There is now no penalty if you ball moves after address and you did not cause the ball to move. In the past, would you be penalized 1 stroke if a spectator or another ball moved your ball after address?

player wrote:

There is now no penalty if you ball moves after address and you did not cause the ball to move. In the past, would you be penalized 1 stroke if a spectator or another ball moved your ball after address?

There is an exception to that rule that states that if it is virtually certain that the player did not cause the ball to move, the penalty does not apply. Therefore, in such a circumstance, a penalty would not be applied.

Bryan K wrote:

player wrote: In the past There is an exception to that rule

There now is an exception to that rule. A ball that moved after addressing used to result in a penalty.

It used to be that the player would not penalized if the movement was attributable to an outside agency. Note: water, wind and similar things are no outside agencies but a spectator is. Thus it should have been replaced and played without penalty (18-1) before the latest rule changes too. A moving ball that moved your ball after address effectively was the same, but 18-5 applied.

The 2012 change is within Rule 18-2b. If there is no outside agency, other ball or player (or his gear) involved, than the player was deemed responsible if it moved after address. That now is not the case if wind or water move the ball after addressing it.

jev wrote:

Bryan K wrote: player wrote: In the past There is an exception to that rule There now is an exception to that rule. A ball that moved after addressing used to result in a penalty. It used to be that the player would not penalized if the movement was attributable to an outside agency. Note: water, wind and similar things are no outside agencies but a spectator is. Thus it should have been replaced and played without penalty (18-1) before the latest rule changes too. A moving ball that moved your ball after address effectively was the same, but 18-5 applied. The 2012 change is within Rule 18-2b. If there is no outside agency, other ball or player (or his gear) involved, than the player was deemed responsible if it moved after address. That now is not the case if wind or water move the ball after addressing it.

What about gravity? Or an earthquake?

Serious questions.....

Bryan K wrote:

What about gravity? Or an earthquake? Serious questions.....

O come on Bryan, you can do better than that!

Replace "spectator" by "outside agency" (since that is what a spectator is according to the rulebook) and it actually makes a realistic case.

A plastic bag for example is an outside agency... and I've seen that happening. A player in my group addressed his ball, saw a plastic sandwich-bag (lost by a fellow competitor) being blown his way, he steps away and the bag hits the ball. It happens.

My question for you...

From the rules quiz forum, the question of gravity came up a couple of times. Gravity is not specifically an outside agent according to the decisions on the rules. Now granted, I have not read the specific decision regarding gravity, but I found it odd that the rules committee could decide that gravity moving a ball after address would be assigned a penalty stroke even though it was virtually certain that the player did not cause the ball to move.

You agreed with me on that point, but my question to you is whether you think that said decision was made before the rule change was made (I was not aware that this was a new rule, either. And that is odd in itself because I read the rule changes for this year numerous times to become familiar with them). If that was the case, then I think that said decision would be overruled.

Just trying to make some productive discussion. There was a method to my madness.

Bryan K wrote:

whether you think that said decision was made before the rule change was made

The now infamous "gravity" remark in decision 18-2b/11 was added at the same time the rule change was made.

The decision's text prior to January 1, 2012 was:
---------8<-----------------------
18-2b/11 Ball Moved By Another Agency After Address

Q. After a player has addressed his ball in play, some other agency (e.g. a ball played by another player) strikes and moves the player's ball. What is the ruling?

A. The player incurs no penalty under Rule 18-2b. Whenever an agency directly causes a ball to move, the Rule applicable to that agency (e.g. Rule 18-1, 18-2a, 18-3, 184- or 18-5) overrides another Rule where a player is deemed to have moved the ball (e.g., Rule 18-2b)
---------8<-----------------------

You can find an overview of all 2012 rule- and decision changes here: http://www.randa.org/en/Rules-and-Amateur-Status/New-Rules-2012.aspx (I guess the USGA website features a similar page somewhere).

Note: even though the added text is pretty long (for a decision), you'll find the R&A calls this a "minor change". That's especially weird given the fact that the rule-change is named specifically in the decisionbook's foreword as a "principal change". O well...

I still agree with you that this is a very silly and stupid exception to the rule and if you ask me it is a mistake from the R&A and USGA. Let's hope they rethink the decision and change it to something that actually makes sense (unfortunately, we'ld have to wait until 2014 for that).

Quote:

Just trying to make some productive discussion. There was a method to my madness.

