Verplank Ruling - Mercedes

[AAA]

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.

It is not relevant as is made clear in the decision I mentioned. The significant thing is that he grounded his club.

.... if the ball moved after the club was grounded but before the player had completed taking his stance, he incurs a penalty stroke under Rule 18-2a for having caused the ball to move and must replace the ball, unless there is strong evidence that wind or some other agency caused the ball to move. (Revised)

The RO decided that wind was not strong enough.

[AAA]

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.

It either moved or it didn't. Reasonable evidence doesn't come into that part of the decision.
However, 'strong evidence' is required to show that the wind moved it.

If the player is very near the ball, the presumption is that he caused it to move.

[BC MIST]

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%.

gbower and I have become members of a Rules discussion group at which 3 of the 4 local, Level 4 (National Certification) certified, officials participate. More than one of those present will be doing or redoing their Level 4 this year and I believe that the passing mark for this 2008, 3.5 h exam, has been raised.(84%, ) Both of us are in awe at how much these folks know about the rules, down to the pickiest little points and where each can be found in the RB or Book of Decisions. They make our working towards the Level 3 certification look like kindergarten finger painting.

On the two fairly recent occasions, having participated in the Canadian Senior Championships in 2001 and 2004, the officials had worked the Canadian Open Championship, the week or two weeks prior to the seniors. To say that these guys/gals are good, is an understatement. I would imagine that the Tour officials would be the best of the best.

The requirements to get into the Level 4 programme, are:
-are RCGA Level 3 certified officials;
-have achieved 70% or better on the RCGA Level 4 Rules Exam or 80% or better on the USGA Rules Exam after January 1, 2004; or
-have achieved 92% or better on the USGA Rules Exam after January 1, 2001; or
-are currently or have been previously certified at Level 4 or equivalent by the RCGA
In addition to the above, each level has a minimum number of hours of on course experience that must be included, to complete the certification.

[Kilroy]

Wow! So are you saying that both you and gbower currently have level 2 certification and are working towards level 3? Very impressive.

[gbower]

We do have our Level 2 and hopefully in the spring our level 3. Lots of reading and rereading to do before then. I actually worked most of the OVGA tournaments and a few junior tournaments this past year as an on course official and had lots of situations come up. It's a lot of fun figuring out some of the situations. Some guys get a bit ticked at your call as was the situation with SV but the rules and decisions are there and hopefully you don't screw it up.

[ktmush2]

The significant thing here to me is the USGA definition for addressing the ball.
It says you must take your stance AND also ground the club. Rule 18-2 is predicated on address. Not just grounding your club. Just grounding your club alone does not put you in jeopardy. If you ground your club and the ball moves before you address it you are not in breach of the rule and should be able to play the ball as it lies since the wind is not an outside agency with no penalty.

[AAA]

18-2 is not predicated on address. Only 18-2b. He was penalised under 18-2a.

See Decision 18-2b/4 which I referred to earlier in the thread.

18-2b/4 Ball Moves After Player Grounds Club But Before Stance Completed
Q. A player’s routine prior to making a stroke is as follows: He first grounds the club directly behind the ball with his feet together. Then he gradually widens his feet to shoulder width. At that point, he makes the stroke.
If the ball moves after he grounds the club but before he widens his stance to shoulder width, does he incur a penalty stroke under
Rule 18-2b (Ball Moving After Address)?
A. No. A player has not addressed the ball until he completes taking his stance, i.e., his feet are essentially in the position in which he normally places them when making a stroke.
However, if the ball moved after the club was grounded but before the player had completed taking his stance, he incurs a penalty stroke under Rule 18-2a for having caused the ball to move and must replace the ball, unless there is strong evidence that wind or some other agency caused the ball to move. (Revised)

[ktmush2]

Thanks, you're right, but I sure don't agree with it. It seems to me the definition should remain consistent throughout rule 18 and it apparently doesn't.

[AAA]

How can it. 18-2a is about any circumstance or places on the course where a player may have caused the ball to be moved. 18-2b is specifically about addressing the ball.
18-2a would have to have an additional exclusion that says something like 'in preparing to make a stroke but before addressing it and there is strong evidence that wind or some other agency caused the ball to move'
That would mean that if strong wind moved it after address there is penalty but not before address.
When a player is moving his club or his feet very close to the ball he must always be very careful. It is very difficult to know eg if treading on turf causes a movement in the turf which then causes the ball to move or the draught by a swish
of the club. As it is impossible to know if any act was intentional or not, the player is deemed to have caused it.
The difficulty is the closeness of the player to the ball. If he is a few feet away there is no issue.

[BC MIST]

Wow! So are you saying that both you and gbower currently have level 2 certification and are working towards level 3? Very impressive.

