On course: Moving ball deflected into hole

[nsxguy]

3 hours ago, iacas said:

 

The rule is literally called:

Rule 11 - … Deliberate Actions to Affect Ball in Motion

 

Absolutely TRUE !!! 

 

And what you quoted me as saying was "What happens to experts in a field is they often forget the "common man" and can't understand why something SO simple to THEM, is so difficult for a lay person"

 

So, despite my misuse of "lay person", the average golfer, or "common man" in this case, doesn't want to read through all of 11.1, 11.2, and 11.3 with all the bullet points, ifs, ands, and buts.

 

So there is that,,,,,,,,,,,, 

[Mr. Bean]

21 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

There's something you DON'T know ?

 

This would be considered raking the ball back.

 

 

 

C'mon dude, that was not what I asked!!

 

I wanted to know WHY the player raked the ball back especially while it was moving.

[nsxguy]

2 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Rake it back? What does that mean? A gimmie? Replay the stroke with 1 PS? What?

 

This gets more and more peculiar post by post...

 

30 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

There's something you DON'T know ?

 

This would be considered raking the ball back.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

C'mon dude, that was not what I asked!!

 

I wanted to know WHY the player raked the ball back especially while it was moving.

 

Dude, I try to get used to your pedantry, but you LITERALLY asked "Rake it back? What does that mean?"

[nsxguy]

3 hours ago, iacas said:

Think what you want, but I've been a Rules Official for a decade and have officiated national championships for the USGA and local championships for my AGA, high school and college events, etc. I've scored well above 90 on the rules test(s) and the USGA considers me "expert status" so… 🤣

 

 

Ahhhh Haaaaaaaaaaaaah, NOW I see what happened here. You quoted the wrong post of mine.

 

The one you quoted was to Dave about Augster.

 

Below is the one that appears to have gotten your feathers ruffled.

 

I apologize profusely for "insulting" you (inadvertently, of course). I've seen your signature plenty of times, but I never remember you mentioning your credentials. 

 

4 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

[snip]

 

I believe it would be as simple as making another group of posters "Officials", changing the "member group" of those OF you officials (and iacas to name one other).

 

Then, in the new group, ONLY "Rules Officials Only" ONLY whose in the new member group would have permission to post and discuss.

 

[iacas]

@nsxguy, I quoted the right one, but your use of "him" was a bit vague is all. Small things like that don't ruffle my feathers, man.

[antip]

I'm late to this party, and the group got to the right place after some discussion, but there's still observations I can add ...

 

Such a question as the OP cannot be ruled without the key fact - what was the intent of the player? And that answer - which may be straightforward or may require a conversation with the player - guides the ruling between the different treatment under 10.1d and 11.2.

 

If the player intended to hit the ball into the hole then we have a stroke at a moving ball, and 10.1d guides - and (post-Michelson) - there was a deliberate new insertion in 1.2a/1, the 8th bullet point, that empowers a Committee to decide if the action produced a significant enough advantage to justify DQ. So, for example, if that interfered putt could well have rolled some distance and gotten into significant trouble, 10.1d could enable an unjustified significant advantage that the Committee can override with a DQ. 

 

For those unaware, certain voices in the USGA and the R&A at the most senior level split on how to deal with the Michelson incident, the R&A believing the Rules at the time provided sufficient justification for DQ (the right call IMO) but the USGA (being the folk in charge and the ones that set that bad pin position) argued the published Rules didn't support that. The additional dot point in 1.2a/1 was the downstream result. Interestingly, a senior official of the R&A in the Michelson aftermath used language like "he better not try that here".

 

If the facts suggest not a stroke, then we rule via 11.2c(2), as discussed above.

 

Thank you to Augie for bringing an actual Rules question, rare as hen's teeth around here.

 

 

[Augster]

If we need to know the player’s “intent”, it was absolutely, 100%, to intentionally rake back, and pick up the moving ball. It was only due to his inability with the putter (and the moving ball and the awkward angle) that his attempt to, basically, putt the moving ball back to himself to pick it up, that it went in the hole. After seeing enough old timers rake back putts to themselves in casual play over the years, this was the same except his strike went sideways into the hole instead of backwards toward himself so he could pick it up. 
 

