Sunglasses Fall onto Ball

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Today one of my playing companions sunglasses fell off his head when he was addressing his ball (which was just off the green). His glasses hit his ball and moved it. I’m thinking that as a result of 2019 rule changes if his ball had been on the green then he could replace his ball from where it had been moved and suffer no penalty, but as my companion was off the green he replaces his ball but does incur a penalty stroke.

Right or Wrong?

 

[backwoodsman]

Rule 9.4 applies. As the ball was not on a green, and none of the exception apply, then yes, he gets a one stroke penalty

 

[salfordlad]

There's not enough facts to be definitive. If it is the player (eg through his movement) that caused the glasses to fall off and there is no relevant 9.4b Exception, as is the case here, then the 9.4b penalty applies. But if there is a different cause of the sunglasses falling, eg wind blew them off, then it is a 9.6 issue, no penalty. Ball gets replaced in both cases.

 

[Steven Rules]

There's not enough facts to be definitive. If it is the player (eg through his movement) that caused the glasses to fall off and there is no relevant 9.4b Exception, as is the case here, then the 9.4b penalty applies. But if there is a different cause of the sunglasses falling, eg wind blew them off, then it is a 9.6 issue, no penalty. Ball gets replaced in both cases.

Could you please talk me through your 9.6 reasoning here. Specifically:

(a) In invoking 9.6, are you saying that the player’s equipment (i.e. sunglasses) is an outside influence?

(b) Are you saying there is a distinction between wind causing the sunglasses to dislodge from the player’s head and gravity causing them to dislodge? (Or, to invoke some physics, the gravitational force and/or the centrifugal force trying to dislodge the glasses exceeds the frictional force that was previously keeping the glasses on his head. Centrifugal force = He shakes his head and his glasses fall off.) Aren't gravity and centrifugal force natural forces just like wind and water?

 

[salfordlad]

Let's slow it down and start with the clean stuff before getting into the grey zone. Probably also simplifies the issues if we discuss a hat rather than sunglasses. If a player has taken stance at the ball and a wind blows the player's hat off and it moves the ball, there is no 9.4b penalty - that hat, mobilized by the wind, has moved the ball. I presume you are very comfortable with this, which is the stuff of 9.6/1 - which is also the 2019 incarnation of the old blown tumbleweed moving the ball decision. Now substitute sunglasses for the hat and you have precisely what I was saying in #3. Now to expand a bit...

A 'ball moved by player equipment' scenario will likely require decisions to be taken on a) who/what caused the equipment movement that subsequently moved the ball and b) did any 9.4b Exception apply which would make the answer to a) redundant. Question b) is not in play in the OP, but in another scenario it could well be... I have an RB ruling that there is no penalty in the following situation - player's ball is in GUR in bad lie but with good line at the hole, the player is examining the lie closely thinking about whether to take relief or play as lies and his hat falls off, moving the ball. Ruling was while this is a 9.4b situation (ie player caused the movement), Exception 4 means no penalty.

Normally the key challenge is to determine what caused the movement and the threshold issue is whether it was player or natural forces. Of the natural forces, wind is likely to be much simpler to consider. IMO, gravity not so much (but never say never) because gravity will normally only take the object straight down to the ground - so if a player is looming over the ball and gravity results in the hat falling down and moving the ball then just like my ruling example above, the player is responsible for the movement because he chose to be looming over the ball. So it's 9.4b, but if the reason for the looming is one that meets the 9.4b Exception 4 list (or Exception 2/7.4) then there is no penalty.

For sure, it is not difficult to concoct scenarios in which the 9.4 versus 9.6 determination could get hairy. But the key purpose of my post #3 was to affirm that the Rules do not automatically blame the player.

PS On your centrifugal force example - player shaking his head causing the glasses to fall off, I'm hard pressed to think of any circumstance where the player could be absolved of the penalty.

 

[Colin L]

Can we tease out the difference between the wind blowing my hat off my head when I've taken my stance and my hat falling off through gravity when I've taken my stance? I am, by choice, "looming" over my ball on each occasion . Are you differentiating between wind as an outside influence and gravity?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

…I’ll just clarify the situation yesterday…he took them off to putt and popped them on his hat (as many do)…but clearly not securely enough, and as he bent over at address they fell off.

 

[rulie]

I think it's a penalty regardless of how the hat/glasses came to move. Both are the player's equipment.

 

[salfordlad]

Can we tease out the difference between the wind blowing my hat off my head when I've taken my stance and my hat falling off through gravity when I've taken my stance? I am, by choice, "looming" over my ball on each occasion . Are you differentiating between wind as an outside influence and gravity?