Actually, Level's 1 and 2 are quite easy. Purchase an RCGA CD from Golf Quebec, write the enclosed test and send it in. There is a lot of emphasis on the definitions. Level 2 is done online through the RCGA website, followed by a 30 question test. Gerry and I both scored 29/30, but being perfectionistic, if that's a word, were upset that we were not able to find out which one we got wrong. To complete 2, one must have a minimum of 20 hours of on course officiating.

Level 3 is a two day course, with both classroom and on course sections followed by a 3 hour exam and Level 4 is 3 days. Generally, 1 allows you to do club events, 2 local, OVGA tournaments, 3 provincial and 4 national but it is probably best to officiate "down" from the level one has achieved. While the time spent taking the actual courses is quite brief, it's the scores of hours studying the Rules and decisions that is the challenge.

Gerry and I have learned a lot so far, but we both have a long way to go. 34 Rules, all their subsections and over 1200 Decisions can be taxing on 60 and 62 year old brains, however, we are both enjoying the process.

[Indio]

While the time spent taking the actual courses is quite brief, it's the scores of hours studying the Rules and decisions that is the challenge.

Lyle,

I am sure both you and Gerry are proud of your accomplishments to date and although I have never met you, just reading your posts in the forum there is no doubt in my mind that you will achieve your level 4 at some point.

But after reading this post, I shake my head in bewilderment. Throughtout the years I have seen posted on here many many times that all golfers shoulf know the rules of golf but here, you describe the effort and knowledge required to become 'proficient' in understanding and interpreting those same '34 rules'.

In my feeble mind, this is the biggest problem in golf, the rules and how they can be interpreted depending on the situation. It is just too much to expect that the average recreational golfer to have a good grasp of these rules and apply them on a daily basis in a fun round of golf.

The rules of golf seem to me to be setup to 'cause' arguements and debates and then have somone from on high interpret them to the situation.

I am not against rules and regulations, I am against red tape. Any time I have tried to discuss a rule with anyone that was in an officiating capacity, the perception I was left with is that it wasn't really what was written in the rules or decisions, but what that particualr official felt the rules meant given the situation aand in my opinion, that leaves most of the rules wide open to debate.

Bob

[AAA]

Any time I have tried to discuss a rule with anyone that was in an officiating capacity, the perception I was left with is that it wasn't really what was written in the rules or decisions, but what that particualr official felt the rules meant given the situation aand in my opinion, that leaves most of the rules wide open to debate.

That should be a very rare case. Either the guys you spoke to are not good at at explaining. Or they don't really understand. Their training should have told them 'what is meant' by the words in the rule. The rules and decisions are so comprehensive there really isn't room left for debate. The RO does not have to know the decisions backwards when out on the course. They should always have the Rules in their hand and the Decisions easily accessible.
There are of course some rules which depend a lot on the specific situation and as has been said before 'you have to be there to make a ruling'. But these typically are about being able to take a provisional or if a ball is lost in a hazard.

I can't think of a situation I have encountered in a competition where I have had a problem pointing out to a player the rule or decision. In fact most players never ask you to prove it or say 'show me where it says that'.

I have had 'what ifs' in the clubhouse but the 'difficult' ones have been contrived situations.

There is a website almost devoted to 'academics' (who are virtually all active rules officials) who come up with some real problems but they are pretty unusual.

In my feeble mind, this is the biggest problem in golf, the rules and how they can be interpreted depending on the situation. It is just too much to expect that the average recreational golfer to have a good grasp of these rules and apply them on a daily basis in a fun round of golf.

The rules you need are really not that many. eg those relating to the duties of the Committee can be looked up when needed. Many situations are never encounterd by a player during their life. How often eg is a player involved in a suspension of play.
For a general player it is worth learning the definitions, they are key to many rules.
Then scan through the book and say 'is it likely that I will encounter that situation ?'. If so read and get to grips with it. Players should carry a rule book and if they are not sure, look it up. Real life is the most effective way of learning.

[AAA]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNtkPrd7gyA

[Hacker]

So based on that video clip the RO did NOT see the actual event. He was basing his decisions soley on what verplank said......That RO certainly has balls

[AAA]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vazYpKgYrr4

[AAA]

You will have noticed that Verplankk kept saying he hadn't done anything.
But that is not the point nor is it the rule. He had to convince the RO that something else caused it to move. And Mike Shea was not convinced that there was strong evidence.

[Hacker]

I have to tip my hat to Scott. He clearly disagees with the ruling, but he handled it very well........wouldn't it have been interesting to see what would have happened if the roles of Scott and Rory were reversed

The RO seems quite content to leave the final decision up to Slugger....he seemed to believe that the ruling could go either way

[Hacker]

You will have noticed that Verplankk kept saying he hadn't done anything.
But that is not the point nor is it the rule. He had to convince the RO that something else caused it to move. And Mike Shea was not convinced that there was strong evidence.

