Jump to content


 

Photo

Phil....2 Strokes Or Dq?


  • Please log in to reply
224 replies to this topic

#211 Rodent

Rodent

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 462 posts

Posted 12 July 2018 - 06:07 PM

So you think the definition of a stroke should be different for when the ball is moving and when it isn't?

 

You are welcome to think that but that doesn't make you right. The rules currently only offer one definition of what constitutes a stroke and they make no mention of the status of the ball when doing so.

 

 

 

Please feel free to do this all you like. I could not care less how many players do this during a round because the 2 stroke penalty is more than enough to make it not a feasible strategy.

In my examples, the ball is moving each time a stroke is made so I did not assert the definition of a stroke should be changed. My distinction is that if you address a stationary ball but strike it after it starts moving then status quo BUT if you walk up to a moving ball and hit it, you should be DQ'd.

 That is what I believe the rule should be. If the ruling on Phil is correct, it should be changed imho.



#212 Monty85

Monty85

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1612 posts
  • LocationWestern Sydney

Posted 12 July 2018 - 10:10 PM

In my examples, the ball is moving each time a stroke is made so I did not assert the definition of a stroke should be changed. My distinction is that if you address a stationary ball but strike it after it starts moving then status quo BUT if you walk up to a moving ball and hit it, you should be DQ'd.

 

Scenario 1: ball starts to move after address, player thinks "better hit it now before it rolls off the green".

 

Scenario 2: ball is rolling off the green, player thinks "better chase after it and hit that before it rolls off the green".

 

What's the difference? 

 

That is what I believe the rule should be. If the ruling on Phil is correct, it should be changed imho.

 

 

Whether it will be addressed by the R&A in the future, who knows. Considering the extreme rarity of this incident (2 televised instances in 20+ years) I doubt anything will change.


| GolfLink 


#213 languid

languid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1901 posts

Posted 12 July 2018 - 10:13 PM

In my examples, the ball is moving each time a stroke is made so I did not assert the definition of a stroke should be changed. My distinction is that if you address a stationary ball but strike it after it starts moving then status quo BUT if you walk up to a moving ball and hit it, you should be DQ'd.
 That is what I believe the rule should be. If the ruling on Phil is correct, it should be changed imho.

Please explain your reason. DQ is a harsh penalty.

#214 Rodent

Rodent

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 462 posts

Posted 13 July 2018 - 09:37 AM

Scenario 1: ball starts to move after address, player thinks "better hit it now before it rolls off the green".

 

Scenario 2: ball is rolling off the green, player thinks "better chase after it and hit that before it rolls off the green".

 

What's the difference? 

 The difference is in scenario 1, there is no premeditation and the player has made a mistake in the spur of the moment.

 Scenario 2, the player could never claim it was a reflex action and has intentionally acted outside the rules (whether happy to be penalised or not, I think a deliberate breaking of the rules should result in DQ)


  • Toph likes this

#215 Rodent

Rodent

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 462 posts

Posted 13 July 2018 - 09:42 AM

Please explain your reason. DQ is a harsh penalty.

I believe when a player obviously and intentionally breaks the rules of golf, the penalty should be DQ. I don't think intentionally breaking the rules and taking a prescribed penalty is in the spirit of the game. I think penalty strokes should be reserved for unintentional or inadvertent breaches.


  • Goldy and Toph like this

#216 Monty85

Monty85

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1612 posts
  • LocationWestern Sydney

Posted 13 July 2018 - 09:52 AM

 The difference is in scenario 1, there is no premeditation and the player has made a mistake in the spur of the moment.

 

Says who? The player could easily be thinking while addressing the ball "if this ball moves, i'm going to hit it". It's just as premeditated.

 

Good luck writing rules to try and deal with a players thoughts.

 

Scenario 2, the player could never claim it was a reflex action

 

Then we'd just be debating whether or not a "reflex action" should be considering a stroke or not. What's a reflex action anyway?

 

What if the player addresses it and the ball starts really slowly moving and the player has about 5 seconds to think about it before hitting it?

 

and has intentionally acted outside the rules

 

How so? As long as they follow the rules and apply the 2 stroke penalty they would be acting exactly as the rules require for such a situation.

 

(whether happy to be penalised or not, I think a deliberate breaking of the rules should result in DQ)

 

I don't totally disagree with you. Your opinion (or mine) don't really matter though, only the rules do.


Edited by Monty85, 13 July 2018 - 09:53 AM.

| GolfLink 


#217 Rodent

Rodent

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 462 posts

Posted 13 July 2018 - 02:11 PM

Happy for a player to get the benefit of the doubt as to intent. In the blatant cases, there is no doubt. The rules provide wiggle room all the time. "Virtually certain"....what does that mean? 99% sure, 98%, 97%?

