Rickie Fowler Penalty..... Harsh!

[need_my_wedge]

What nearly cost Fowler was his thined chip across the green to put him into that position in the first place

The rule is fine , it’s not new , the players know it and Fowler just needed to take more care - the ball moved over a minute after he placed it - he was confident enough that it was fine to walk to his caddy for a chat and then to the green

Watched it again last night on a different link, and couldn't believe that he did the same again - after he had taken the penalty, faffed about getting his club ready and taking another walk up towards the green after removing his markers. Fortunate it didn't happen again.....

 

[Deleted member 16999]

You really do go out of your way to defend the holy sanctity of the rules don't you?

Yeah if someone takes his stance and then changes his mind and the ball rolls off then more fool him. Can't see it happening very often. My proposed changed wouldn't complicate it, nor make it simpler really - it would just remove the unfair possibility of someone being punished with an extra penalty for something that was simply bad luck.

I don’t think it’s trying to defend the holy sanctity, it’s showing you that it is nigh on impossible to come up with a simple rule that can cover every scenario.

 

[duncan mackie]

.
I'm pleased you posted this. I was at a rules evening last week and this was pointed out. We all looked a bit blank but nodded our heads. I didn't like to post it on here in case everyone poured scorn on me. It does seem an odd thing to change. It was simple, effective, removed doubt.

It was changed for consistency. You must use a marker when a ball is to be replaced; you may choose to use markers/indicators etc when taking relief.
I would also suggest that the reality previously was somewhat false in a number of ways.
1. When taking a preferred lie the majority of people I observed were extremely lax about exactly where they positioned their (usually tee peg, sometimes pitch mark repairer) marker relative to the ball. Very much a general indicator.
2. 6" seemed somewhat flexible.
The above observstions were from more careful observation across a range of playing situations from matches to friendly knocks, Q comps to roll ups, this year when I knew the rule was changing.
In practice anyone who will deliberately take more than their permitted 6" going forwards would have found a way previously.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

On a side note I wonder how many of those who claim that this ruling is unfair ever question the relief from grandstands etc; or assistance in moving obstructions that tournament pro's get.

Sometimes the rules work in your favour and on other occasions they go against.

This was not an unknown ruling that was applied and was accepted with good grace by Rickie Fowler.

The fault perhaps lay in his attempt to obtain a perfect lie resulting in the ball being somewhat precariously balanced.

 

[Orikoru]

I don’t think it’s trying to defend the holy sanctity, it’s showing you that it is nigh on impossible to come up with a simple rule that can cover every scenario.

Except that we already have done with only a minor change from the real rule, he's just shooting it down on the most ridiculous grounds.

 

[cookelad]

Watched it again last night on a different link, and couldn't believe that he did the same again - after he had taken the penalty, faffed about getting his club ready and taking another walk up towards the green after removing his markers. Fortunate it didn't happen again.....

I know its been asked before, and at the risk of starting another circular reference on the same thread, why the flip didn't he go back to where he'd played the previous shot? Forgetting about the water, where he dropped/placed he was short sided playing over a bunker (NITBY) from below the green, from the original spot he had loads of green to play with and no hazards in his way.

 

[jim8flog]

No of course not, you should go and practice your bunker shots in that case. If you have been penalised a stroke already and your ball moves under it's own weight before you take your next stroke you should get a free drop. Even if your ball rolled closer onto a green it should still be redropped it makes the rule fair and consistent. Too many dinosaurs who can't see change and can't apply common sense, everything that's bad about golf

That is a bit contradictory the ball moving on a green is a relatively new rule. Are you saying you should be a dinosaur and not accept the new rule?

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Except that we already have done with only a minor change from the real rule, he's just shooting it down on the most ridiculous grounds.

But you questioning/debating the current rule is looked at as ridiculous by some.
MM sums it up quite well imo.

 

[duncan mackie]

How many times do we have to say it? Seriously it's been said by me and Parsaregood multiple times now. It seems like you just skip past it because in your mind the rules were written by God Himself and must never be questioned.

One more time, let's see if you can get it...

If you take a drop, and/or subsequently place the ball, and then after a short period where you have not taken your stance to play your next shot, it rolls again - you retake the drop / replace the ball.

There it is. Simple.

Thought I would come back to this to see if we can find a baseline to your thoughts. Please don't think me picky, of defensive, or whatever in highlighting these points - I'm only doing it to go forwards.

Basically what you and Pararegood have posted at various points in this thread have not been the same thing; they have referenced many different situations and treatments. The constant is that in some situations where a ball has been put back onto the course any subsequent movement of that ball should be treated as if the ball was never at rest until a player takes his stance.

So, firstly why have any restrictions on the reason the ball was being returned to play? You haven't focused much on this but Parsaregood has used various circumstances in posts. Why wouldn't you apply this to every situation in which a ball is dropped, placed or replaced in any area of the course?
Second, what relevance do you attribute to the player taking a stance? What does this act signify that merits inclusion?

