved. Rose seems to have accepted the penalty but all seems so harsh to me
Jon321
Tour Rookie
I think it's a rule that needs looking at. I can understand it if he was in the rough and trying to settle his club down behind the ball. But as he was on the fringe, he gained no advantage from it happening and was a complete accident.
atticusfinch
Challenge Tour Pro
You can say that about all rules infractions.
An actual advantage is not a reason to deny giving a penalty. The penalty must be given in the all cases (small and big advantage). The penalty is based on the potential advantage that could be gained in the worst case, even if the actual advantage is nil. Rounds would take ten hours if we tried to measure the actual advantage of every infraction. If the infraction occurs the penalty is applied regardless of the actual advantage, or lack of it.
fundy
Ryder Cup Winner
Sounds like the penalty has been rescinded!
Jon321
Tour Rookie
Now he just needs to shoot a 63/64 and see what happens.
BTatHome
Tour Winner
Just read that. Gotta be the first time I've seen that!
One Planer
Global Moderator
It has. What I want to know is why the amendment to the rules wasn't considered by the officials before they docked him 2 shots
BTatHome
Tour Winner
Seems a strange one, as the rule was put in place for a player that had no idea of the infraction, yet Rose stopped and moved away so must have thought it moved, and yet they are using the rule that says he didn't know?!?
Colin L
Tour Winner
Decision 18/4 is not just about a player having no idea of his ball having moved. It includes when a player who observes a slight movement of his ball, concludes after proper consideration of all the information available to him that it oscillated. The crucial point of the Decision is that if it is shown through sophisticated technology only that in fact the ball moved by an amount not discernible to the naked eye, the player's determination that it didn't move is conclusive. The fact that Rose stepped back as if he knew something had happened is not in itself evidence that he knew] his ball had moved (moved, that is, in terms of the definition).
From what I've read, it looked as if Justin Rose did, with Garcia, check out information available to him including looking at a replay on the big screens. The question would be whether he did enough for his judgment to be conclusive even if later close examination using sophisticated technology showed that the ball had moved an indiscernible amount. It now looks as if that question has been answered as yes, he did do enough and that any movement was only detectable by the technology.
From what I've read, it looked as if Justin Rose did, with Garcia, check out information available to him including looking at a replay on the big screens. The question would be whether he did enough for his judgment to be conclusive even if later close examination using sophisticated technology showed that the ball had moved an indiscernible amount. It now looks as if that question has been answered as yes, he did do enough and that any movement was only detectable by the technology.
Last edited:
BTatHome
Tour Winner
What I don't understand Colin is why the penalty was enforced and then rescinded? I haven't seen an official statement, so wonder what happened in the hours between.
upsidedown
Tour Winner
I believe it was enforced due to high tech tv footage but then rescinded under rule 18/4 as the movement was not determinable to the naked eye
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
duncan mackie
Money List Winner
as Upside down has explained
the reason for the delay is that this is a slight, and welcome, shift from the position in the decision.
the decision, and subsequent rulings, have been clear that the player has to use all the resources available to him in his situation - it's not simply 'I couldn't have seen it with my eye - especially when behavior makes it clear that you've seen something!
what they have rules here is that the movement was so small that even reviewing it on a screen wasn't enough to discern that the ball had moved (as defined) and that the level of technology required to do that is beyond the scope of the decision.
how this would have impacted on the Padraig Harrington situation would be interesting to know, but also in many ways irrelevant!
it makes things slightly more difficult for televised tournament committees but, in principle. it brings things into line with what should have happened had Justin called an RO at the time and simply reviewed available footage without calling in CSI/NCIS teams!
EDIT summary - they ruled initially on what the decision actually states - they established overnight that the decision was intended to have the degree of latitude eventually used.
Last edited:
Colin L
Tour Winner
Neither do I. From the easy perspective of the armchair referee with only a few reports to go by, what I don't understand is why 18/4 wasn't considered the applicable rule at the beginning.
However, the good thing about golf is that there is time to consider and change a ruling. It isn't like a football ref having to decide in a split second on awarding a penalty.
Last edited:
chrisd
Major Champion
The rules official explained that the R and A, USGA and the PGA all spoke together and came to the conclusion that Rule 18 -4 was bought in to cover exactly what had occurred and then unanimously agreed to rescind the penalty.
I heard Justin Rose talk about it before he went out and he came across as what he is, the model professional.
