Golf Rules Discussion

A player's ball lies on the putting green. He takes his stance and grounds the putter directly behind the ball. He then steps away from the ball to reconsider the break and after a short time the ball moves. Is it correct to say the player should play from the new location without any penalty?
Divot

Divot
I assume that by "directly" you mean "immediately", so he's addressed the ball and we're looking at R18-2b. On the face of it, he's incurred a penalty stroke and must replace the ball. If, however, it is known or virtually certain that something else caused the ball to move - of which there is not any suggestion in the facts you've given us- he incurs no penalty and plays from the new location.
The facts are much like those in D18-2b/7.
Regards, John

Divot

On the information given I agree with John but can you tell us how long ' a short time' was and how far the ball moved.
It might give a clue to whether anything else could have caused the ball to move.

Agree with Doug - more information is required. If the player did not cause the ball to move, what did cause it? Was it on a slope? Was it very windy? Without knowing the other prevailing conditions, we can't offer anything worthwhile. It must be known or virtually certain that the player did not cause the ball to move - and for that, IMHO, there must be evidence that something else did cause the ball to move. The fact that the player doesn't think he caused it to move isn't sufficient that something else did.

I would like to add the following just to make sure that I understand the new 18-2b correctly.
If the answer to RJM's question "Was it on a slope" is yes, then the player gets 1 SP and the ball must be replaced (because gravity does not exclude a pty). Agree?

It can be misleading to accuse gravity of causing a ball to move.

A ball can certainly move under the influence of gravity but if a ball is at rest gravity itself will not make it move. It is not dynamic it is constant.
Ignoring wind, the player or an outside agency, the cause will be the removal of the force resisting gravity.

If there is no slope the ball cannot move. If the ground is taken away, the ball can only move in one direction ie vertically down.
If there is a slope the ball can only move if that which is resisting it alters. This would in all probability be the blades of grass giving way on the lower side.
This need not have anything to do with the player's actions or inaction but will depend on the severity of the slope and the nature and length of the grass.
Physically, gravity did not cause it to move but it is commonly and understandably accused of doing so. But I don't see why the player should necessarily be penalised.

Thank you Doug for your very detailed and interesting response. I understand it very well with the exception of the last sentence which states: "But I don't see why the player should necessarily be penalised". I would penalize the player because he has addressed his ball and the movement of the ball was not the result of wind or another AO and this by analogy of the answer in D 18-2b/11. Of course, I could be wrong and it may take me a while to understand!
Regards.

But what about the exception?

Exception: If it is known or virtually certain that the player did not cause his ball to move, Rule 18-2b does not apply.

We don't yet know how long the delay was before the ball move nor how far the player was at that time. We cannot simply attribute a delayed movement to the player if eg he grounded his club on the upside if the ball is on a steep slope.

The decision says:

The same principle applies if it is known or virtually certain that a ball in play has been moved by wind, water or some other element after the player has addressed it;

This element may be so called 'gravity'.

Each case has to be dealt with with full knowledge of the facts. We haven't got that re the OP.

It is going to be interesting to watch how this new ruling plays out.
The interpretation that grounding the club means placing it "so close to the ball that any closer would be touching", and other implications that I have heard, lead me to believe that the ruling bodies mean there to be no more 'deeming' a ball to be moved. Either it was moved or not.

"so called 'gravity'"? Are you one of those gravity deniers?

They never "deemed a ball to be moved", that was and still is a question of fact. Rule 18-2b "deemed" the player to have caused it to move if it moved after address regardless of what caused it to move. Now there is potential for a different cause to be recognized.

The change to this rule made by the R&A and USGA was to remove the "deemed" aspect. In the question asked, if the player placed his/her putter behind the ball, and subsequently stepped away with the ball remaining stationary, I would say the only way it could be argued that the player could have caused the ball to move would be if the ball moved back. If the ball moved forward the ball moved because of other reasons not associated with anything the player did.

The wording of the main part of Rule 18-2b was not changed - if the ball moves after the player has addressed it, he is deemed to have caused it to move and incurs a one stroke penalty.
There was an Exception added that says if it is known or virtually certain that the player did not cause the ball to move, Rule 18-2b is not applicable, ie, there must be solid evidence that the player did not cause the ball to move, meaning solid evidence that something else caused it.

Good catch in my wording. I meant to say "deemed the ball to be moved (by the player)". I still think that we will see how this works out in real life.
I've already seen one PGA ruling where the player set the club down where I would have previously considered it to be grounded/addressed and the ball moved. The player brought it to the attention of an official. The official ruled that the club was far enough away that the club wasn't grounded, therefore the issue of cause didn't come up. It's a subtle difference. Based on the reading of the rule, I would agree with you that little has changed, but I am reading between the lines in what I have seen and heard at USGA seminars.

