Penalty for Lowry

[Steven Rules]

The Committee obviously decided that it met the naked-eye standard outlined in Clarification Moved/2.

And to include the relevant part here:

...if the Committee determines, based on all of the evidence it has available, that the ball changed its position by an amount that was reasonably discernible to the naked eye at the time, the ball will be determined to have moved even though no-one actually saw it move.

 

[BrianM]

And to include the relevant part here:

...if the Committee determines, based on all of the evidence it has available, that the ball changed its position by an amount that was reasonably discernible to the naked eye at the time, the ball will be determined to have moved even though no-one actually saw it move.

This is probably the most important part of the ruling then, I'm not sure I fully agree with it, but the rule is what it is.

 

[bobmac]

But the referee judged that Lowry made the ball move. Where is the discretion?

If the player grounds his club behind the ball numerous times in the rough, resulting in the ball rolling down a slope 3 feet away to a nice flat lie, then obviously the player caused the ball to move and gained an advantage and would undoubtedly call the referee.
In Lowry's situation, the player didn't see it, the caddy didn't see it, nobody saw it except on a slow mo replay on TV

The Committee obviously decided that it met the naked-eye standard outlined in Clarification Moved/2. They very likely have access to many more versions of camera coverage than we see on TV.

How many camera angles did the player have?
If it took that many angles and slow mo to tell if the ball had moved, I would suggest that the movement wasn't visible to the naked eye.

The discretion is this - is there 95 per cent or higher certainty that the player moved the ball? Answer in this case? Yes.

But you would like a player breach to be waived because the player didn't see it? Honest officer, I didn't realize I was over the limits, surely that is more important than the facts?

So now we don't take the word of the player?

At the end of the day, the ball moved a very small distance probably into a worse lie than the original, the ball was moved by accident just like on the putting green but unbeknown to the player and no advantage was gained.

I don’t think that “advantage” has any relevance.
- did the ball move? Yes
- was the movement visible to the naked eye? Questionable
- did the player cause the ball to move? Yes, unknowingly.
If yes to all of these, then a breach of Rule 9.4 and a penalty.

Did the player cause the ball to move by accident? Yes
Was the player aware the ball had moved? No
Did the player gain an advantage? No.

I just think it's unfair that the player is penalised for doing something he didn't know he had done and the referee could just judge no advantage gained, no penalty.
A bit like a traffic policeman seeing a driver passing a 20mph school at 25 mph at 03.00am.
Discretion applied

 

[Lord Tyrion]

To clarify, this happens to Patrick Reed, the rule is correct. This happens to good ol' Shane Lowry, it's bad. That about right?

I've heard it said so many times in golf, on here, you don't get to choose the rules you like, even if some of them seem unfair. The ball moved, it was seen by an official, end of story. The official can't turn a blind eye.

 

[bobmac]

The official can't turn a blind eye.

And yet a policeman/woman can?

 

[Steven Rules]

For those that want a more in-depth understanding, this R&A/USGA publication might help.

Guidance on the Use of Video Review at Televised Championships
(October 2023 Update)

Find it at https://www.randa.org/rules/rules-resources

 

[Imurg]

To clarify, this happens to Patrick Reed, the rule is correct. This happens to good ol' Shane Lowry, it's bad. That about right?

I've heard it said so many times in golf, on here, you don't get to choose the rules you like, even if some of them seem unfair. The ball moved, it was seen by an official, end of story. The official can't turn a blind eye.

It's how it was seen that doesn't sit right with me...
Lowry had cameras on him all the time...I bet Ryan Peake didn't have a single shot videoed.
If Shane's situation occurred with him there would have been no penalty because nobody would have seen it.
Keep the cameras at a reasonable distance so they can't pick up these things - unless they video and review every shot by every player.
It's simply about keeping things fair to all players.
The penalty was correct........but unfair.

 

[Deleted member 35927]

It's how it was seen that doesn't sit right with me...
Lowry had cameras on him all the time...I bet Ryan Peake didn't have a single shot videoed.
If Shane's situation occurred with him there would have been no penalty because nobody would have seen it.
Keep the cameras at a reasonable distance so they can't pick up these things - unless they video and review every shot by every player.
It's simply about keeping things fair to all players.
The penalty was correct........but unfair.

