Loading ...
ball moves after backswing commences
Forums → Rules of Golf | 32 posts
Pages: 1 2
|
I have had a ruling on this one but would be interested to see it discussed here: Situation: Player addresses ball - places club on ground immediately behind ball - player commences backswing and half way through his backswing the ball moves 1 mm - player continues swing and hits ball. What is the ruling? Any penalty? I would be very interested in hearing opinions on this one - especially if you do not know a "decision" on this and have only read the R&A rules and the decisions. I think the rules are ambiguous.
"those things never happen to short putts!" |
|
Rule 18-2b
b. Ball Moving After Address "decisions" come from the R & A publication Decsions on the Rules of Golf, a new edition of which is released every two years. Read the definitions for "Addressing the Ball" and "Move or Moved" it may take away some of the ambiguity.
|
|
There is only one rule (above). It is very straightforward.
|
|
Okay - Is he/she penalised or not?
"those things never happen to short putts!" |
|
Yes. One shot. Mick
|
|
Ball moves If player has not started backswing then replace ... then play shot If player has started backswing then shot counts A stroke penalty is incurred either way
Schanck
|
|
I think the principle of the rule has been answered, but do you really mean to say the ball moved 1mm? I'd think that is something less than a ball shaking, not moving, on a green in a significant gale on the Mornington Penninsula at Moonah Links on the Open course after a decade of drought. It's just that if a wobble occurred versus the ball moving, or said differently actually changing position, is the difference in incurring a penalty.
|
|
Exactly. If the ball oscillates on the spot it hasn't moved as defined in the Rules Definition
<u></u> Move or Moved A ball is deemed to have “moved’’ if it leaves its position and comes to rest in any other place. Decision 18/2 Ball Oscillates During Address Q. In addressing the ball, a player accidentally causes the ball to oscillate, but it returns to its original position. Has the ball “moved� A. No.
|
|
stevepop, YOu've got the correct information supplied. What was your ruling that you got?
|
|
There is no penalty cause he continued to hit the ball. If he stopped his back swing it would have been a penalty of 1 shot. Regards,Michael
woohoo my birthday today!! 14 y/o
|
|
Michael, go back to Post #2 and read the rule, if the ball moved
(as defined) after the player has addressed it (as defined)
during the players stroke or back swing and the player continues
and plays the stroke, the penalty is 1 stroke.
|
|
I'm recyclying old material now but I wrote the following on 23/3/04 and the rules regarding hitting a moving ball haven't changed
|
|
You guys have got it right. Yes - penalty 1 stroke - but avoid the extra penalty for playing a ball that has moved and was not replaced in its original position. I am new to this forum - and wondered about the quality of the advice posted. I now know that the advice, once discussed, is excellent. It would be good to know which, if any, of the posters have qualifications.
"those things never happen to short putts!" |
|
b. Ball Moving After Address FULL STOP. NEW SENTENCE 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.
When it is read correctly, as two separate sentences, it is much
easier to comprehend.
|
|
Qualifications mean squat and are no guarantee of competence, accuracy or correctness. There are plenty of qualified people out there in any field that are complete dickheads.
Beware of cheap imitations - Especially from the US |
|
|
|
to err is human blah blah ...well put tho lol
|
|
stevepop some of the guys/girls here are very well qualified ... to name a few (they would need to tell you what qualifications they have but most post with reference to the rules of golf or decisions
AAA I'm not but would like to do the accreditation courses in the future!
Schanck
|
|
Can't argue with that.
Not necessarily - And it still does not mean that they are right. The danger there is the "qualified" dickhead that uses the qualification as a blugeoning tool to enforce their position.
Beware of cheap imitations - Especially from the US |
|
How can you say "Not necessarily"??????? To get any kind of Rules Certification requires a lot of study and making the effort to go and sit an exam. That is a LOT more effort than someone with no qualifications has made. And no, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are right. Even the best and most respected rules officials can probably cite numerous times that they have made a mistake. Including a few high profile mistakes that have affected the outcome of Majors. But chances are, they probably are right.
This is something that happens to a lot of people when the get the first taste of perceived power. Cops, School Teachers, Rules Officials etc. When they first get their hands on that piece of paper that proves that they know more/are better at something/are more important than everyone else they take every opportunity to show it. It doesn't take long usually for them to settle down and I don't really see it as a reason to dismiss everyone who has made the effort to get qualified.
|
|
It doen't matter what qualifications anyone has. It has been said "There are only two kinds of Rules Officials - those who have made errors, and those who have not made them. Yet ." A good rules official always carries the rules and has the decisions on the buggy. Often he will show the player the page.
However, the posts you should have most confidence in are where a
rule/decision is quoted or referenced. At least it means that the
poster has read the book.
|
|
How does one use qualification as a bludgeoning tool? If they are <u>the player </u>involved and invoke a rule in any situation, they will probably follow the correct procedure because they probably know what to do. If their fellow competitors in stroke play don't think it right, they can discuss it and then clear up the doubtful point with the committee before the cards are signed and submitted (Rule 6-6). If their opponent doesn't think they proceeded correctly, they can make a claim according to Rule 2-5. If they are a fellow competitor and don't like the way a player proceeds, they can clear it as a doubtful point before the cards are signed and submitted. If they are the opponent, they can make a claim. If they use it to brow-beat someone on the course...hang on, this is the person you are referring to...the dreaded Rules Nazi...? It can't be that hard to bludgeon them back, can it? Two words should be enough...my 3 year old says it to me all the time..."Go away."
|
|
Good point. One of the first things I was told was NEVER offer a ruling without looking it up first or at least having a rule book available to refer to.
|
|
Yep - two words should
be enough. However, I'm not talking about a recipient of a
"ruling" that is familar with rules/protocol. Most
golfers don't have the confidence or knowledge to argue as
they don't want to be seen: The problem is that the average golfer has a woeful understanding of the rules as well as correct protocol for disagreement (and resolution). Therefore the rules nazis enjoy postion of power by waving their qualifications and/or bludgeoning queries into submission due to rules ignorance. Most people learn the rules as they go and if they don't know right from wrong then they simply accept what they are told as they expect dominant others to know what they are talking about. Have you ever been subject to a decision on course (later proved wrong) that you have accepted because the authority either seemed to know what they were talking about or told you that they knew what they were talking about?
Beware of cheap imitations - Especially from the US |
|
Exactly. The Rules of Golf are fairly simple. If unsure, you only need look at the book and it is there in black and white. Mick
|
Pages: 1 2
Forums → Rules of Golf
Loading ...