I have read that if "immediately" means what has been reported ("any closer and it would touch the ball"), then there will be many, many fewer clubs "grounded" this year than any year in the recent past! That might be a broader exception to 18-2b than the written exception.

I have to disagree with the position regarding a player is deemed to have caused the ball to move still applying. The change made was to eliminate that aspect. If the ball changes position, under the new exception, if the player does nothing to cause it to move, touching it with the putter on the putting green for example, there is no penalty, and the ball is played from the new position. I believe the video explanation on the R&A web site explains this adequately. Additionally, a player taking a stance in a hazard with or without a club is no longer deemed to cause a ball to move if it does so. The player must do something to cause the movement, for example, touch the ball with their club, or some other easily identified action. Unfortunately wind is often referenced as the cause for these occurrences on a putting green, but there are certainly other things that can cause the ball to move other then wind and the player. However, it will be interesting to see how the situation will be handled when a ball moves on a calm day if the player hasn't touched it.

oldguycanada wrote:I have to disagree with the position regarding a player is deemed to have caused the ball to move still applying

I'm not clear as to what you are saying here. The wording of the 18-2b explicitly states the the the player is deemed to have moved the ball (my bold type):
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.

It very much still applies.

oldguycanada wrote:The change made was to eliminate that aspect, and there is no reference to addressing the ball in this regard.

I understood the exception was made to eliminate a generally accepted unfairness of a player being penalised when the ball, after address, has clearly been moved by something other than the player. There have been high-profile instances of this. The previous rule has not actually been changed but an exception has been introduced regarding very specific circumstances. And the wording here is also explicit: it has to be known or virtually certain that something else caused the movement. The onus is on the player to make clear what caused his ball to move and if he can't he is deemed to have moved it himself. Given the wording, I take it that if there is any doubt about it, the matter is resolved against the player.

The reference to addressing the ball is contained in the heading to Rule 18-2b Ball moving after address

Sorry - I think this has already been said, but I found the previous posting a bit confusing and needed to clarify things in my mind.

I apologize for the confusion I caused. I went back and edited my previous submission. However, I believe that with the exception, the deemed to have caused a ball to move is a thing of the past. If there is no evidence that the player causes a ball to move there will be no penalty. Reference is almost always made to wind when discussing these situations. However, the occurrence involving Webb Simpson did not involve wind. The ball simply changed position without his doing anything to have caused the movement, and I would say that if a ball moves and the player hasn't touched it with their putter, there will be no penalty. A ball in the rough, or on the fairway is a different situation. There it can change positions in more then one way, and that may be where the deemed to cause the movement may come into play.

The fairway or rough is a different situation indeed. If you ground your club immediately behind the ball and the ball moves, it is very likely a fact that you caused the ball to move. It doesn't need to be "deemed" because the cause and effect are obvious.

I wouldn't be so fast with that one. I recall in an Open Championship past where Steve Pate had addressed his ball, grounded his club, and the ball moved. The ruling made was that he did not cause the ball to move, he was not deemed to have caused the ball to move, therefore there was no penalty. And the exception wasn't part of the equation at that time. Now with the new exception, and the rumoured interpretation of addressing the ball when the club is placed immediately behind the ball, and what immediately means in this regard, I don't see how a player will ever be seen as causing a ball to move. Without placing the club as indicated the ball will never be addressed. Same on the putting green. If a player places the putter a centimeter away the ball is not addressed. I'm not saying I agree with this, but in a strict application.....

oldguycanada wrote: However, I believe that with the exception, the deemed to have caused a ball to move is a thing of the past. If there is no evidence that the player causes a ball to move there will be no penalty.

Sorry, but how can deemed to have caused a ball to move become a thing of the past when these are the words of the rule? I think you have got this the wrong way round in saying if there is no evidence of the player's causing the ball to move there is no penalty: there has to positive evidence that something else caused the movement, evidence that leaves us knowing or being virtually certain. That is quite a strong burden of proof. There has to be that degree of certainty to resolve in favour of the player - that is clearly in the wording. Even if it seems possible that the wind moved a ball, without that degree of certainty that it did, the player cannot get the benefit of the Exception. Possibility isn't virtual certainty. In which case the wording is apt: maybe the wind did move the ball but because it isn't certain, the player is deemed to have moved it. It may seems as if he hadn't but he will be deemed to have done so.

Colin L,

I think that what you and others may be forgetting here is that whilst the wording of Rule 18-2b has not changed, the Definition of Addressing the Ball has. So, whereas last year a vast majority of balls through the green were addressed, that is certainly not the case now, due to the removal of the stance requirement and the introduction (and subsequent clarification) of the word 'immediately' to the Definition. If, as I speculate, over 80% of balls, whether on the putting green, fairway or rough, are not addressed now, so that a penalty under Rule 18-2b cannot be incurred; there then has to be firm evidence that the player caused their ball to move, as 'deemed to have moved it' no longer applies to the player in those cases.

