US Senior Open ruling

[sensfan63]

I was watching a little of the US Senior Open from Sahalee, just outside Seattle, Washington.

Now, I am not a huge fan of the Champions Tour. They operate like a good-old boys club, where if you're an "outsider" - meaning, if you weren't a regular on the PGA Tour - then it's next to impossible to get on the Tour, even if you're one of the best players of that age.

There was a situation in the 2nd round that only reinforced my view. Eduardo Romero missed a putt, and was walking around the hole to tap in. He didn't take a normal stance, he just sort of did the thing we all do, walked up to the ball and was about to hit it, when the ball moved. It didn't oscillate, it definitely moved.

They showed a close-up of what happened. Romero grounded his putter behind the ball, and the ball moved. The putter was about 3-4 inches behind the ball, and on the ground. A USGA official was on the scene, asking Romero (and Tom Watson) what happened.

In the end, Watson encouraged Romero to say that, yes, he grounded the putter behind the ball, but it wasn't a grounding of the putter to address the ball, rather it was with the intention to move the putter closer to the ball and then tap in.

I will say that Fred Couples was watching everything that was going on, and his body language did not give me the impression that he was happy with the situation. I think in his mind he thought it should have been a penalty. I will also say that the commentator in the booth (think it was Dan Hicks) was pressing the in-studio rules guy for an explanation, and even sent so far as to ask him if he agreed with the ruling. The guy hesitated, then said yes, he did agree. I think Hicks was just as incredulous as I was.

Rules guys, see anything wrong? If you sole your putter 3-4 inches behind the ball, isn't that addressing it?

[gbower]

Below is the definition of "addressing the ball" and if he had not taken his stance he had not addressed it and that may be the situation here. You will often notice a lot of players take a stance and not ground their putter and they have not addressed the ball.
---------------------------

Addressing the Ball
A player has "addressed the ball" when he has taken his stance and has also grounded his club, except that in a hazard a player has addressed the ball when he has taken his stance.

[sensfan63]

Below is the definition of "addressing the ball" and if he had not taken his stance he had not addressed it and that may be the situation here. You will often notice a lot of players take a stance and not ground their putter and they have not addressed the ball.
---------------------------

Addressing the Ball
A player has "addressed the ball" when he has taken his stance and has also grounded his club, except that in a hazard a player has addressed the ball when he has taken his stance.

To clarify...he didn't take the traditional "putting stance," he was reaching over someone's line. He DEFINITELY soled his putter. Definitely.

You could overhear the conversation between the rules official, Romero, and Watson. The stance wasn't the issue. The rules official deemed that the putter was grounded, but I guess not close enough to the ball to warrant it being considered "addressed."

I think it was all hogwash. Having given you more information, what do you think?

[AAA]

If he hasn't taken his stance he hasn't addressed the ball. Note the rule does not say a stance.

[sensfan63]

If he hasn't taken his stance he hasn't addressed the ball. Note the rule does not say a stance.

Wow. So anytime I walk up to tap the ball in and ground my putter (without taking my "stance"), there is no risk whatsoever to me of incurring a penalty should the ball move?

I'm going to come right out and say it - I think you're both wrong. I'm not doing this to antagonize anyone, it's just that by playing in professional tournaments for ten years, you sort of become accustomed to the Rules. I think I have a pretty good grasp of them.

As for the specific situation, I believe that his stance WAS taken. It just wasn't the "traditional" stance of putting, but it's the stance he's using for that particular shot. Does that make sense?

[Kilroy]

Sounds like a few factors at play.

grounding 3- 4" away doesn't seem like a normal address
Did he take his stance? Arguable?

Did he get the benifit of the doubt? Seems like it. I didn't see it, but it sounds pretty borderline.

Did a RO rule? Yes. It was his call. Not everyone agrees with the umpire or referee but he ruled in favor of the player.

[gbower]

3-4inches behind the ball and not taking a stance would more than likely not be considered "addressing the ball" and he obviously didn't cause the ball to move so no penalty.

[sensfan63]

Sounds like a few factors at play.

grounding 3- 4" away doesn't seem like a normal address
Did he take his stance? Arguable?

Did he get the benifit of the doubt? Seems like it. I didn't see it, but it sounds pretty borderline.

Did a RO rule? Yes. It was his call. Not everyone agrees with the umpire or referee but he ruled in favor of the player.