How was it unfair ? If I see you do the same thing in a monthly medal , should it not count because Colin from accounts did the same thing but I wasnt there to see it and he gets away with it?

 

[bobmac]

For those that want a more in-depth understanding, this R&A/USGA publication might help.

Guidance on the Use of Video Review at Televised Championships
(October 2023 Update)

Find it at https://www.randa.org/rules/rules-resources

I can't speak for others but you can quote the rules at me for ever, it doesn't mean I have to agree with them.

Statement from the R&A.....
''The naked eye test is satisfied whether or not the player was looking at the ball when it moved''

Someone make sense of that please, especially when the only eye that saw it wasn't naked or even human.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

And yet a policeman/woman can?

Which rule breaks should they ignore ?

How do we judge if an advantage is gained

 

[Arthur Wedge]

I can't speak for others but you can quote the rules at me for ever, it doesn't mean I have to agree with them.

Statement from the R&A.....
''The naked eye test is satisfied whether or not the player was looking at the ball when it moved''

Someone make sense of that please, especially when the only eye that saw it wasn't naked or even human.

The human eye saw it on a replay

 

[Imurg]

How was it unfair ? If I see you do the same thing in a monthly medal , should it not count because Colin from accounts did the same thing but I wasnt there to see it and he gets away with it?

It's unfair on the players having every shot videoed.
Video and review every shot by every player and then it's fair.
I'm not saying the penalty was wrong...it's just how it came to light.

 

[bobmac]

Just out of interest, if Lowry had signed his card 20 mins after completing his round and before the infringement came to light, would he have been DQ'd for breaking a rule he didn't know he had broken?

 

[cliveb]

Just out of interest, if Lowry had signed his card 20 mins after completing his round and before the infringement came to light, would he have been DQ'd for breaking a rule he didn't know he had broken?

Isn't there a change in that area that signing for an incorrect score only gets a DQ if you know the score is incorrect?

 

[Lord Tyrion]

And yet a policeman/woman can?

You are sounding sillier and sillier. It's sport, that's all. A rule was broken. Get the rule changed but as long as it is there, it has to be enforced.

 

[bobmac]

Which rule breaks should they ignore ?

How do we judge if an advantage is gained

The referees use their discretion, just like a policeman at 03:00

 

[Lord Tyrion]

It's how it was seen that doesn't sit right with me...
Lowry had cameras on him all the time...I bet Ryan Peake didn't have a single shot videoed.
If Shane's situation occurred with him there would have been no penalty because nobody would have seen it.
Keep the cameras at a reasonable distance so they can't pick up these things - unless they video and review every shot by every player.
It's simply about keeping things fair to all players.
The penalty was correct........but unfair.

Personally, I'm in the camp that says if an advantage isn't gained, crack on. However, that is not the rule.

In terms of cameras being on certain players and not others, that's just how it is. The penalty of being a top player, not a player making up the numbers, apologies to the guy quoted but you get my drift. All the players know this, it goes with the territory.

 

[Deleted member 35927]

Personally, I'm in the camp that says if an advantage isn't gained, crack on. However, that is not the rule.

In terms of cameras being on certain players and not others, that's just how it is. The penalty of being a top player, not a player making up the numbers, apologies to the guy quoted but you get my drift. All the players know this, it goes with the territory.

No advantage gained is a slippery slope, it would just be a cheaters charter, especially in the amateur game.

 

[BrianM]

To clarify, this happens to Patrick Reed, the rule is correct. This happens to good ol' Shane Lowry, it's bad. That about right?

I've heard it said so many times in golf, on here, you don't get to choose the rules you like, even if some of them seem unfair. The ball moved, it was seen by an official, end of story. The official can't turn a blind eye.

Not sure where this has come from, I'm a Patrick Reed fan more than Lowry
It doesn't matter who it was for me, it's just how the ruling has been given.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

No advantage gained is a slippery slope, it would just be a cheaters charter, especially in the amateur game.

I understand that. It brings opinion into something that is black and white.

I'd like to see that as a basis for rules though, the question being asked before the rule is created. Set the rules with that in mind. After that, the rules are the rules.