 If the rules were written "obviously and intentionally" sure there would be cases that were 50/50 and they could result in the 2 stroke penalty. DQ's could be reserved for obvious cases like Phil's.

 There's no need for "Good luck writing rules to try and deal with a players thoughts".

If you brush a grain of sand away from behind the ball on your backswing when playing a bunker shot, is it not the same penalty as making a trough behind the ball with your takeaway? What I'm saying is that if in the opinion of the referee, it is obviously intentional and deliberate it should be a DQ.



#218 AAA

AAA

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3102 posts

Posted 13 July 2018 - 06:17 PM

Next year VC is 95%



#219 Monty85

Monty85

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1612 posts
  • LocationWestern Sydney

Posted 15 July 2018 - 10:05 PM

Happy for a player to get the benefit of the doubt as to intent. In the blatant cases, there is no doubt. 

 

Fair enough. 

 

The rules provide wiggle room all the time. "Virtually certain"....what does that mean? 99% sure, 98%, 97%?

 

"virtually certain" does not allow for wiggle room as you put it. A lot of the time it is impossible to be 100% certain where your ball is so the phrase "virtually certain" is used. That doesn't mean you have wiggle room to decide whether or not the ball has entered a hazard or not. You must be "virtually certain". If you think there's a chance the ball might not have gone in the hazard and you didn't see it go in, then you would be wrong to proceed as if it did. 

 

In saying that, it was a topic brought up years ago at a Rules discussion we had at our club where a rules official told us he brought this topic up with an R&A representative who responded very quickly to the question with "95%".

 

If you brush a grain of sand away from behind the ball on your backswing when playing a bunker shot, is it not the same penalty as making a trough behind the ball with your takeaway? 

 

It's a messy path to go down if you want to start penalizing based on the degree of the breach or the intentions of the player. 

 

What I'm saying is that if in the opinion of the referee, it is obviously intentional and deliberate it should be a DQ.

 

 

Well Golf doesn't use referees so the opinion of one does not matter. Anyway as I said, i don't necessarily disagree with your opinion - you believe DQ is a reasonable penalty for deliberately breaching a rule and I understand why you think that. I wouldn't be upset if it was changed and that was brought in but my opinion at the moment is that DQ should be reserved for more serious incidents than a one off deliberate breach of a rule that a player knowingly will incur penalty strokes for.


| GolfLink 


#220 ColinCL

ColinCL

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • LocationEdinburgh, Scotland

Posted 16 July 2018 - 01:59 AM

 

Well Golf doesn't use referees .....

 

But it does.



#221 Monty85

Monty85

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1612 posts
  • LocationWestern Sydney

Posted 16 July 2018 - 06:50 AM

But it does.


😀 I knew I'd get a reply like this to that.

The vast majority of golf will be played without the use of referees (officials).

| GolfLink 


#222 ColinCL

ColinCL

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • LocationEdinburgh, Scotland

Posted 16 July 2018 - 06:55 AM

I knew I'd get a reply like this to that.

The vast majority of golf will be played without the use of referees (officials).

Yes, of course. I hadn't understood that to be what you meant. 


  • Monty85 likes this

#223 Monty85

Monty85

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1612 posts
  • LocationWestern Sydney

Posted 16 July 2018 - 08:36 AM

Yes, of course. I hadn't understood that to be what you meant. 

 

Yeah my bad. I was more getting at the point that requiring an "opinion" of a referee isn't going to work as most of the time golf is played without the use of them.

 

Getting off topic now though.


| GolfLink 


#224 languid

languid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1901 posts

Posted 16 July 2018 - 12:34 PM

On degrees of breach mentioned above.
I agree with comment that is not a good place to go.
Black and white not shades of grey keeps the Rules simpler than they might become.
Example...playing outside the teeing ground.... either you do or you don’t. What is a reasonable allowance? X Centimetres? Club lengths? What about anywhere behind the 2 club lengths area?
There would be many more examples to make the point.

#225 ColinCL

ColinCL

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • LocationEdinburgh, Scotland

Posted 16 July 2018 - 04:19 PM

Yes indeed, many examples to make the point, with judging a serious breach being an exception!

 

My immediate reaction to Mickelson's hitting the moving ball was he should be disqualified.

Then I had some doubts.

Then I really wasn't sure.

And finally, I didn't care much.

 

He missed the cut at the Scottish Open this past week.  Looking forward to seeing him play and I hope play better  this coming week at the Open.  






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users