One last point, we know from the Rules that a ball can move after several seconds, other than due to the wind or other elements, or there would be no time limit required in Rule 16-2.

Barry

Thanks Barry
I wasn't forgetting that at all. Clearly if the player has not addressed the ball, there would have to be evidence that he had caused the ball to move. But I thought we were talking about the newly introduced exception which is specifically applied to Rule 18-2 b concerning movement of the ball after it has been addressed. Certainly that is what I was talking about and I hope you could read what I wrote above in the context of Rule 18-2b alone i.e. where the player has unarguably addressed the ball and let me know if I have got that bit right.

I guess most of us will be looking to changing the way we set up for a shot and making sure the club head isn't close enough to mean we are addressing the ball. I once tried the Nicklaus approach but was never comfortable with the club head hovering off the ground (bad enough when you have to do it in a hazard!). This new definition I like because you can rest the club on the ground and still not be addressing the ball.

Colin,

Obviously, Rule 18-2b still applies, as amended by the new exception. However, I think that the more important point is that since 1st January it is not relevant to >80% (my guess) of all strokes made, because the ball is not 'addressed' and it does not apply to a significant % of the remainder, where it is known or virtually certain that the player did not cause their ball to move after address. This leaves a small number of penalty situations where the ball moves after address and there is no evidence that it was moved by the elements. In my opinion, the change to the Definition of Addressing the Ball will eliminate a significant number of unwarranted penalties (and arguments) and should be welcomed by all golfers.

Barry

Thanks for taking the time to reply, Barry. The thread is a bit difficult to disentangle engaging with different but related matters - the new exception to Rule 18-2b, Rule 18-2 a and the general effect the new definition of addressing the ball will have - and I suspect there was some talking at cross-purposes. I am clear in my own mind now, even if not always clear in my words.

All, thank you for not dismissing me for my views. What I got from the introduction of the exception and other changes is a real attempt by the the associations to eliminate penalty strokes for something players did not cause. There are various reasons why a ball changes positions that has nothing to do with a players actions, but under the old rule without the changes it didn't matter, the penalty was applied. Slope, gravity, and grass conditions have all been responsible for ball movement. When it happened it always seemed unfair for the player involved, and that's why people would get upset. Now, if a player actually causes the ball to move, well the penalty is definitely appropriate, and although the old words have not been removed I doubt there will ever be a penalty applied. I know I certainly won't when I'm the RO.

This whole issue left me wondering exactly how this whole situation with the new exception is going to change how 18-2b is going to be applied. After some digging to try and get to the bottom of it, I find that there is actually very little change to 18-2b, and I must agree with you Colin. Once a ball is addressed, if it moves, a player is deemed to have caused the movement unless something specific can be shown to have caused said movement. Examples of specific things are wind, water, or outside agencies. The written explanation on the USGA web site explains things a little more clearly then the videos. Additionally I see nothing that changes the fact that once a ball is addressed it remains addressed regardless of whether the player steps away or not. The ball is unaddressed once the player re-marks it's position, lifts it, and replaces it. If the player steps away and doesn't re-mark it, and the ball moves, the player is deemed to have caused the movement unless something specific such as wind, water, or an outside agency causes the movement. Slope, gravity, etc, like before the exception, do not factor into this, and if a ball moves because of them, the player is deemed to have caused the movement provided they have addressed the ball.

Therefore, regarding the initial question, once the player addresses the ball, unless the ball was moved by something specific such as wind, water, or an outside agency, the player is penalized, and must replace the ball to the original position.

I'm glad that you made the time and effort to research it further ( ) and agree with your results. Good job.

That's great, oldcanadaguy, and thanks. I have only recently found and joined this forum - simply as a golfer (somewhat senior now so maybe I should have chosen oldscotlandguy for my forum name!) who is keen to improve his knowledge of the rules. Already I'm impressed by the considerate and polite way discussion goes on and leads to better understanding - all round I expect.

Oldguycanada.

With respect, I think that your research has not addressed (pun intended) the main issue. I think that we all agree that the situation has not changed when a player addresses their ball. What has changed significantly is that, as a consequence of the introduction of the word "immediately" into the Definition of Addressing the Ball, the majority of balls, especially those off the putting green, will not now be addressed, as most players ground their club at least an inch behind the ball. (If they have not been doing this they should now). If a player has not addressed their ball as per the amended Definition they will not automatically be deemed to have moved their ball, there will have to be evidence that they caused their ball to move for a penalty to apply.

Barry

Barry

I agree with what you say providing the meaning of 'immediately' is clarified officially.
As yet the R&A have said nothing at all and the USGA's position is not formal, so Referees will be making their own judgements.
Not a goo situation