Verplank Ruling - Mercedes

[BC MIST]

I just caught the tail end of Verplank playing two balls on a hole and was wondering what the details were that caused him to play two. I gather there was a heated discussion with the on-site rules official. Anyone know what happened?

[GarthM]

From what I heard his ball was on a side slope (imagine that at Kapalua!) and with a gust of wind it moved about 1/2". He did not believe he had addressed the ball however the official ruled against him. Not sure if they found tv coverage of the infraction or not but I guess they made the ruling stand.

[Indio]

From what I heard his ball was on a side slope (imagine that at Kapalua!) and with a gust of wind it moved about 1/2". He did not believe he had addressed the ball however the official ruled against him. Not sure if they found tv coverage of the infraction or not but I guess they made the ruling stand.

Apparenty both he and Rory argued with the officials over it after the round for 20 minutes. Rroy even said that he did not address the ball but to no avail, the penalty stood.

[AAA]

Apparently he originally said he had grounded his club and later said he didn't

[LobWedge]

Apparently he originally said he had grounded his club and later said he didn't

That will be the crux of the argument right there. People are very skeptical if you say you did something, and then retract it later (epecially in today's world ). Hopefully there's enough video evidence to clear this up.

[Hacker]

Hopefully there's enough video evidence to clear this up.

Does it really make a difference? The penalty has been assessed so I'm not sure what the point is now

[AAA]

A bit of additional info. It seems he did ground his club when assessing his shot but arguably he did not take his stance.

[BC MIST]

A bit of additional info. It seems he did ground his club when assessing his shot but arguably he did not take his stance.

If so, he did not address the ball, then no penalty, no moving the ball back. When there is doubt, however, the ruling usually goes against the player.

I wonder if he declared with which ball he wanted to score, if the rules allow. Be nice to see video of this action.

[Hacker]

Presumably the rules official must have seen the events leading up to the assessment of the penalty.

If Verplank and his FC claim that he didn't address the ball the rules official had better have seen things very clearly to make the call that he/she made.

I'd love to see a video of the entire thing, including the placement of the rules official....

[LobWedge]

Does it really make a difference? The penalty has been assessed so I'm not sure what the point is now

Just for the viewer's sake, unless there's some overwhelming evidence in Verplank's favour. He could still make a claim at the conclusion of the round, I'm sure.

[Hacker]

Just for the viewer's sake, unless there's some overwhelming evidence in Verplank's favour. He could still make a claim at the conclusion of the round, I'm sure.

I thought that he did and it was denied........But for the sake of the discussion, if there were overwhelming video evidence in the player's favour is there a provision in the rules that would allow the mistake to be corrected?

[LobWedge]

I thought that he did and it was denied........But for the sake of the discussion, if there were overwhelming video evidence in the player's favour is there a provision in the rules that would allow the mistake to be corrected?

Other than the rule that allows a player to make a claim immediately following the completion of the round, I don't know if the PGA Tour "hard card", or tournament committee have provisions for a further review. I would think so, considering how many DQ's we've seen over the years well after the fact.

[foxman]

Other than the rule that allows a player to make a claim immediately following the completion of the round, I don't know if the PGA Tour "hard card", or tournament committee have provisions for a further review. I would think so, considering how many DQ's we've seen over the years well after the fact.

After the round they spent 20 minutes before they made a decision.Verplank,Rory,Slugger (head of rules) and the one that was on the course with Verplank.

[LobWedge]

After the round they spent 20 minutes before they made a decision.Verplank,Rory,Slugger (head of rules) and the one that was on the course with Verplank.

Well then if Slugger White was involved and there was no change in the ruling, I'll go out on a limb here and say, case closed.

[AAA]

I don't know what stage they have got to but
34-1b. Stroke Play
In stroke play, a penalty must not be rescinded, modified or imposed after the competition has closed.

[Hacker]

I don't know what stage they have got to but
34-1b. Stroke Play
In stroke play, a penalty must not be rescinded, modified or imposed after the competition has closed.

Interesting - now if I'm interpreting that correctly it should mean that there may be situations when a penalty may be rescinded, or modified prior to the close of the competition

[BullDog]

I don't know what stage they have got to but
34-1b. Stroke Play
In stroke play, a penalty must not be rescinded, modified or imposed after the competition has closed.

Out of curiosity, does the competition not "close" after the end of Sunday's round? It doesn't say "stipulated round" or "round" or "match"....

Mike

[AAA]

Interesting - now if I'm interpreting that correctly it should mean that there may be situations when a penalty may be rescinded, or modified prior to the close of the competition

Correct

[AAA]

Out of curiosity, does the competition not "close" after the end of Sunday's round? It doesn't say "stipulated round" or "round" or "match"....

Mike

If it is a four round comp then you are right.

[BC MIST]

Just for the viewer's sake, unless there's some overwhelming evidence in Verplank's favour. He could still make a claim at the conclusion of the round, I'm sure.