Neither wind nor gravity are an outside influence, presumably you mean differentiating between natural forces, but no, I'm not differentiating - I have said I think the wind case is easier to apply the rules to. The practical question is did the player cause the outside influence (the hat) to move. If the player is shaking his head around right over the ball and the hat falls off, it is not a 9.6 issue but 9.4 applies, and then the question of penalty is driven by whether an Exception applies. That was the essence of the ruling I received.

…I’ll just clarify the situation yesterday…he took them off to putt and popped them on his hat (as many do)…but clearly not securely enough, and as he bent over at address they fell off.

Thank you for the clarification. That scenario is a little outside the elements of my RB discussion and ball at rest moved examples. But I do have another Q/A that looks like this: Q. The player is taking a practice swing and their hat comes off with the movement and moves the ball, ruling? A. Rule 9.4b penalty, replace ball.
In your sunglasses scenario, my inclination is to say the ultimate responsibility rests with the player as he put those sunglasses into a precarious position that could not defy the forces of gravity - that is, gravity is not the cause of this ball movement and unless a 9.4b Exception is relevant (not in the OP) then penalty.

I think it's a penalty regardless of how the hat/glasses came to move. Both are the player's equipment.

The official ruling I cite in #5 above indicates it is more complicated that that. And here's another ruling Q/A: Q. The player is moving a twig near the ball at rest in the fairway and their hat falls off and moves the ball, what is the ruling? A. What caused the hat to move? If it is the player, 9.4b penalty, replace ball. If it is the wind, the hat moved the ball and rule 9.6 applies, no penalty, replace ball.

 

[Colin L]

Neither wind nor gravity are an outside influence, presumably you mean differentiating between natural forces, but no, I'm not differentiating - I have said I think the wind case is easier to apply the rules to. .

Yes I did mean natural forces. I am getting increasingly careless in my old age.

The lesson to be learned is, I reckon, that if your hat falls off your head and moves your ball, you immediately exclaim in a loud voice, "My, isn't it windy today."

 

[salfordlad]

Yes I did mean natural forces. I am getting increasingly careless in my old age.

The lesson to be learned is, I reckon, that if your hat falls off your head and moves your ball, you immediately exclaim in a loud voice, "My, isn't it windy today."

And if you had enjoyed a full Scottish breakfast, it was probably true.

 

[Steven Rules]

- that hat, mobilized by the wind, has moved the ball. I presume you are very comfortable with this, which is the stuff of 9.6/1

I am not comfortable with this. The hat is the player’s equipment. The object in 9.6/1 is a random piece of rubbish (a plastic bag). The differentiation is important in this scenario.

- which is also the 2019 incarnation of the old blown tumbleweed moving the ball decision

Old Decision 18-1/6 'Ball at rest moved by blowing tumbleweed' is one of my favourites. (What's not to like about a Decision involving tumbleweeds?) It sits adjacent to Decision 18-1/7 'Ball in plastic bag blown to new position by wind', which is the one that has been carried forward to Interpretation 9.6/1.

In defaulting to Decision 18-1/6, however, you seem to be overlooking the Decision which is most directly relevant to this wind/hat/equipment/ball scenario: 18-2/17 'Towel dropped by player is blown onto and moves ball'. A player dropped a towel onto the ground. The wind blew the towel onto the player’s ball and moved it. As the player's equipment caused the ball to move, the player incurred a penalty stroke and must replace the ball.

I have an RB ruling that there is no penalty in the following situation - player's ball is in GUR in bad lie but with good line at the hole, the player is examining the lie closely thinking about whether to take relief or play as lies and his hat falls off, moving the ball. Ruling was while this is a 9.4b situation (ie player caused the movement), Exception 4 means no penalty.

I am very comfortable with that ruling but that scenario is quite different (in terms of the applicabilty of the exception) from the one under discussion here.

 

[salfordlad]

In defaulting to Decision 18-1/6, however, you seem to be overlooking the Decision which is most directly relevant to this wind/hat/equipment/ball scenario: 18-2/17 'Towel dropped by player is blown onto and moves ball'. A player dropped a towel onto the ground. The wind blew the towel onto the player’s ball and moved it. As the player's equipment caused the ball to move, the player incurred a penalty stroke and must replace the ball.

Absolutely I'm "overlooking" that Decision. Because we are explicitly told that it has been rescinded and the outcome has changed. See the Mapping Summary Chart. 18-2/17 has been permanently consigned to the annals of history and has no further relevance.

I am not comfortable with this. The hat is the player’s equipment. The object in 9.6/1 is a random piece of rubbish (a plastic bag). The differentiation is important in this scenario.