It’s his first year in our club, but he’s like 80 and certainly isn’t new to golf in general. He’s been playing quite a while. And, I’m sure, in casual play, when his 3rd putt is going to miss the cup, he routinely stops it from rolling too far away with the club and picks up and moves to the next hole. Which is fine. Except in competitions. 
 

Thanks for the help with this. 
 

[Augster]

4 hours ago, antip said:

I'm late to this party, and the group got to the right place after some discussion, but there's still observations I can add ...

 

Such a question as the OP cannot be ruled without the key fact - what was the intent of the player? And that answer - which may be straightforward or may require a conversation with the player - guides the ruling between the different treatment under 10.1d and 11.2.

 

If the player intended to hit the ball into the hole then we have a stroke at a moving ball, and 10.1d guides - and (post-Michelson) - there was a deliberate new insertion in 1.2a/1, the 8th bullet point, that empowers a Committee to decide if the action produced a significant enough advantage to justify DQ. So, for example, if that interfered putt could well have rolled some distance and gotten into significant trouble, 10.1d could enable an unjustified significant advantage that the Committee can override with a DQ. 

 

For those unaware, certain voices in the USGA and the R&A at the most senior level split on how to deal with the Michelson incident, the R&A believing the Rules at the time provided sufficient justification for DQ (the right call IMO) but the USGA (being the folk in charge and the ones that set that bad pin position) argued the published Rules didn't support that. The additional dot point in 1.2a/1 was the downstream result. Interestingly, a senior official of the R&A in the Michelson aftermath used language like "he better not try that here".

 

If the facts suggest not a stroke, then we rule via 11.2c(2), as discussed above.

 

Thank you to Augie for bringing an actual Rules question, rare as hen's teeth around here.

 

 

Thanks for the clarity. 
 

Now that I’ve had a chance to actually read the Rules on this, it’s confusing as hell and there was ZERO chance I was figuring out the nuances of this bush league action by a player that we were already out of position because of and racing to try to make the time pars. 
 

The ball absolutely would have rolled a significant amount past. Like 8-9 feet past. Just a terrible putt. The player certainly wasn’t trying to play the moving ball into the hole. He was trying to “bat it back to himself” so it didn’t roll the many feet past the hole, so he could pick it up. IMO, it was a clumsy strike that made the ball accidentally get hit into the hole. 
 

Mickleson’s (and Daly) intent was to play the moving ball into the hole. Also before it rolled too far away. I don’t think that was this player’s intent at all. He just wanted the ball back, and had zero intention (IMO) of making a legal 4th putt at it or even finishing the hole. 
 

With that said, and what you’ve laid out, and the way the Rules are written, he certainly intended to strike the moving ball, but not for scoring purposes. Which, from reading, makes me think it’s an 11.2 issue instead of a 10.1d issue. 
 

Going forward, if this should ever happen again, which I hope it won’t, I should probably ask the player, “Were you trying to hole that moving ball?” If yes, stroke counts plus 2-sp. If no, stroke is cancelled, replay from the original spot, 2-sp.  

 

I doubt it’d be that cut and dried, but at least having the dunderhead’s input would make it easier to rule on. 
 

Thanks for the help!

Edited June 9 by Augster

[antip]

3 hours ago, Augster said:

Thanks for the clarity. 
 

Now that I’ve had a chance to actually read the Rules on this, it’s confusing as hell and there was ZERO chance I was figuring out the nuances of this bush league action by a player that we were already out of position because of and racing to try to make the time pars. 
 

The ball absolutely would have rolled a significant amount past. Like 8-9 feet past. Just a terrible putt. The player certainly wasn’t trying to play the moving ball into the hole. He was trying to “bat it back to himself” so it didn’t roll the many feet past the hole, so he could pick it up. IMO, it was a clumsy strike that made the ball accidentally get hit into the hole. 
 