Clearly a case of guilty unless proven innocent....but I guess that is the nature of that particular rule

[LobWedge]

And yet through all of this the integrity of the game, and of the competitor, still shines through. The ball moved but half an inch. Less than 1/3 the diameter of a ball. Very likely that Verplank was the only person that saw it move. And in the deepest, darkest place in his mind, he could have chosen to ignore it, play on, and no one else would be the wiser. No harm, no foul, right?

But he did report it, and he asked for a ruling. And even though he wasn't happy with the decision, I bet he slept just fine on Friday night.

That is why I love golf.

[spackler]

If Verplank said the ball moved because of the wind, and no one else saw it, why shouldn't his word be good enough? And if it isn't, why is signing your scorecard (kept by someone else) such an important part of the sport at that level? It seems illogical to me that rules officials can intercede on one hand, but have their hands tied on the other.

[AAA]

If Verplank said the ball moved because of the wind,

Verplank simply said he didn't move it.

Interestingly, Faldo said that this happens so often when there is a strong wind, he was surprised that Verplank even questioned the decision.

[spackler]

Ok then, let me rephrase my post. If Verplank said he didn't move the ball, and no one else saw it, why shouldn't his word be good enough? And if it isn't, why is signing your scorecard (kept by someone else) such an important part of the sport at that level? It seems illogical to me that rules officials can intercede on one hand, but have their hands tied on the other.

[AAA]

I think you miss the point. It doesn't matter if he didn't actually move it. Unless there is strong evidence that something else moved it, the rules say he is deemed to have caused it to move.

The answer to your point about scorecards is of course that ALL the rules are applicable to ALL golfers. Even all LRs and COCs may be utilised (or not) in any competition or tournament or on any course.
In addition of course, the player's signature at least proves to the recorder that the player has had the opportunity to check his marker's entries. There is no guarantee that there wasn't collusion at any level.

[spackler]

I get the point, I am saying it's ridiculous. In the absence of any evidence, the player is presumed guilty, no matter what he says happened. Yet the signing of the card, his attestation of the result of the round, is all important.

[Indio]

I get the point, I am saying it's ridiculous. In the absence of any evidence, the player is presumed guilty, no matter what he says happened. Yet the signing of the card, his attestation of the result of the round, is all important.

I'm 100% on board with you Spackler! You see so many times they talk about the integrity of the game and the players and on something like this they come back and say well you did it you just don't realize you did.... ahh the rules of golf love to hate them

[AAA]

Well of course if he had actually addressed the ball, there would be nothing he could say. If it moves he is penalised. No ifs or buts.

At least here he has a chance of a let off. If he can convince the RO

One further thought, he did say he was moving his feet about taking his stance (he hadn't completed that task). As he was on the fairway could he have disturbed the grass sufficiently ? No one knows. But no one was questioning his honest opinion only his conclusion.

[BC MIST]

I am sure both you and Gerry are proud of your accomplishments to date and although I have never met you, just reading your posts in the forum there is no doubt in my mind that you will achieve your level 4 at some point.

But after reading this post, I shake my head in bewilderment. Throughtout the years I have seen posted on here many many times that all golfers shoulf know the rules of golf but here, you describe the effort and knowledge required to become 'proficient' in understanding and interpreting those same '34 rules'.

Perhaps Gerry's ambitions are different than mine, but I am getting involved in The Rules, (a) primarily to increase my own knowledge of the rules, and (b) to volunteer where I can. I have taken part in scores of OVGA/ODGA tournaments over 45 years, because of volunteers, and I hope I can give a little back by helping with some officiating. My goal is to get level 3 and no more.

While an RO needs a broad knowledge and understanding of the Rules, the player does not. The basics of what to do when encountering: OB, lost balls, hazards, unplayable lies and taking relief, make up close to 95+% of what players encounter on a regular basis, all are quite simple to learn and most serious golfers learn these almost incidentally. Most of the Decisions are based on the unusual things that happen on the course.

I continue to disagree that the rules are open to a significant amount of interpretation. Lack of knowledge causes misinterpretations, but show me a rule where you can do two opposite things and have both correct.
To me the Verplank issue comes down to two questions: (1) Did he ground the club? (2) When he club was grounded, did the ball move? If the answers are Yes/Yes, No/Yes, Yes/No or No/No, there is a procedure even if it's to do nothing. As Verplank said, "Yes," AND the ball moved, by the rules, he moved it. (...if the ball moved after the club was grounded but before the player had completed taking his stance, he incurs a penalty stroke under Rule 18-2a for having caused the ball to move and must replace the ball,) What is there to interpret? I know that this is a simple, isolated incident, but most rulings are just like this one. If there is no specific rule to cover an incident, there is a rule to cover even this.

Perhaps there can be some interpretation involved when dealing with the "etiquette" rule, or the "serious breach" rules, but generally the more one knows, the fewer interpretations there are. When you or others play, how frequently does any controversial ruling come up? When it does happen, interest is created and when the answer becomes known, knowledge is gained. Part of the fun of the game.

[AAA]

Good post BC