Rickie Fowler Penalty..... Harsh!

[Orikoru]

An interesting thread over the last couple of days. Personally, I don't see rules as harsh or stupid or... they're just rules. What Ricky experienced was a rule. Unfair? No, it was just the way the cards fell.

But here's a thought. If Ricky had hit his ball just on the very edge of the hazard but still in play, and it came to rest for, say, 30 seconds(thinking of how long you can leave a ball on the edge of a hole before you have to play it) and then it started rolling again and dropped into the water is that unfair? Should he get to replace it without penalty?

He dropped his ball, it came to rest, then it rolled into the water. Tough, rub of the green. Unfair/fair, its golf. It isn't an exact science. Players hits a ball, it takes a wicked bounce into a bunker. Should he get a mulligan?

No of course not, because that's still part of the previous shot. And he wouldn't be getting punished twice for it - just once.

I just think if you take your drop / place it / whatever but then it rolls back into the same hazard you were dropping from, then in essence you haven't put it back into play because it's ended up in the same place without you taking a shot or anything. I don't believe that is fair. Perhaps the simplest version of what I'm saying is to not deem the ball 'in play' after a drop/placement until you've taken your stance and you're playing the shot.

 

[garyinderry]

Could Ricky, when placing, could he have pressed the ball down slightly knowing he was on a bank with the possibility of the ball rolling away.

 

[Orikoru]

You need to think carefully about what you have written here - it's pretty fundamental!

Why would Ricky be treated any differently if his drop had come to rest, then subsequently rolled into the water than if he had placed it as part of the dropping procedure?
This doesn't make sense to me (and I thought I understood your argument...)

I don't really know what you mean. To reiterate what I've just said above in reply to Hobbit, I just think that if you've gone in a hazard, then taken your drop, but it rolls back into the same hazard before you've attempted to play your next shot, then you haven't successfully put it back into play have you? No matter whether it rolled back in immediately, or after 10 or 30 seconds.

 

[duncan mackie]

Could Ricky, when placing, could he have pressed the ball down slightly knowing he was on a bank with the possibility of the ball rolling away.

Not within the rules - he would have ended up one shot worse off than having had the ball roll back into the water!

 

[duncan mackie]

I don't really know what you mean. To reiterate what I've just said above in reply to Hobbit, I just think that if you've gone in a hazard, then taken your drop, but it rolls back into the same hazard before you've attempted to play your next shot, then you haven't successfully put it back into play have you? No matter whether it rolled back in immediately, or after 10 or 30 seconds.

OK, now the goal posts seem to be changing further.
It only do you wish it to apply to a placed ball, but not a dropped one (although you have skirted that in this response) but you are now refining the revision to situations where you have taken relief from a specific penalty area, and the ball has returned to that penalty area?

 

[duncan mackie]

No of course not, because that's still part of the previous shot. And he wouldn't be getting punished twice for it - just once.

I just think if you take your drop / place it / whatever but then it rolls back into the same hazard you were dropping from, then in essence you haven't put it back into play because it's ended up in the same place without you taking a shot or anything. I don't believe that is fair. Perhaps the simplest version of what I'm saying is to not deem the ball 'in play' after a drop/placement until you've taken your stance and you're playing the shot.

The stance thing is back, extended to including the ball in play definition as well....do you really mean this because it has massive implications that I'm happy to lay out for consideration.

 

[Deleted member 21258]

No relevance.

Not sure I get what you mean as not relevant. From trying to learn from 'your mistakes' and making sure it didn't happen in the future, then why wouldn't you leave the tee peg in the ground until you are ready to play the shot especially on slopes?

if that simple thing solves this situation of a stupid double penalty, and as a player can not change the rules but he can change what he does in the future to ensure it does not happen again .....

But I do agree that to an 'outsider' what happened to Ricky seems silly and stupid. Some people may wish to defend the status quo as being fair, right and the holy grail of golf rules but.

 

[robinthehood]

Not sure I get what you mean as not relevant. From trying to learn from 'your mistakes' and making sure it didn't happen in the future, then why wouldn't you leave the tee peg in the ground until you are ready to play the shot especially on slopes?

if that simple thing solves this situation of a stupid double penalty, and as a player can not change the rules but he can change what he does in the future to ensure it does not happen again .....

But I do agree that to an 'outsider' what happened to Ricky seems silly and stupid. Some people may wish to defend the status quo as being fair, right and the holy grail of golf rules but.

It's not about defending the rules, it's about how difficult it is to actually make a meaningful change that doesn't have wide ranging ramifications. Okirus rule change would do nothing to make the rule seem less stupid to your outsider.

 

[rulefan]

I wonder what would be said if the rule was changed and the ball had to be redropped if it ran into a far better position eg the hole.