Mickleson’s (and Daly) intent was to play the moving ball into the hole. Also before it rolled too far away. I don’t think that was this player’s intent at all. He just wanted the ball back, and had zero intention (IMO) of making a legal 4th putt at it or even finishing the hole. 
 

With that said, and what you’ve laid out, and the way the Rules are written, he certainly intended to strike the moving ball, but not for scoring purposes. Which, from reading, makes me think it’s an 11.2 issue instead of a 10.1d issue. 
 

Going forward, if this should ever happen again, which I hope it won’t, I should probably ask the player, “Were you trying to hole that moving ball?” If yes, stroke counts plus 2-sp. If no, stroke is cancelled, replay from the original spot, 2-sp.  

 

I doubt it’d be that cut and dried, but at least having the dunderhead’s input would make it easier to rule on. 
 

Thanks for the help!

Precisely. If trying to bat it into the hole, stroke counts and general penalty - 10.1d. If simply to lift the ball and move on without finishing, 11.2 guides what needs to happen and it is a 3.3c DQ if stroke play and the player doesn't finish.

[Mr. Bean]

Deleted, not important.

Edited June 9 by Mr. Bean

[Mr. Bean]

6 hours ago, Augster said:

The ball absolutely would have rolled a significant amount past. Like 8-9 feet past. Just a terrible putt. The player certainly wasn’t trying to play the moving ball into the hole. He was trying to “bat it back to himself” so it didn’t roll the many feet past the hole, so he could pick it up. IMO, it was a clumsy strike that made the ball accidentally get hit into the hole. 

 

Pretty quick guy and a lousy putt. He had a 3-footer and he putted so hard that the ball would have rolled thrice the distance he had to start with. Yet he was quick enough to hack his ball back to him from behind the hole with all that extra speed. What a shame you did not get that on a video!

 

What was the format of this comp?

[Augster]

2 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Pretty quick guy and a lousy putt. He had a 3-footer and he putted so hard that the ball would have rolled thrice the distance he had to start with. Yet he was quick enough to hack his ball back to him from behind the hole with all that extra speed. What a shame you did not get that on a video!

 

What was the format of this comp?

It’s team golf, ABCD, he was our D player. 3/4 ball but with a twist. If your team gets a net birdie, you take the low 3 scores. If you don’t get a net birdie, your team gets the low 2 scores, plus the high score. It’s called our “burn” tournament. 
 

We were likely going to make a net birdie on the hole, but nobody was in yet with one, so maybe he thought his score didn’t matter. I was actually having him finish so that I’d have a free run at my birdie putt. But there are other teams with only 3 players, so we do a blind draw for the 4th player. So everyone has to finish in case your score is called for the blind draw teams. 
 

So, in the end, his score on the hole didn’t matter for OUR team, but it may have mattered had he been drawn for a team that didn’t have a D player on it. 
 

 

 

[Imp]

So, reading this through after my 2nd coffee... would it be safe to consider that the term "deflection" would/should imply no stroke/movement made by a putter. Simply, not moving, or "placed" in so as Rule 11.x would take precedence over 10. Putter moving at all, that's 10.x?

 

To me, seems rather clear and straightforward...

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, Imp said:

So, reading this through after my 2nd coffee... would it be safe to consider that the term "deflection" would/should imply no stroke/movement made by a putter. Simply, not moving, or "placed" in so as Rule 11.x would take precedence over 10. Putter moving at all, that's 10.x?

 

To me, seems rather clear and straightforward...

 

It's all about intent....

[rogolf]

2 hours ago, Augster said:

It’s team golf, ABCD, he was our D player. 3/4 ball but with a twist. If your team gets a net birdie, you take the low 3 scores. If you don’t get a net birdie, your team gets the low 2 scores, plus the high score. It’s called our “burn” tournament. 
 

We were likely going to make a net birdie on the hole, but nobody was in yet with one, so maybe he thought his score didn’t matter. I was actually having him finish so that I’d have a free run at my birdie putt. But there are other teams with only 3 players, so we do a blind draw for the 4th player. So everyone has to finish in case your score is called for the blind draw teams. 
 

