No rule has
caused so much consternation to the USGA and R&A as Rule 18-2. Rule 18-2 states if a player causes a ball to
move, the player incurs a penalty of one stroke. In the end a rules official must determine
what caused the ball to move, and there’s the rub.
The
interpretation of Rule 18-2 caused what many describe as a fiasco at the 2016
U.S. Open. Dustin Johnson’s ball moved
on the 5th green, and it had to be determined what caused the ball
to move. Johnson declared he had not
caused the ball to move. On the 12th
tee, Johnson was informed he may be assessed a one stroke penalty. The question of the penalty became moot when
Johnson won by four strokes. The USGA ruled that absent any other suspects
(wind, gravity), Johnson was guilty. The one stroke penalty only reduced Johnson's winning margin to three strokes. If
Johnson had tied with another player, would the USGA have assessed a penalty? Probably not. The USGA looked bad enough
without deciding the outcome of a major championship on the subjective judgment
of a panel of rules officials. The eighteen hole playoff would have been held on Monday.
The 2015
Open Championship encountered another problem with Rule 18-2. Louie Oosthuizen addressed a tap-in putt, but
a gust of wind started the ball moving and it did not stop until it was five
feet away from the hole. At that point,
play was suspended, but too late to help Oosthuizen. He had to play from the further distance.
The problem
inherent in Rule 18-2 is that it does not make a distinction between a ball on
or off the green. With today’s fast
greens, it is much more likely a ball can be moved by wind or gravity. But whether wind, gravity, or the player is
the culprit is still difficult to discern.
To bring more equity to the problem, a rule change (also suggested by
others) could make a ball on the green not in play if has been addressed or
marked. It is only in play after the
ball has been struck by a stroke. Under this rule change, if the ball moves for
any reason other than a stroke, it must be replaced with no penalty. This rule change meets the following requirements
of a good rule.
Clarity
– No need to call in an official if the ball moves on the green after it has
been marked or addressed. Simply replace
it. The adoption of this rule would
eliminate many Decisions on when a penalty should be assessed. It does bifurcate
the rule depending on whether the ball is on the green or elsewhere. This is reasonable, however. Through the green, a player could move his
ball in an attempt to remove loose impediments around his ball. He should be
penalized since the removal of the impediment would improve his lie. On the green, however, the player is allowed
to remove loose impediments without penalty.
In other words, the Rules already differentiate between a ball on the
green and a ball through the green.
In determining whether a ball has moved a
player is given some leeway in the rules.
If the ball moves by an amount not reasonably discernible to the
naked eye, a player’s determination that the ball has not moved will be deemed
conclusive, even if that determination is later shown to be incorrect through
the use of sophisticated technology (Decision 18/4).[1] The revised rule would eliminate this
Decision, make the outcome independent of the leniency of the rules official and minimize the number of call-ins from Rules
Mavens who believe they detected ball movement.
Fairness – The revised rule tends to
minimize luck in determining tournament outcomes. If the wind blows a ball that has been
addressed or marked off the green or in the hole, the player would not be
punished or rewarded for such random acts of nature.
Proportionality
–The one stroke penalty for a player inadvertently moving his ball on the green
appears to be disproportionate. Currently,
a player is assigned the same penalty for 1) dropping his marker on his ball
and causing it to move or 2) hitting a ball into a water hazard. The latter action is the result of a bad swing
and/or judgment and should be penalized.
The first action is due to carelessness.
A player gains no advantage if he
replaces his ball after inadvertently causing it to move on the green. True, the current penalty of one stroke acts
as a deterrent to such carelessness. But
any benefit from reducing the frequency of such behavior is more than offset by
the elimination of disputes over what caused the ball to move.
Any change
in the Rules needs to be seriously vetted.
There may be unintended consequences of having a ball on the green
considered out-of-play. Testimony should
be taken from those most affected by Rule 18-2 (i.e., Tour Players). USGA and PGA Tour officials responsible for
making the call of when a ball has moved also need a voice. Rules changes follow Newton’s First Law: A
rule at rest tends to stay at rest. Without
a demand for change from players and officials, Rule 18-2 will be cut and
pasted into the next edition of the Rules
of Golf for the foreseeable future.
[1]
That same leeway test is not given when a player
touches the ground in a hazard. In the
2016 Women’s U.S Open, Anna Nordqvuist touched the sand with her club and was
given a two-stroke penalty. A strong
argument could be made that the violation was not apparent to the naked
eye. No one noticed the small grain of
sand take a tumble until Fox, using sophisticated technology, zoomed in on her
address of the ball. Should the USGA be
consistent in its Rules and apply the same standards concerning sophisticated
technology to ”ball moved” and “touching the ground?” It is a debatable question, but one that has
never been publically addressed by the USGA.