 

[rulefan]

Didn't watch the end of this yesterday, so missed the drama for Rickie. After dropping his ball out of the water on 11, it rolled back in as he was checking teh green and cost him another shot to lift it out a second time.... that's harsh

https://www.golf-monthly.co.uk/news...JkzjhPq4EFm67Uzx8KNyWqUrjt2r_KR0ZPbOexXxSTF7I

Why wasn't this posted in the Rules section?

 

[Swinglowandslow]

Wow I can't believe how may don't understand this simple rule, begs the question what other simple rules do they not understand.

I keep seeing you say this despite it being pointed out by those you accuse of not understanding the rule, that they do understand it .
All the posters here understand the rule as it is.
What is under discussion here is whether the rule is desirable, and whether it should be changed, because some people consider that there are circumstances, like the Fowler incident here, where it is not equitable or fair or logical.

 

[need_my_wedge]

Why wasn't this posted in the Rules section?

In hindsight, I probably should have. I wasn't thinking of it as a rules discussion and certainly wasn't expecting it to explode like it has. When I saw it originally, I thought wow, that's a bit harsh, he hasn't attempted to play the ball and been given an additionally penalty due to gravity. I wasn't considering the rule as such, but following the thread since, it seems I may have been a bit too simplistic

 

[Hobbit]

No of course not, because that's still part of the previous shot. And he wouldn't be getting punished twice for it - just once.

I just think if you take your drop / place it / whatever but then it rolls back into the same hazard you were dropping from, then in essence you haven't put it back into play because it's ended up in the same place without you taking a shot or anything. I don't believe that is fair. Perhaps the simplest version of what I'm saying is to not deem the ball 'in play' after a drop/placement until you've taken your stance and you're playing the shot.

"No of course not" is your opinion. I think, in my opinion, its a very valid question. In both cases the ball came to rest, and in both cases as it currently stands the ball is in play.

I agree that being penalised twice without hitting a shot for Ricky's example does seem kinda daft but that's golf. Just like finishing in a divot hole, that's golf.

 

[HankMarvin]

I keep seeing you say this despite it being pointed out by those you accuse of not understanding the rule, that they do understand it .
All the posters here understand the rule as it is.
What is under discussion here is whether the rule is desirable, and whether it should be changed, because some people consider that there are circumstances, like the Fowler incident here, where it is not equitable or fair or logical.

I didn’t hear Fowler complain about it, just a few guys crying on here about how unfair it was. So every time a rule upsets someone we need to debate it and shout for change, don’t think so, take the penalty and move on.

 

[Orikoru]

OK, now the goal posts seem to be changing further.
It only do you wish it to apply to a placed ball, but not a dropped one (although you have skirted that in this response) but you are now refining the revision to situations where you have taken relief from a specific penalty area, and the ball has returned to that penalty area?

Stop being so bloody pedantic! God. Obviously if you drop it and it rolls away you redrop it and then place it, that's already in the rules and is given so I didn't think I had to state all that AGAIN.

I'm sick of this, going round and round in circles. I've stated what I think the rule should be, it probably never will be that, it's just my opinion, which I believe I've made perfectly clear. I'm out.

 

[Deleted member 21258]

I didn’t hear Fowler complain about it, just a few guys crying on here about how unfair it was. So every time a rule upsets someone we need to debate it and shout for change, don’t think so, take the penalty and move on.

Sure beats debating how far do you hit your driver or what dress code

 

[Orikoru]

I didn’t hear Fowler complain about it, just a few guys crying on here about how unfair it was. So every time a rule upsets someone we need to debate it and shout for change, don’t think so, take the penalty and move on.

Of course he's not going to complain about it, he has to play the rules as they currently are. That means nothing. He can't argue on the basis of a rule that doesn't exist can he.

 

[williamalex1]

Wow I can't believe how may don't understand this simple rule, begs the question what other simple rules do they not understand.

Maybe confusing it with the exception in rule 9.3, if a ball moves on the green by natural forces it has to be replaced.

 

[HankMarvin]

Of course he's not going to complain about it, he has to play the rules as they currently are. That means nothing. He can't argue on the basis of a rule that doesn't exist can he.

Why can’t you just accept the current rule and move on, it’s not like you have any influence and can get the current rule changed and implement your own rule that covers this incident. The current rule covers more than one situation involving a moving ball in play.

 

[Orikoru]

Why can’t you just accept the current rule and move on, it’s not like you have any influence and can get the current rule changed and implement your own rule that covers this incident. The current rule covers more than one situation involving a moving ball in play.

This is a discussion forum where we discuss all aspects of golf. The rules are just one of those many aspects. We are all perfectly entitled to have an opinion on whether a rule is sensible, or lacking in common sense or fairness.