The ball was so close to the hole (about 8 inches) that it was fairly nonchalant. If you saw the whole thing, both live and replayed, it's pretty obvious that he was about to tap in.

Did he take his stance? This is the one where there's got to be some sort of ruling from the Decisions book. Romero wasn't going to move his feet again. He was going to hit the ball from where he was standing. Therefore, we have two possible scenarios - either "taking your stance" applies to the one stance you use for the vast majority of your shots, or "taking your stance" means the stance you intend to hit your shot with. I'm leaving it to the Rules guys on this one, but I vote for the latter. Otherwise, you could lean/hover/straddle on purpose and then say "oh I wasn't taking my stance" if the ball moved. That seems...dishonest?

-- The whole "stance" issue wasn't the core issue according to the conversation, by the way. It was never mentioned by the RO. Only the issue of "grounding" the putter and whether it was the "final place" where the putter was to be grounded was discussed. --

The benefit of the doubt - I would say yes, but it was the way the conversation went, including the comment from Watson. He interjected something that Romero probably never even considered, and then Romero agreed. I think there were some things lost in translation, too. Romero doesn't speak the best English. It was very fishy. I'd love for you to hear it, but I'm sure it's gone forever

Finally, yes, the RO ruled in favor of the player. But, the reason I bring it up is that I thought it was wrong. I know that Romero isn't responsible for the rulings of an RO (penalty-wise), but I just thought it was an illustration of a bad ruling.

[sensfan63]

3-4inches behind the ball and not taking a stance would more than likely not be considered "addressing the ball" and he obviously didn't cause the ball to move so no penalty.

You got this in before my response to Kilroy, so I encourage you to read my last post. It was a tap-in. It was nonchalant. It wasn't necessary to concentrate on getting the putter really close to the ball. Apologies if that was unclear...

As to your second point - I didn't think it mattered whether the player "caused the ball to move?" Doesn't it only matter that the ball moves after address?

ex. It's a windy day. I go thru my routine, address the ball, sole my putter. A gust of wind moves the ball forward 2 inches. I know that it was the wind that moved my ball, but it's definitely a penalty, right?

[gbower]

Again, he hadn't taken his putting stance. It's just like the player that takes his putting stance and doesn't ground his putter. He still intended to putt the ball and if it moved and he didn't cause it to move, no penalty. To me it's no different than what happened as he obviously didn't take his stance. Oh well that's my take on it.

[BC MIST]

Again, he hadn't taken his putting stance. It's just like the player that takes his putting stance and doesn't ground his putter. He still intended to putt the ball and if it moved and he didn't cause it to move, no penalty. To me it's no different than what happened as he obviously didn't take his stance. Oh well that's my take on it.

I did not see what happened, however, If the putter was soled AND the player had taken his stance, he has addressed the ball. If the ball moves, the player is penalized.

We know what soling the putter means so we now have to look at the definition of stance. "Taking the stance consist in a player placing his feet in position for and preparatory to making a stroke." To me then the question is, did the player intend to stroke the ball from the placement of the feet that he had taken? He does not have to take a "normal" stance, only one from which he is going to strike the ball. If yes, penalty. If no, no penalty. Based on the description in the 1st post of what Romero did, it seems that he had taken a stance to tap the ball in.

[sensfan63]

I did not see what happened, however, If the putter was soled AND the player had taken his stance, he has addressed the ball. If the ball moves, the player is penalized.

We know what soling the putter means so we now have to look at the definition of stance. "Taking the stance consist in a player placing his feet in position for and preparatory to making a stroke." To me then the question is, did the player intend to stroke the ball from the placement of the feet that he had taken? He does not have to take a "normal" stance, only one from which he is going to strike the ball. If yes, penalty. If no, no penalty. Based on the description in the 1st post of what Romero did, it seems that he had taken a stance to tap the ball in.

That's exactly what I was trying to convey. Thanks for making it clearer. I will say that Romero was absolutely going to strike the ball with his feet placed the way they were.

Now, since we agree on this aspect, how do you feel about the actual ruling? That when Romero soled the putter 3-4 inches behind the ball, that he actually WAS NOT addressing the ball, but preparing to place his putter even closer to the ball?

I think it was bogus (as if anyone couldn't tell already )

[BC MIST]

That's exactly what I was trying to convey. Thanks for making it clearer. I will say that Romero was absolutely going to strike the ball with his feet placed the way they were.

Now, since we agree on this aspect, how do you feel about the actual ruling? That when Romero soled the putter 3-4 inches behind the ball, that he actually WAS NOT addressing the ball, but preparing to place his putter even closer to the ball?