Repeating some of my input from above - Another post 2019 RB ruling that explicitly affirms the significant change from pre-2019 and that the hat is now treated precisely the same as that random piece of rubbish in 9.6/1: Q. The player is moving a twig near the ball at rest in the fairway and their hat falls off and moves the ball, what is the ruling? A. What caused the hat to move? If it is the player, 9.4b penalty, replace ball. If it is the wind, the hat moved the ball and rule 9.6 applies, no penalty, replace ball.

Edit: More grist -

1. This from the USGA Facebook Rules page:

Q. Player is about to hit his second shot from centre of fairway, wind gust takes players hat off and it hits his ball moving it a yard closer to the green. What is the ruling?
A. Even though it's the player's equipment, the player did not cause the ball to move. The ball was moved by an outside influence and so the ball must be replaced, no penalty.

2. This from the Dr Lew Blakey Ultimate True False Quiz (Generalarea.org). Dr Blakey's post 2018 quizzes specifically target, amongst other objectives, significant changes from the pre-2019 rules.
True or False: A player’s towel accidentally fell from the player’s golf bag onto the player’s ball
in play, causing the ball to move. The bag was sitting upright on the ground, not
carried by the player or caddie. There is no penalty and the ball must be replaced.
True: Definition of Equipment, Definition of Outside Influence and Rule 9.6

 

[backwoodsman]

Am I interpreting the above information correctly - in that the hat/sunglasses/whatever, whilst being part of the players equipment, merely become outside influences once they are separated from the players control? (And by separated from control, I mean outwith the direct use or influence of the player). And that this is a post-2019 thing? (Is this in any way an adjunct to the fact of it no longer being a penalty if a moving ball hits player, his kit etc?).

(Ps. Only asking as I'm wanting to learn ...)

 

[Deleted member 23270]

I thought we played this game for fun.........

 

[Steven Rules]

Absolutely I'm "overlooking" that Decision. Because we are explicitly told that it has been rescinded and the outcome has changed. See the Mapping Summary Chart. 18-2/17 has been permanently consigned to the annals of history and has no further relevance.

Fair enough. I totally misread the mapping summary chart when I checked it on this matter. "Outcome change - yes". While not listed as "eliminated" (might be a typo?), 18-2/17 is stated as mapped to "Definition of Outside Influence and Rule 9.6"

Thank you for the clarification and the education.

 

[Colin L]

And if you had enjoyed a full Scottish breakfast, it was probably true.

I do confess that I have been caught out on my downswing by an unexpected gust (an embarrassment probably experienced by many) but I am certain my hat stayed on. I only do full Scottish/English/Welsh/Irish breakfasts when I'm away from home, something to do with paying for B&B and being determined to get my money's worth. It's hard to tell their nationality: they seem to comprise much the same ingredients, though not necessarily in the same order.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I do confess that I have been caught out on my downswing by an unexpected gust (an embarrassment probably experienced by many) but I am certain my hat stayed on. I only do full Scottish/English/Welsh/Irish breakfasts when I'm away from home, something to do with paying for B&B and being determined to get my money's worth. It's hard to tell their nationality: they seem to comprise much the same ingredients, though not necessarily in the same order.

I suspect that you’d only get a slice of Lorne sausage and maybe also fried bread or a tattie scone in a Full Scottish.

 

[salfordlad]

Am I interpreting the above information correctly - in that the hat/sunglasses/whatever, whilst being part of the players equipment, merely become outside influences once they are separated from the players control? (And by separated from control, I mean outwith the direct use or influence of the player). And that this is a post-2019 thing? (Is this in any way an adjunct to the fact of it no longer being a penalty if a moving ball hits player, his kit etc?).

(Ps. Only asking as I'm wanting to learn ...)

Yes it's from 2019. Previously if it was your equipment that moved your ball you were on the hook. Now a decision is required whether it was player action that caused the movement or natural forces and if it was player action did a 9.4b Exception apply.
I'm not aware of any direct link between this issue and accidental deflection/stopping of a moving ball, but that shares the similar feature of removing previous penalties in situations where the player could be considered an innocent party (eg ball rebounds from tree and hits the player).

 

[salfordlad]

Fair enough. I totally misread the mapping summary chart when I checked it on this matter. "Outcome change - yes". While not listed as "eliminated" (might be a typo?), 18-2/17 is stated as mapped to "Definition of Outside Influence and Rule 9.6"

Thank you for the clarification and the education.

Happy to help. You do a fine job in assisting many with your contributions.

I note there are many "outcome changed" decisions that are not "eliminated", so it seems unlikely to be a typo.