So, in the end, his score on the hole didn’t matter for OUR team, but it may have mattered had he been drawn for a team that didn’t have a D player on it. 
 

 

 

A digression - we play something similar.  But we never have to count the highest score.  If all groups are four, we play the three lowest net out of four.  If groups are mixed 4's and 3's, we switch to Stableford scoring- the 4's count the best three Stableford per hole, the 3's count the best Stableford and the the second best Stableford twice (to make three scores).  

There's always one score per hole that doesn't count - it's meant not to punish anyone for a bad hole and to keep up the pace of play.

[Augster]

3 hours ago, rogolf said:

A digression - we play something similar.  But we never have to count the highest score.  If all groups are four, we play the three lowest net out of four.  If groups are mixed 4's and 3's, we switch to Stableford scoring- the 4's count the best three Stableford per hole, the 3's count the best Stableford and the the second best Stableford twice (to make three scores).  

There's always one score per hole that doesn't count - it's meant not to punish anyone for a bad hole and to keep up the pace of play.

Our pace of play in this event is brutal. Just brutal. One of my friends shot an 11 on the second hole par 4. Their team was out pretty much instantly as they didn’t make a net birdie. 
 

If I were in charge of the schedule, next year I’d drop this event and put in a team stableford of some sort as you say. 3/4 stableford where you MUST pick up when you’ve blobbed. 

[sui generis]

What's the Rule?

 

I call these folks a couple of times every summer.

 

USGA Rules of Golf, 
Phone: 908-326-1850 (7 days a week)

 

Don't be afraid to call 'em. They're used to any and all kinds of enquiries.

[LeoLeo99]

On 6/8/2025 at 1:37 PM, nsxguy said:

Anywho.

 

For those of you ("Rulies") who get annoyed, aggravated, whatever, by stupid questions, wrong answers, etc., I actually HAVE a possible solution for you.

 

Give the kids their own sandbox.

 

You'd need the board's approval and participation, but I'm pretty sure it's relatively easy and very straightforward for them.

 

Request the board to break up the Rules and Etiquette forum into 2 separate ones. They'd need to make a new "member group", a new forum, and restrict posting privileges to the new member group.

 

A "Rules of Golf" forum where ONLY designated Rules Officials and other "qualified posters" (iacas leaps to mind) can post to discuss the Rules, Interpretation etc, among themselves.

 

And a 2nd forum, I guess THIS existing forum, where others can ask questions, discuss the Rules (and etiquette), and be as right or as wrong as they like, and where, of course, officials are invited to post as well.

 

I believe it would be as simple as making another group of posters "Officials", changing the "member group" of those OF you officials (and iacas to name one other).

 

Then, in the new group, ONLY "Rules Officials Only" ONLY whose in the new member group would have permission to post and discuss.

 

What do you think ?

Will the rulies still be obligated to respond with snarkiness in every thread on the free open side?  

[Imp]

21 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

It's all about intent....

Is it though? Intent is the same: Ball rolling? "Do something to it."

 

Make a stroke? 10. Place putter without stroke (or other object) for it to bounce off of? Deflection. 11.

 

 

[Mr. Bean]

41 minutes ago, Imp said:

Is it though? Intent is the same: Ball rolling? "Do something to it."

 

Make a stroke? 10. Place putter without stroke (or other object) for it to bounce off of? Deflection. 11.

 

 

 

Exactly.

 

- ok, I hit the ball so it goes to a different direction (= stroke)

- I don't want my ball go there so I give it a tiny push (= deflection)

 

It's all about intent.

[nsxguy]

On 6/8/2025 at 1:40 PM, Mr. Bean said:

 

This is already the 2nd forum and there are a few nice forums for those who want to dig deeper.

 

So, I say no.

 

Sorry, but which is the other Rules Forum.

 

This one is the only one I could find. TIA

 

[Nickb333]

11 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Exactly.