I think it was bogus (as if anyone couldn't tell already )

The definition of addressing the ball talks about the club being GROUNDED (and stance taken). I don't think that there is anything in the rules that says that they must be done simultaneously. So If I ground my club and while taking my stance raise the club off the ground, without grounding it again a la Greg Norman, Jack Nicklaus, I have still addressed the ball.

Again, from your description, Romero had GROUNDED the club behind the ball and had taken a stance, when the ball moved. Seems like a penalty to me.

When we have a short putt and try to avoid standing on someone else's line, we sometimes take an abnormal stance and may ground the club a little differently, but the ball is still addressed.

BTW: There is a decision, 18-2b/4, that indicates that the stance part of addressing the ball is not complete until his feet are positioned normally, however, IMO, what I described in the previous paragraph IS normal, for that kind of situation.

[sensfan63]

The definition of addressing the ball talks about the club being GROUNDED (and stance taken). I don't think that there is anything in the rules that says that they must be done simultaneously. So If I ground my club and while taking my stance raise the club off the ground, without grounding it again a la Greg Norman, Jack Nicklaus, I have still addressed the ball.

Again, from your description, Romero had GROUNDED the club behind the ball and had taken a stance, when the ball moved. Seems like a penalty to me.

When we have a short putt and try to avoid standing on someone else's line, we sometimes take an abnormal stance and may ground the club a little differently, but the ball is still addressed.

BTW: There is a decision, 18-2b/4, that indicates that the stance part of addressing the ball is not complete until his feet are positioned normally, however, IMO, what I described in the previous paragraph IS normal, for that kind of situation.

Thanks. This confirms my original thought.

[Kilroy]

Actually sensfan all it does is confirm that a local RO (BC) agrees with your assessment. Another local RO (gbower) and the RO at the event did not. I am not saying that to stir the pot and I don't agree or disagree. It just proves that it is a controversial ruling where different ROs see it differently and no more.

[BC MIST]

Actually sensfan all it des is confirm that a local RO (BC) agrees with your assessment. Another local RO (gbower) and the RO at the event did not. I am not saying that to stir the pot and I don't agree or disagree. It just proves that it is a controversial ruling where different ROs see it differently and no more.

One can see the obvious advantage of viewing the video of what happened before making a ruling. That is why the rules have us gather all possible evidence before doing so and that would include interviewing the player(s) involved.

It also stresses the importance of knowing the definitions, in this case "stance" and "addressing the ball." I talked to Gerry on the phone about this yesterday afternoon and we will see if his stance, pun intended, remains the same as it was earlier. AAA is the real rules expert here and it will be interesting to read any further comments he may make.

Until then, IMO, Romero GROUNDED the club and took a stance that he was going to use to make the stroke, when the ball moved. Penalty.

AAA has an interesting signature on another forum. There are only two kinds of rules officials: Those who have made mistakes and those who will.

[sensfan63]

Actually sensfan all it des is confirm that a local RO (BC) agrees with your assessment. Another local RO (gbower) and the RO at the event did not. I am not saying that to stir the pot and I don't agree or disagree. It just proves that it is a controversial ruling where different ROs see it differently and no more.

Very true.

I guess the angle I'm taking is this - if a "stance" can only be defined as the stance you take 99% of the time you hit shots, then a player is not responsible for what happens to the ball even if he grounds his club.

I don't believe this to be true whatsoever. That's why I'm making a big deal out of it.

[Kilroy]

AAA has an interesting signature on another forum. There are only two kinds of rules officials: Those who have made mistakes and those who will.

Love it!

[BC MIST]

Here is the report of the Romero ruling taken from the USGA website.
Romero's Predicament At No. 11

During Saturday's third round, Eduardo Romero's ball at rest moved on the putting green on the 11th hole. This raised a question whether he had incurred a penalty under Rule 18-2.

No penalty was appropriate under Rule 18-2b. Although Romero had grounded his club 4 to 6 inches behind the ball, he had not yet taken his stance for the stroke and thus had not yet addressed the ball, as is required by that Rule. In this regard, it is important that Romero intended to reset his feet prior to making the stroke, as was his usual practice in such situations (and as he did when he made his next stroke to hole out).

