Penalty for Lowry

[Colin L]

The. argument that TV evidence should be used only if every player in a tournament is being scrutinised all the time, puzzles me. The vast majority. of stroke play tournaments, amateur and professional are refereed by only a few people who can only act on situations they see. By the reasoning behind the no TV evidence argument, none of them could act on seeing a rules breach or step in to prevent one because they cannot be everywhere on the course and scrutinising every player all the time.

 

[Deleted member 35927]

With golf, sometimes the ball only needs to move a very small amount to gain a huge advantage. And, if a minimum amount of movement was allowed for in the rules, good luck to the referees in trying to measure that movement to see if it was within the tolerance set within the rules

I was going to reply with something along the lines of var can you imagine waiting for the lines to be drawn

 

[bobmac]

I agree , the point being if we dont allow TV replays as evidence, which several in the thread are advocating, then youd have allow cheating

I think as a whole, golfers don't cheat, especially at this level with so many cameras about.
In my opinion, I find it unfair to penalise a person 2 shots for doing something he didn't know he had done.

In my perfect future world .....
Ref. Lowry. 2025 Open Championship
''Although zoomed in slow mo video shows his ball moved, after speaking to the player concerned, it is the opinion and decision of the rules committee that the incident was an accident, Lowry had no intention of improving his lie and as no advantage was gained, there will be no penalty applied.''
Perfick
Maybe even a points system for these types of infringements like they have in F1 where you have a tour license and you get 3 points as a warning for each minor infringement. (Thinks back to 2003 with Jesper Parnevik and Mark Roe)

 

[Deleted member 35927]

I think as a whole, golfers don't cheat, especially at this level with so many cameras about.
In my opinion, I find it unfair to penalise a person 2 shots for doing something he didn't know he had done.

In my perfect future world .....
Ref. Lowry. 2025 Open Championship
''Although zoomed in slow mo video shows his ball moved, after speaking to the player concerned, it is the opinion and decision of the rules committee that the incident was an accident, Lowry had no intention of improving his lie and as no advantage was gained, there will be no penalty applied.''
Perfick
Maybe even a points system for these types of infringements like they have in F1 where you have a tour license and you get 3 points as a warning for each minor infringement. (Thinks back to 2003 with Jesper Parnevik and Mark Roe)

It wasn't zoomed in slo motion though was it, that's the whole point. You really need to refresh yourself on how the rules stand now with regards to TV replays.

 

[Swango1980]

I think as a whole, golfers don't cheat, especially at this level with so many cameras about.
In my opinion, I find it unfair to penalise a person 2 shots for doing something he didn't know he had done.

In my perfect future world .....
Ref. Lowry. 2025 Open Championship
''Although zoomed in slow mo video shows his ball moved, after speaking to the player concerned, it is the opinion and decision of the rules committee that the incident was an accident, Lowry had no intention of improving his lie and as no advantage was gained, there will be no penalty applied.''
Perfick
Maybe even a points system for these types of infringements like they have in F1 where you have a tour license and you get 3 points as a warning for each minor infringement. (Thinks back to 2003 with Jesper Parnevik and Mark Roe)

In your "perfect" rules change, why would you give Lowry a warning when you obviously feel he did absolutely nothing wrong?

 

[jim8flog]

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?

No. That was the first change after the Harrington incident.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I’ve tried reading the appropriate rule but amongst all the variants, exclusions and caveats, and all the to and fro discussion here - am still not sure whether I am penalised if my ball moves (and I see it moving) after I take my stance - but before I address the ball in any way.

All I have done is take my stance. It’s quite possible that, in taking my stance (especially in longer grass), movements of the grass under my feet impact the grass the ball is sitting on and the ball moves. And if no penalty is that because the movement is deemed to be of natural causes, and I play the ball as it now lies. If I am deemed to not have caused it to move by an ‘illegal’ action and hence no penalty, I do not replace my ball but play it from where it came to rest after moving. If I am deemed to have caused it to move by an illegal action then penalty, and I must replace my ball in its original position.

 

[Deleted member 35927]

I’ve tried reading the appropriate rule but amongst all the variants, exclusions and caveats, and all the to and fro discussion here - am still not sure whether I am penalised if my ball moves (and I see it moving) after I take my stance - but before I address the ball in any way.

All I have done is take my stance. It’s quite possible that, in taking my stance (especially in longer grass), movements of the grass under my feet impact the grass the ball is sitting on and the ball moves. And if no penalty is that because the movement is deemed to be of natural causes, and I play the ball as it now lies. If I am deemed to not have caused it to move by an ‘illegal’ action and hence no penalty, I do not replace my ball but play it from where it came to rest after moving. If I am deemed to have caused it to move by an illegal action then penalty, and I must replace my ball in its original position.

Assuming you're a man of integrity then it's up to you decide and act accordingly. Taking all things into account it shouldn't be to tricky to work out if it was your fault.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

I think as a whole, golfers don't cheat, especially at this level with so many cameras about.
In my opinion, I find it unfair to penalise a person 2 shots for doing something he didn't know he had done.

In my perfect future world .....
Ref. Lowry. 2025 Open Championship
''Although zoomed in slow mo video shows his ball moved, after speaking to the player concerned, it is the opinion and decision of the rules committee that the incident was an accident, Lowry had no intention of improving his lie and as no advantage was gained, there will be no penalty applied.''
Perfick
Maybe even a points system for these types of infringements like they have in F1 where you have a tour license and you get 3 points as a warning for each minor infringement. (Thinks back to 2003 with Jesper Parnevik and Mark Roe)

What if the “accidental” moving of the ball that he didn’t notice gave him a better lie even if it was very small ?