No worries mate, I just thought you where trying to pull my leg there

Wind, gravity, water etc. are not outside agencies.

player wrote:

There is now no penalty if you ball moves after address and you did not cause the ball to move

Not quite

Q.After a player has addressed his ball in play, some other agency (e.g., a ball played by another player) moves the player's ball. Is the player subject to penalty under Rule 18-2b?

A.No. As it is known or virtually certain that the player did not cause the ball to move, Rule 18-2b does not apply - see Exception under Rule 18-2b. In such a case where an agency directly causes a ball to move, the Rule applicable to that agency (e.g., Rule 18-1, 18-2a, 18-3, 18-4 or 18-5) applies.

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; there is no penalty and the ball must be played from its new location. Gravity is not in itself an element that should be considered when applying the Exception to Rule 18-2b; therefore, unless it is known or virtually certain that some agency other than gravity (e.g., outside agency or wind) caused the ball to move after address, the player is subject to a one stroke penalty under Rule 18-2b and must replace the ball. (Revised)

Rulesman wrote:

player wrote: There is now no penalty if you ball moves after address and you did not cause the ball to move Not quite Q.After a player has addressed his ball in play, some other agency (e.g., a ball played by another player) moves the player's ball. Is the player subject to penalty under Rule 18-2b? A.No. As it is known or virtually certain that the player did not cause the ball to move, Rule 18-2b does not apply - see Exception under Rule 18-2b. In such a case where an agency directly causes a ball to move, the Rule applicable to that agency (e.g., Rule 18-1, 18-2a, 18-3, 18-4 or 18-5) applies. 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; there is no penalty and the ball must be played from its new location. Gravity is not in itself an element that should be considered when applying the Exception to Rule 18-2b; therefore, unless it is known or virtually certain that some agency other than gravity (e.g., outside agency or wind) caused the ball to move after address, the player is subject to a one stroke penalty under Rule 18-2b and must replace the ball. (Revised)

This drives me absolutely crazy. This isn't what the rules say at all, but some blowhard, when forced to make a decision, decided to make up his own rules that we're not all supposed to abide by.

The rules specifically state that it must be known or virtually certain that a player caused the ball to move before assessing the penalty. They say absolutely nothing about it having to be known or virtually certain as to what caused the ball to move; therefore, the dicision offered by the committee would never stand up in court.

I have zero respect for a committee that makes decisions with a blatant disregard for the rules as they are written. I'm sorry, but the more I learn about the rules of golf, the less respect I have for them. Don't get me wrong. I respect the rulebook. But I give the committee that creates the decisions zero credence whatsoever. If a committee's decision to enforce an unwritten rule (or a decision that clearly contradicts the rules) ever came into play in a competition I was in, I would disqualify myself out of protest. As it sits, I already refuse to give the USGA ny of my hard earned money. How about getting people who know how to read on the decision committee first.

Here we go again . You know, it's weird there is a difference between gravity annd wind in this decision, especially if you look at 16-2 where such a difference is not made. The infamous 18-2b/11 just is plain stupidity and should be up for the chopping block sooner rather than later.

I wouln't go as far as Bryan to call the rules-committee foolish or something but in my point of view it is a mistake that should be corrected ASAP. This type of decisions drives people away from the rules instead of accepting them.

jev wrote:

Here we go again . You know, it's weird there is a difference between gravity annd wind in this decision, especially if you look at 16-2 where such a difference is not made. The infamous 18-2b/11 just is plain stupidity and should be up for the chopping block sooner rather than later. I wouln't go as far as Bryan to call the rules-committee foolish or something but in my point of view it is a mistake that should be corrected ASAP. This type of decisions drives people away from the rules instead of accepting them.

Precisely. It can never be known or virtually certain that gravity is what caused the ball to move. I guess if this situation ever occurred to me, I would argue that it was imperceptiable seismic activity rather than gravity that caused the ball to move.

Bryan K wrote:

if this situation ever occurred to me, I would argue that it was imperceptiable seismic activity rather than gravity that caused the ball to move.

You know what? If you where in my flight I would agree .

Bryan K wrote:

I guess if this situation ever occurred to me, I would argue that it was imperceptiable seismic activity rather than gravity that caused the ball to move.

I think you should go for the "Luke Skywalker's grandson used the force to move it" argument.

mjaber wrote:

Bryan K wrote: I guess if this situation ever occurred to me, I would argue that it was imperceptiable seismic activity rather than gravity that caused the ball to move. I think you should go for the "Luke Skywalker's grandson used the force to move it" argument.

Careful with that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRQyS_8sShw

Do you drive a VW by any chance?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwJrbYm2GT0

Or a Dodge Viper?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=sWlCB8mVmWw