Nor was any penalty appropriate under Rule 18-2a. Although Romero grounded his club, he did not do so directly behind the ball, but rather 4-6 inches away from the ball. Moreover, when he grounded the club, he did so lightly, and the ball did not immediately move. Rather, it did so only a few seconds later. In these circumstances, and given that the ball was on a slope on a firm and fast green made of Poa anua grass with little moisture to help keep it at rest, neither Romero nor his fellow-competitor thought that Romero caused the ball to move.

Interestingly, in watching Appelby on his way to his 59, on the 13th or 14th hole, after missing a putt that left him about 4" from the hole, he grounded his putter about 4" to 5" behind the ball, stood on ONE foot and pushed the ball into the hole without taking a backswing. Had the ball moved before he pushed it into the hole, would he have been penalized? As the principle is the same as the original discussion, I would still say "Yes," as the stance was one from which he intended to play the stroke and because he had grounded the club for the same reason.

[sensfan63]

Here is the report of the Romero ruling taken from the USGA website.
Romero's Predicament At No. 11

During Saturday's third round, Eduardo Romero's ball at rest moved on the putting green on the 11th hole. This raised a question whether he had incurred a penalty under Rule 18-2.

No penalty was appropriate under Rule 18-2b. Although Romero had grounded his club 4 to 6 inches behind the ball, he had not yet taken his stance for the stroke and thus had not yet addressed the ball, as is required by that Rule. In this regard, it is important that Romero intended to reset his feet prior to making the stroke, as was his usual practice in such situations (and as he did when he made his next stroke to hole out).

Nor was any penalty appropriate under Rule 18-2a. Although Romero grounded his club, he did not do so directly behind the ball, but rather 4-6 inches away from the ball. Moreover, when he grounded the club, he did so lightly, and the ball did not immediately move. Rather, it did so only a few seconds later. In these circumstances, and given that the ball was on a slope on a firm and fast green made of Poa anua grass with little moisture to help keep it at rest, neither Romero nor his fellow-competitor thought that Romero caused the ball to move.

Interestingly, in watching Appelby on his way to his 59, on the 13th or 14th hole, after missing a putt that left him about 4" from the hole, he grounded his putter about 4" to 5" behind the ball, stood on ONE foot and pushed the ball into the hole without taking a backswing. Had the ball moved before he pushed it into the hole, would he have been penalized? As the principle is the same as the original discussion, I would still say "Yes," as the stance was one from which he intended to play the stroke and because he had grounded the club for the same reason.

That's great that they clarified it. I don't remember him taking a regular stance when all was said and done. But, it was three days ago. I must be getting old.

I find it interesting that the ruling takes into account the firmness and quickness of the green, as well as the type of grass. Does that matter?

[AAA]

I find it interesting that the ruling takes into account the firmness and quickness of the green, as well as the type of grass. Does that matter?

Indeed it does. See decision 18-2b/4 last line. Gravity is, togther with wind, classed as 'some other agency'.

[Ruskie]

Indeed it does. See decision 18-2b/4 last line. Gravity is, togther with wind, classed as 'some other agency'.

Hmm... but if the player addresses the ball and the aforementioned "other agency" causes the ball to move, there IS a penalty, right? Regardless of the fact that it is clearly not the action of the player that caused the ball to move? I spend a few seconds over my putts, so it's happened to me before: a gust of wind nearly topples me backwards and moves the ball. I never thought there was any possible way to avoid the penalty... Was I mistaken?

[AAA]

Hmm... but if the player addresses the ball and the aforementioned "other agency" causes the ball to move, there IS a penalty, right? Regardless of the fact that it is clearly not the action of the player that caused the ball to move? I spend a few seconds over my putts, so it's happened to me before: a gust of wind nearly topples me backwards and moves the ball. I never thought there was any possible way to avoid the penalty... Was I mistaken?

You were not mistaken (Rule 18-2b) but in the case we are discussing the player had not addressed the ball.
In such a situation (Rule 18-2a) he may be judged to have moved the ball unless there is strong evidence that some other agency (other than an outside agency) moved the ball.
An Outside Agency is covered in Rule 18-1.

[PapaPat]

Some days, the discussion on this forum can only be described as excellent

[gbower]

Here's a link to a few comments on this situation.

http://freedrop.wordpress.com/2010/0...t-senior-open/

[Ruskie]

Here's a link to a few comments on this situation.

http://freedrop.wordpress.com/2010/0...t-senior-open/

Oh good, so I'm not the only one who thinks this rules is unfair when applied to putting.