 

[Orikoru]

Seems harsh. Golf is about integrity, as we all know - if the ball visibly moved you'd expect Lowry to report that himself. If the movement was so small and imperceptible that only a slow motion camera can pick it up, then I don't think Lowry can be blamed for not reporting it - and for all intents and purposes it's made absolutely no difference to his shot anyway, i.e. hasn't improved his lie at all. Don't really see why he needed to be hit with a two-shot penalty. I watched the video posted on page 1 here and I couldn't even see it move on that.

I think with this TV camera stuff we're going down a slippery slope towards VAR for golf - and VAR has already made one sport completely unwatchable.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Seems harsh. Golf is about integrity, as we all know - if the ball visibly moved you'd expect Lowry to report that himself. If the movement was so small and imperceptible that only a slow motion camera can pick it up, then I don't think Lowry can be blamed for not reporting it - and for all intents and purposes it's made absolutely no difference to his shot anyway, i.e. hasn't improved his lie at all. Don't really see why he needed to be hit with a two-shot penalty. I watched the video posted on page 1 here and I couldn't even see it move on that.

I think with this TV camera stuff we're going down a slippery slope towards VAR for golf - and VAR has already made one sport completely unwatchable.

Using telly replays in golf for rules infractions has been around for over a decade

It can be useful

 

[Deleted member 35927]

Seems harsh. Golf is about integrity, as we all know - if the ball visibly moved you'd expect Lowry to report that himself. If the movement was so small and imperceptible that only a slow motion camera can pick it up, then I don't think Lowry can be blamed for not reporting it - and for all intents and purposes it's made absolutely no difference to his shot anyway, i.e. hasn't improved his lie at all. Don't really see why he needed to be hit with a two-shot penalty. I watched the video posted on page 1 here and I couldn't even see it move on that.

I think with this TV camera stuff we're going down a slippery slope towards VAR for golf - and VAR has already made one sport completely unwatchable.

Seems harsh. Golf is about integrity, as we all know - if the ball visibly moved you'd expect Lowry to report that himself. If the movement was so small and imperceptible that only a slow motion camera can pick it up, then I don't think Lowry can be blamed for not reporting it - and for all intents and purposes it's made absolutely no difference to his shot anyway, i.e. hasn't improved his lie at all. Don't really see why he needed to be hit with a two-shot penalty. I watched the video posted on page 1 here and I couldn't even see it move on that.

I think with this TV camera stuff we're going down a slippery slope towards VAR for golf - and VAR has already made one sport completely unwatchable.

It didn't need slow motion to spot. Why do people keep saying this. The use of TV footage coverage ,slow mo, hd and zooming and how it can be used is well documented

 

[Orikoru]

It didn't need slow motion to spot. Why do people keep saying this. The use of TV footage coverage ,slow mo, hd and zooming and how it can be used is well documented

I've just had a look for more videos on it via Twitter. On about the third video I watched, where somebody slowed it down, I could just see that the ball moved about 2mm at most. It certainly didn't improve his lie at all. To whack him with two-shot penalty for that is unbelievably harsh.

 

[Deleted member 35927]

I've just had a look for more videos on it via Twitter. On about the third video I watched, where somebody slowed it down, I could just see that the ball moved about 2mm at most. It certainly didn't improve his lie at all. To whack him with two-shot penalty for that is unbelievably harsh.

Maybe , but you can't just pretend it didn't happen. I've seen the real time clip and you can see it move.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I've just had a look for more videos on it via Twitter. On about the third video I watched, where somebody slowed it down, I could just see that the ball moved about 2mm at most. It certainly didn't improve his lie at all. To whack him with two-shot penalty for that is unbelievably harsh.

The number of shots is slightly tricksy. It starts off at 1 shot, for the movement, but the second gets added for not replacing it. If he didn't see it, how can he replace it? Almost set up to fail.

 

[Orikoru]

Maybe , but you can't just pretend it didn't happen. I've seen the real time clip and you can see it move.

But there should be scope for the rules officials to say "it's perfectly understandable that he didn't see that move since it BARELY moved and didn't improve his lie - no need to give him a penalty because he's gained nothing". This is where golf is out of touch in my opinion.

 

[Orikoru]

The number of shots is slightly tricksy. It starts off at 1 shot, for the movement, but the second gets added for not replacing it. If he didn't see it, how can he replace it? Almost set up to fail.

I would also argue it's completely impossible to replace it anyway. It moved because it's finely balanced on a bit of grass. If he 'replaces' it, the chances are it will be no closer to the original lie than it was after it moved.

 

[Deleted member 35927]

But there should be scope for the rules officials to say "it's perfectly understandable that he didn't see that move since it BARELY moved and didn't improve his lie - no need to give him a penalty because he's gained nothing". This is where golf is out of touch in my opinion.

But you can't say no advantage gained because you can never know. Just because it moved a small amount it doesn't mean no advantage.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I would also argue it's completely impossible to replace it anyway. It moved because it's finely balanced on a bit of grass. If he 'replaces' it, the chances are it will be no closer to the original lie than it was after it moved.

Agreed, it becomes more of a principal. Attempting to place is 5mm to the left in the rough is nigh on impossible

 

[Orikoru]

But you can't say no advantage gained because you can never know. Just because it moved a small amount it doesn't mean no advantage.

I can see on the video he still had a more-or-less identical lie to before it moved all of 2mm. It's not like it rolled out of a weed or away from tree.