Do you know if the PGA Tour has a process for a player to "make a claim," other than that which is in the Rules of Golf? Assuming that this is not the "claim" that is used for match play, it seems that Verplank's playing two of balls was the only option he had at the time and the "committee" merely had to decide if there was reasonable evidence, er, if it was known or virtually certain, that the ball moved after address.

With the ruling being upheld that the ball moved after address, and with his FC arguing that he had not addressed the ball, the call was obviously made by the official who observed the infraction, and whose ruling was upheld. Took some guts to call this one.

[Hacker]

Took some guts to call this one.

I totally agree with you!!

That is why I'd love to see some video which shows where the rules official was.

[LobWedge]

Do you know if the PGA Tour has a process for a player to "make a claim," other than that which is in the Rules of Golf? Assuming that this is not the "claim" that is used for match play, it seems that Verplank's playing two of balls was the only option he had at the time and the "committee" merely had to decide if there was reasonable evidence, er, if it was known or virtually certain, that the ball moved after address.

With the ruling being upheld that the ball moved after address, and with his FC arguing that he had not addressed the ball, the call was obviously made by the official who observed the infraction, and whose ruling was upheld. Took some guts to call this one.

I don't know for sure. It's very hard to know what is specified either in thier "local rules", or if there's any kind of appeal process that has been set up by their policy board.

[Indio]

Lyle/Rich,

This is slightly off topic but still along the same lines. Is it not rules like this that cause the validity of those rules to be questioned? I mean common, the guy is over 200 yards away, he has not touched the ball and everyone agrees that yes the wind did make it move about a half inch and since the official believes he had 'addressed' the ball, because he did not move the ball back the half inch, he is penalized.

It is rules such as these and their application, that put golf rules in general into question.

[AAA]

Do you know if the PGA Tour has a process for a player to "make a claim," other than that which is in the Rules of Golf? Assuming that this is not the "claim" that is used for match play, it seems that Verplank's playing two of balls was the only option he had at the time and the "committee" merely had to decide if there was reasonable evidence, er, if it was known or virtually certain, that the ball moved after address.

The Tour is no different to any other competition.
If 'the rules official' is appointed as a Referee his decision is final. If not the Committee make the final decision.
As it is stroke play SV did the right thing in playing two balls under 3-3.
The committee then decide which ball is to count.

In this case it seems his original ball counted as his recorded score is 6

Drive
Penalty
Chip to green
3 putts

Decision 18-2b/4 covers the situation in the last paragraph where it says the penalty is under 18-2a

[LobWedge]

Lyle/Rich,

This is slightly off topic but still along the same lines. Is it not rules like this that cause the validity of those rules to be questioned? I mean common, the guy is over 200 yards away, he has not touched the ball and everyone agrees that yes the wind did make it move about a half inch and since the official believes he had 'addressed' the ball, because he did not move the ball back the half inch, he is penalized.

It is rules such as these and their application, that put golf rules in general into question.

Not at all Bob. The official can only make a ruling based on the information given to him, whether he processes it visually by first hand account, or more often than not, as the information is relayed to him by the player(s) involved. I believe, without question, that every rules official does their utmost to make the most equitable decision possible through the application of the correct rule, with the available information at hand. Remember, these guys have the benefit of having a rules official made available to make a ruling on the spot, something we don't. That's a huge benefit. As Lyle will attest I'm sure, and from my previous experience in high levels of hockey officiating, these rules officials don't get their credentials from the proverbial "Cracker Jack box". You don't pass these exams with a mark of 51%.

Whether Verplank actually addressed the ball or not may be irrelevant in this case. If he directly caused the ball to move by grounding his club, whether he touched it or not, then he should be penalized under the rules, as would seem the case here.

[foxman]

Whether Verplank actually addressed the ball or not may be irrelevant in this case. If he directly caused the ball to move by grounding his club, whether he touched it or not, then he should be penalized under the rules, as would seem the case here.[/QUOTE]

I was watching this between Verplank and the rules official. Verplank at the time said he put his club behind the ball and getting ready to address the ball and it moved.He blamed the wind.The official said well the wind is blowing now (harder then when he had his club behind the ball) and the ball is not moving now.The official said when you ground the club that is a chance you are taking and if the ball moves and no other proof then your in trouble.They tried to get Slugger there at the time but he could not get there for some reason.Then they could not agree after that.So they agreed he should play 2 balls and decide after the round was complete.They could not find any video of this at all.

[Kiwi battler]

Did he replace the ball he was meant to have caused to move ?

[foxman]

Did he replace the ball he was meant to have caused to move ?

Yes,He had to place the first ball back to where it was before it moved.And the second ball to where it was after it moved.

[Golfbum]

Apparenty both he and Rory argued with the officials over it after the round for 20 minutes. Rroy even said that he did not address the ball but to no avail, the penalty stood.

The amazing this is about this ruling is the fact there are 28 posts on it and no one has dissed RORY yet

[foxman]

The amazing this is about this ruling is the fact there are 28 posts on it and no one has dissed RORY yet

Rory was behind them and he would not wait so he played threw,almost hitting them with the ball.Just Kidding!!!!!!