"We were told at the rules seminar this year that the issue of R 18-2b is being considered for extinction but I have heard that in years past with no result!"

I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

[TomorMatt]

I am so glad that I found this forum. Shortly after watching the incident in question with Eduardo Romero, I was furiously searching the internet to see if I was just crazy of if anyone else was completely bothered by not only the ruling, but also the explanation of the ruling in the booth. I was not able to find anything and it bothered me enough that I emailed the USGA. I finally received a reply from Bernie Loehr at the USGA who was the official commentating in the booth.

I will not rehash the email as it states essentially what the USGA posted on their website. Mr. Loehr did indicate that they reviewed tap of Romero's other tap ins and claim that he did reset his feet prior to putting. I still have an issue primarily because of the reasons highlighted above, which were the same ones I stated in my email to the USGA. Essentially, I have difficulty believing that Romero had not addressed the ball as most players who tap in do so without taking their "normal stance" or taking the time to ground the putter exactly behind the ball. Additionally, if you watch Tom Watson's expression when Romero looks to him to confirm if the ball moved, he seems to indicate that he thinks a penalty will be assessed.

My biggest frustration was with the commentary. The official (Mr. Loehr) made the comment that the players and the official determined that Romero "had not caused the ball to move". Mr. Loehr reiterates that again in the email he sent me. My frustration is that my experience as a former club professional (both as a player and as the primary official at several events) is that the most common reason when a penalty under Rule 18-2a is incurred happens when the wind moves the ball after the player has addressed it. Based on the comments made during the telecast, someone unfamiliar with the rules could assume that since he or she did not "cause the ball to move", he or she should not incur a penalty.

I do not want to beat a dead horse. I am just so happy to find other people who at least questioned the ruling. I usually am not a fan of the television viewer who thinks he knows more than the official and players onsite. Additionally, Tom Watson is my favorite golfer of all time and is not one to shy away from calling a penalty, which is why I found this incident so odd. My sense is that if this was 30 years ago and the US Open, Tom Watson would not have been okay with the decision.

[AAA]

Essentially, I have difficulty believing that Romero had not addressed the ball as most players who tap in do so without taking their "normal stance"

It was shown that Romero seemingly was not like 'most players' in that he had previously always taken his normal stance before making his stroke at 'gimmies'.

Of course 'most players' are not top class pros playing for $000s.

[sensfan63]

I am so glad that I found this forum. Shortly after watching the incident in question with Eduardo Romero, I was furiously searching the internet to see if I was just crazy of if anyone else was completely bothered by not only the ruling, but also the explanation of the ruling in the booth. I was not able to find anything and it bothered me enough that I emailed the USGA. I finally received a reply from Bernie Loehr at the USGA who was the official commentating in the booth.

I will not rehash the email as it states essentially what the USGA posted on their website. Mr. Loehr did indicate that they reviewed tap of Romero's other tap ins and claim that he did reset his feet prior to putting. I still have an issue primarily because of the reasons highlighted above, which were the same ones I stated in my email to the USGA. Essentially, I have difficulty believing that Romero had not addressed the ball as most players who tap in do so without taking their "normal stance" or taking the time to ground the putter exactly behind the ball. Additionally, if you watch Tom Watson's expression when Romero looks to him to confirm if the ball moved, he seems to indicate that he thinks a penalty will be assessed.

My biggest frustration was with the commentary. The official (Mr. Loehr) made the comment that the players and the official determined that Romero "had not caused the ball to move". Mr. Loehr reiterates that again in the email he sent me. My frustration is that my experience as a former club professional (both as a player and as the primary official at several events) is that the most common reason when a penalty under Rule 18-2a is incurred happens when the wind moves the ball after the player has addressed it. Based on the comments made during the telecast, someone unfamiliar with the rules could assume that since he or she did not "cause the ball to move", he or she should not incur a penalty.

I do not want to beat a dead horse. I am just so happy to find other people who at least questioned the ruling. I usually am not a fan of the television viewer who thinks he knows more than the official and players onsite. Additionally, Tom Watson is my favorite golfer of all time and is not one to shy away from calling a penalty, which is why I found this incident so odd. My sense is that if this was 30 years ago and the US Open, Tom Watson would not have been okay with the decision.

We seem to see things the same way.

Although, it seemed like Watson was doing his damnedest to help Romero, while Couples (it seemed to me, anyway) was shaking his head "no" and disagreeing with everything.

Oh well. I still believe it was BS. But, it's over now.