More detailed considerations will depend on the answers to the above. When we have gone through them we will be able to compare apples with apples ie current situation with possible alternative one.

 

[Orikoru]

But you questioning/debating the current rule is looked at as ridiculous by some.
MM sums it up quite well imo.

It's not like it's just us. The only reason we ever debate a rule like this is when it's published on Golf Monthly or other outlets as being a harsh or strange rule in the first place - which is what prompts us to discuss it. Nothing wrong with saying a rule is daft and discussing potential better alternatives or alterations in my book. I thought golf was trying to be more progressive.

It only winds me up when certain people think that being open to discussing the rules is the same as not knowing the rules or wanting to disobey the rules out on the course, which is clearly complete nonsense.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

It's not like it's just us. The only reason we ever debate a rule like this is when it's published on Golf Monthly or other outlets as being a harsh or strange rule in the first place - which is what prompts us to discuss it. Nothing wrong with saying a rule is daft and discussing potential better alternatives or alterations in my book. I thought golf was trying to be more progressive.

It only winds me up when certain people think that being open to discussing the rules is the same as not knowing the rules or wanting to disobey the rules out on the course, which is clearly complete nonsense.

No issue with any debate, I’d agree some replies on both sides don’t help.

 

[Orikoru]

Thought I would come back to this to see if we can find a baseline to your thoughts. Please don't think me picky, of defensive, or whatever in highlighting these points - I'm only doing it to go forwards.

Basically what you and Pararegood have posted at various points in this thread have not been the same thing; they have referenced many different situations and treatments. The constant is that in some situations where a ball has been put back onto the course any subsequent movement of that ball should be treated as if the ball was never at rest until a player takes his stance.

So, firstly why have any restrictions on the reason the ball was being returned to play? You haven't focused much on this but Parsaregood has used various circumstances in posts. Why wouldn't you apply this to every situation in which a ball is dropped, placed or replaced in any area of the course?
Second, what relevance do you attribute to the player taking a stance? What does this act signify that merits inclusion?

More detailed considerations will depend on the answers to the above. When we have gone through them we will be able to compare apples with apples ie current situation with possible alternative one.

Yeah I probably would do. Apply it to whenever you need to take a drop. It's just that in 90% of the other situations there's no danger of it rolling somewhere which would cause you an additional penalty like when it rolls in the water - so it hardly matters.

The 'taking a stance' is just golf lingo for 'he's about to hit it' basically. That was just the term Parsaregood used so I followed on from that.

 

[duncan mackie]

Yeah I probably would do. Apply it to whenever you need to take a drop. It's just that in 90% of the other situations there's no danger of it rolling somewhere which would cause you an additional penalty like when it rolls in the water - so it hardly matters.

The 'taking a stance' is just golf lingo for 'he's about to hit it' basically. That was just the term Parsaregood used so I followed on from that.

Just to be clear...sorry to push it!
Do you mean when you are taking a drop or do you also include when you are placing or replacing as well? Anywhere on the course?
Your ruling would cease when? When the player makes a stroke?

 

[Orikoru]

Just to be clear...sorry to push it!
Do you mean when you are taking a drop or do you also include when you are placing or replacing as well? Anywhere on the course?
Your ruling would cease when? When the player makes a stroke?

This whole thing is about when you have to place it after your drop. If the ball hasn't rolled away after your drop then you wouldn't need to place it and the negates the entire discussion we're having.

 

[robinthehood]

This whole thing is about when you have to place it after your drop. If the ball hasn't rolled away after your drop then you wouldn't need to place it and the negates the entire discussion we're having.

So if I drop it and it stops , but then after 30 seconds rolls away is that also another free go? Is it if it rolls into a hazard only . If I place and it rolls later in to a crappy lie is that another free go?

 

[Hobbit]

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?

 

[Deleted member 21258]

Could he not just have left his 'tee peg' in the ground whilst looking at his shot etc, then lifted it when he was ready to hit the ball.

Then he would have got another free drop/place and no penalty ? If that's the case then surely that is the way forward when on slopes?

 

[Orikoru]

So if I drop it and it stops , but then after 30 seconds rolls away is that also another free go? Is it if it rolls into a hazard only . If I place and it rolls later in to a crappy lie is that another free go?

Yeah sure, why not.

 

[duncan mackie]

This whole thing is about when you have to place it after your drop. If the ball hasn't rolled away after your drop then you wouldn't need to place it and the negates the entire discussion we're having.

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...)

 

[duncan mackie]

Could he not just have left his 'tee peg' in the ground whilst looking at his shot etc, then lifted it when he was ready to hit the ball.

Then he would have got another free drop/place and no penalty ? If that's the case then surely that is the way forward when on slopes?

No relevance.