 

- ok, I hit the ball so it goes to a different direction (= stroke)

- I don't want my ball go there so I give it a tiny push (= deflection)

 

It's all about intent.

This makes no sense. How is a tiny push not a tiny hit? ie a stoke. 
 

A deflection is just getting in the way. As in, you place the club or anything in the path of a moving ball. 
 

A stroke is intentionally hitting a ball. No matter how tiny or huge. If I have a 2” putt, my stroke will be tiny. 

[Mr. Bean]

14 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

Sorry, but which is the other Rules Forum.

 

This one is the only one I could find. TIA

 

 

 

So... for you Wrx is the only golf forum that exists..?

 

Try Google.

[Newby]

18 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

Sorry, but which is the other Rules Forum.

 

 

leithsociety.com

thesandtrap.com/forums/forum/10-rules-of-golf/

torontogolfnuts.com

rulesgeeks.com

forums.golfmonthly.com/forums/rules-of-golf-handicapping.21/

 

 

Edited June 11 by Newby

[davep043]

15 minutes ago, Newby said:

www.leithsociety.com

thesandtrap.com/forums/forum/10-rules-of-golf/

www.torontogolfnuts.com

 

 

Also a few facebook pages, including:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/RulesOfGolf

which is run by the USGA, and features responses directly from the source.

[nsxguy]

On 6/8/2025 at 1:37 PM, nsxguy said:

Anywho.

 

For those of you ("Rulies") who get annoyed, aggravated, whatever, by stupid questions, wrong answers, etc., I actually HAVE a possible solution for you.

 

Give the kids their own sandbox.

 

You'd need the board's approval and participation, but I'm pretty sure it's relatively easy and very straightforward for them.

 

Request the board to break up the Rules and Etiquette forum into 2 separate ones. They'd need to make a new "member group", a new forum, and restrict posting privileges to the new member group.

 

A "Rules of Golf" forum where ONLY designated Rules Officials and other "qualified posters" (iacas leaps to mind) can post to discuss the Rules, Interpretation etc, among themselves.

 

And a 2nd forum, I guess THIS existing forum, where others can ask questions, discuss the Rules (and etiquette), and be as right or as wrong as they like, and where, of course, officials are invited to post as well.

 

I believe it would be as simple as making another group of posters "Officials", changing the "member group" of those OF you officials (and iacas to name one other).

 

Then, in the new group, ONLY "Rules Officials Only" ONLY whose in the new member group would have permission to post and discuss.

 

What do you think ?

 

On 6/11/2025 at 2:19 PM, Mr. Bean said:

 

 

So... for you Wrx is the only golf forum that exists..?

 

Try Google.

 

 

Seriously ?

 

Did you really not understand my suggestion was for HERE ? 

 

Or are you just trolling some more ? 

[nsxguy]

On 6/11/2025 at 2:37 PM, Newby said:

leithsociety.com

thesandtrap.com/forums/forum/10-rules-of-golf/

torontogolfnuts.com

rulesgeeks.com

forums.golfmonthly.com/forums/rules-of-golf-handicapping.21/

 

 

 

On 6/11/2025 at 2:54 PM, davep043 said:

Also a few facebook pages, including:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/RulesOfGolf

which is run by the USGA, and features responses directly from the source.

 

Oh my. 

 

I guess Mr B wasn't the only one who didn't realize I was talking about THIS PLACE - Golfwrx.com

 

I thought, with all the intelligent folks around here, it was pretty obvious, especially with the pic of the ROG forum HERE.

 

My bad (I guess).

 

[Colin L]

2 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

 

Oh my. 

 

I guess Mr B wasn't the only one who didn't realize I was talking about THIS PLACE - Golfwrx.com

 

I thought, with all the intelligent folks around here, it was pretty obvious, especially with the pic of the ROG forum HERE.

 

My bad (I guess).

 

Nah.  Blame word usage.  It isn't exactly helpful that forum is used for both the whole and the part and you thus get forums within a forum.  

 

And Mr B wasn't the only one.  Count me in 🙄.