Was it any of my business really?

[Dave3498]

Reading Bill Elliott's excellent article about his experiences at The Masters, in this month's GM, I was intrigued by his quandry concerning the rule infringement by Arnie and Bill's phrase, 'Was it any of my business really?'

Many of us are in the same situation when we are actively engaged in the game, and have the right to call a penalty on a fellow player. We then feel that we have a duty to do something about it, but from the point of view of someone who is on the margin of the competition, albeit as an active sports reporter, then the subject question really applies.

Unless Bill was prepared to go and live in a cave in Tibet for the rest of his life, then accusing Arnie of cheating at that time in Arnies's career would be un-thinkable.

It seems that Arnie was in the process of his swing at the time and I'm sure that a talent like his would have been able to stop mid-swing, so I would assume that he himself didn't notice any movement of the ball. It certainly wouldn't have helped the shot if the ball did move away from its position at address.

When I am in this stuation, I always ask myself why the rule is there in the first place, and did the player gain any advantage from the infringement? Most of the Golf Rules are designed to stop blatant transgressions and not small inadvertant actions which in themselves do not gain the player any advantage. Is it any business of anyone in the crowd or even watching the game on TV? That's the question. I'm sure that Bill Elliott was right to say nothing about it, knowing that Arnie gained no advantage.

 

[madandra]

Common sense should ALWAYS prevail. Bill was right to hold his wheesht as Arnie was in the process of executing the shot and there has to come a point where once the player is committed to the shot the penalty is null and void.

 

[Imurg]

In principle I agree Madandra but....

18-2. By Player, Partner, Caddie or Equipment
b. Ball Moving After Address
If a player’s ball in play moves after he has addressed it (other than as a result of a stroke), the player is deemed to have moved the ball and incurs a penalty of one stroke. The ball must be replaced, unless the movement of the ball occurs after the player has begun the stroke or the backward movement of the club for the stroke and the stroke is made.

This is in many ways a daft rule. if the ball moves as you are coming down on the swing surely your task is made more difficult anyway so to penalise further seems a little harsh.

 

[madandra]

I remember watching Mark O'Meara addressing a putt and the ball rolled an eighth of a roll and the commontator questioned if he should be penalised but I was watching on TV and the camera had zoomed in close enough to read the ball so how can a guy standing over the ball see with the naked eye that his ball 'twitched'.

 

[USER1999]

But if it moves during your back swing or downswing, then the rules says it is ok. What is the issue? It is only moving it at address that is the problem, and here, clearly there is the opportunity to nudge it into a better lie, hence the rule.

 

[viscount17]

oh dear another badly written rule - no wonder they need referees.

is it as murph says, OK if the ball moves after you have started the backswing and the stroke is completed, or

is it that the penalty remains as you have addressed the ball but you don't have to replace it?

 

[muttleee]

I remember watching Mark O'Meara addressing a putt and the ball rolled an eighth of a roll and the commontator questioned if he should be penalised but I was watching on TV and the camera had zoomed in close enough to read the ball so how can a guy standing over the ball see with the naked eye that his ball 'twitched'.

An eighth of a roll is a lot more than a twitch! To me, that is a blatant penalty.

 

[TomC]

Hi everyone,

Just to point out that the player Bill spotted failing to call a moving ball offence on himself was not Arnold Palmer.

The picture of Palmer relates to the No 4 moment on Bill's list

 

[Dave3498]

Looks like a big misunderstanding on my part here. I assumed that the 'well known golfer' was Arnie, since the item is right alongside the picture of him. Anyway, Arnie or Journeyman, my comments still apply.

 

[vig]

I had to re-read the article because I was sure that he didn't imply who it was.

 

[Dave3498]

For Arnie, read 'well known golfer.'

 

[viscount17]

it does beg the question though,

is it the place of an 'outside agency' eg spectator or commentator, to draw attention to a 'foul' and should the referee even consult an outside agency for opinion?

would the player concerned make any difference to that decision?