Martin Laird incident

[bladeplayer]

Just watching pga golf , M Laird played his shot and it ended up on a downslope on the lip of the bunker (not in bunker)


He walks up near the ball kinda does a few half practice swings near the ball , stops & stares down at ball ..


The ball rolls into the bunker , decision NO PEN as he didnt cause it to m move

My question , in the absence of wind , rain ,other bad weather, a train passing or an earth tremor & taking into consideration that the ball sat in the one position until the player went near the ball is it not fair to conclude something the player did near the ball caused it to move , ??


Thoughts please

 

[guest100718]

Just watching pga golf , M Laird played his shot and it ended up on a downslope on the lip of the bunker (not in bunker)


He walks up near the ball kinda does a few half practice swings near the ball , stops & stares down at ball ..


The ball rolls into the bunker , decision NO PEN as he didnt cause it to m move

My question , in the absence of wind , rain ,other bad weather, a train passing or an earth tremor & taking into consideration that the ball sat in the one position until the player went near the ball is it not fair to conclude something the player did near the ball caused it to move , ??


Thoughts please

no i dont think so.it could have been moving very very very very very slowly.

 

[clubchamp98]

no i dont think so.it could have been moving very very very very very slowly.

Could have been a worm under the ground.
you do need some evidence he caused the ball to move

 

[guest100718]

Could have been a worm under the ground.
you do need some evidence he caused the ball to move

or a beetle. The grass that was holding the ball could have just gave way.

 

[upsidedown]

Saw it and happy he didn't cause it to move. The grass probably gave up the uneven struggle against gravity to keep the ball out of the bunker given how far it rolled in to it.

 

[Bigfoot]

Saw it and happy he didn't cause it to move. The grass probably gave up the uneven struggle against gravity to keep the ball out of the bunker given how far it rolled in to it.

I agree.

 

[BrianM]

Too far away to cause the ball to move when it did roll into the bunker.
No penalty.
Great putt after his bunker shot though 👍🏻

 

[Hobbit]

Martians!!

 

[chrisd]

Martians!!

They dont exist you wassock, it was probably the man in the moon!

 

[bladeplayer]

Could have been a worm under the ground.
you do need some evidence he caused the ball to move

i thought it was the other way around

 

[rulefan]

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 under Rule 18-2 and the ball must be replaced. Otherwise, the player incurs no penalty and the ball is played as it lies unless some other Rule applies (e.g., Rule 18-1).

 

[bobmac]

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

What evidence could that be ?

 

[clubchamp98]

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 under Rule 18-2 and the ball must be replaced. Otherwise, the player incurs no penalty and the ball is played as it lies unless some other Rule applies (e.g., Rule 18-1).

so guilty until proven innocent.
If it's not free from dought how can you penalise someone.

 

[rulefan]

so guilty until proven innocent.
If it's not free from dought how can you penalise someone.

By following the rule.

 

[rulefan]

What evidence could that be ?

This

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

 

[bobmac]

This

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

Good luck trying to enforce a penalty on someone in a monthly medal using that grey waffle.

 

[garyinderry]

For me he probably was the cause of the ball moving buy very hard to say he definitely was.

He could honestly say,

He didn't touch the ball.
Nor was he or his club close to it when it rolled.


His practice swooshes probably did start the chain of events at ground level that caused the ball to move. Impossible to tell with the naked eye or on film.



To remove doubt in those situations they should change the rule to replace the ball in it's original position. It had been stationary for quite some time before he arrived. No advantage gained. Play it as it originally lay.

 

[rulefan]

For me he probably was the cause of the ball moving buy very hard to say he definitely was.

He could honestly say,

He didn't touch the ball.
Nor was he or his club close to it when it rolled.


His practice swooshes probably did start the chain of events at ground level that caused the ball to move. Impossible to tell with the naked eye or on film.



To remove doubt in those situations they should change the rule to replace the ball in it's original position. It had been stationary for quite some time before he arrived. No advantage gained. Play it as it originally lay.

How would you word the rule?

 

[rulefan]

Good luck trying to enforce a penalty on someone in a monthly medal using that grey waffle.

Without a referee or another competitor being close by and watching you would take the player's word or judgement.

But remember the rule only requires it to be more likely than not not possibly

 

[clubchamp98]

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 under Rule 18-2 and the ball must be replaced. Otherwise, the player incurs no penalty and the ball is played as it lies unless some other Rule applies (e.g., Rule 18-1).

who is the judge in this as most of us are not on the telly.
in most cases it's only the player himself who sees the "evidence"
This rule could go both ways depending on your point of view.
or lack of a view.