Dropping coin on ball

[Ty_Webb]

Originally Posted by Bulls9999

I never saw that....but yes, he did get penalized (looked it up). I stand officially corrected, even though the wording in the rules is very vague and seemingly contradictory with other rulings, especially below: (wouldn't the pressing of the marker be well after the 'specific act of marking the ball', why going back and pressing it with the putter still be part of the 'specific act of marking the ball'?...and what if you dropped the ball on the marker before you got to press it with the putter....would that be considered to occur 'during the specific act of marking the ball'?

20-1/6 Ball-Marker Moved Accidentally by Player in Process of Marking Position of Ball
Q. A player marked the position of his ball with a coin, lifted the ball and pressed down the coin with the sole of his putter. He walked to the edge of the green and then noticed that the coin had stuck to the sole of the putter. What is the ruling?
A. In this case, the movement of the ball-marker was directly attributable to the specific act of marking the position of the ball.

Accordingly, no penalty is incurred and the ball or the ball-marker must be replaced. If the spot where the ball or ball-marker lay is not known, it must be placed as near as possible to where it lay but not nearer the hole (Rule 20-3c).

Why do you think it has to be one continuous act? You can put the marker down and placing it is part of the act. Then, when you pick up the ball, it's no longer part of the act. Then when you tap the marker down with your putter, that is again part of the act of marking the ball. I agree that without looking at the decision this is unclear. I disagree that after looking at the decision it's still unclear. It seems pretty clear to me.

[Bulls9999]

Hmmm.... it's already marked, but you go back to 'press the marker down' with the putter, sticks to the putter, gets carried away with it and that's ok because it was all done in the 'specific act of marking the ball'. Dropping a ball on the marker, even if part of the movement towards the marker, is not deemed part of the 'specific act of marking the ball'. Could you not drop the ball on the marker with the intention (no different than using the putter) to press it down?....would it then be considered part of the 'specific act of marking the ball'?

Originally Posted by Ty_Webb

Why do you think it has to be one continuous act? You can put the marker down and placing it is part of the act. Then, when you pick up the ball, it's no longer part of the act. Then when you tap the marker down with your putter, that is again part of the act of marking the ball. I agree that without looking at the decision this is unclear. I disagree that after looking at the decision it's still unclear. It seems pretty clear to me.

[JPsuff]

.


Stupid, stupid stupid, rule.


OK lemme see if I've got this straight...

If I drop a coin on the ball - while I'm standing directly over the ball - and the ball moves, and even though I know exactly where it was BEFORE the coin moved it and could thus replace it EXACTLY where it was, I have to do that and then take a penalty stroke.

But if I've already marked the ball and picked it up and then I press the coin down with my putter and the coin sticks to the bottom of that putter, I can walk twenty, thirty, forty feet or more away from where that coin (and the ball) should be and then, upon discovering the coin stuck to my putter, I can return the coin to where I THINK the ball should be with no penalty whatsoever?


Wanna know what I think?

I think the rules people at the USGA make this stuff up............


I'll tell ya' folks... "Tiger's rock" seems like an exercise in logic compared to "The Coin Rule".



<sigh>


-JP

[Fourputt]

Anyone else see the call on Snedeker for this very offense in the Open? He dropped the coin on the ball, had to take the penalty and replace the ball. Brandt didn't seem nearly as distressed as some of you are here in this thread, yet he was playing in perhaps the most important tournament of the year. He took it in stride and played on. Class act, IMO.

[JPsuff]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Anyone else see the call on Snedeker for this very offense in the Open? He dropped the coin on the ball, had to take the penalty and replace the ball. Brandt didn't seem nearly as distressed as some of you are here in this thread, yet he was playing in perhaps the most important tournament of the year. He took it in stride and played on. Class act, IMO.

What - do you really think someone's gonna throw a tantrum on national television? But I'd have LOVED to hear what he had to say about it in the locker room.


It's a stupid rule plain and simple.


Especially when they get to the part about the coin sticking to the putter. If they didn't add that, I'd say that maybe there was some minuscule amount of sense in the coin part. But when they explain about walking away with the coin stuck to the putter with no penalty at all, they lost all credibility with me.


Sorry, you can defend this one all you want but it's stupid and that's that.



-JP

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by JPsuff

What - do you really think someone's gonna throw a tantrum on national television? But I'd have LOVED to hear what he had to say about it in the locker room.


It's a stupid rule plain and simple.


Especially when they get to the part about the coin sticking to the putter. If they didn't add that, I'd say that maybe there was some minuscule amount of sense in the coin part. But when they explain about walking away with the coin stuck to the putter with no penalty at all, they lost all credibility with me.


Sorry, you can defend this one all you want but it's stupid and that's that.



-JP

Here is a silly example that might help understand the distinctions made in the rule and decisions.

Suppose there were a rule that penalized you for failing to properly engage the ignition of your car unless you were in the specific act of engaging the ignition.

So you begin to move the key to the key slot, but drop it on the floor before it makes it.

Have you reached the specific act of engaging the ignition?

[JPsuff]

Originally Posted by atticusfinch

Here is a silly example that might help understand the distinctions made in the rule and decisions.

Suppose there were a rule that penalized you for failing to properly engage the ignition of your car unless you were in the specific act of engaging the ignition.

So you begin to move the key to the key slot, but drop it on the floor before it makes it.

Have you reached the specific act of engaging the ignition?

Since the key slot hasn't moved, all you'd have to do is pick up the key and try again. (C'mon, you can come up with a better analogy than that can't you?)

Like I said, if this rule applied to only the human movement of the coin, I could at least see SOME logic to it. But since when is tamping down a coin with a putter considered "part of the act"?
Heck, I'll bet that if you stood by one green at any pro tournament and watched a hundred players play through, you'd be hard-pressed to find FIVE who actually do that. Most players simply place the coin down behind the ball, pick the ball up and walk away. So the idea that using a putter to tamp down a coin as a matter of some kind of "standard operating procedure" is ludicrous.

What makes it even worse is the fact that at least by dropping the coin on the ball, you'd be close enough to be able to identify with great certainty the point at which the ball lay prior to its being dislocated by the coin. You could then quite accurately replace the ball --- yet you're assessed a penalty.
But having that coin stick to your putter and then only noticing it after you've walked a considerable distance away from the point at which the ball ought to be and then being allowed to essentially GUESS where that point was and incur no penalty is BEYOND LUDICROUS.


Sorry Atticus, but a stupid rule is a stupid rule and this one takes the cake.

Just put the ball back where it was and play on. No harm, no foul.


-JP

[atticusfinch]

Originally Posted by JPsuff

Since the key slot hasn't moved, all you'd have to do is pick up the key and try again. (C'mon, you can come up with a better analogy than that can't you?)

Like I said, if this rule applied to only the human movement of the coin, I could at least see SOME logic to it. But since when is tamping down a coin with a putter considered "part of the act"?
Heck, I'll bet that if you stood by one green at any pro tournament and watched a hundred players play through, you'd be hard-pressed to find FIVE who actually do that. Most players simply place the coin down behind the ball, pick the ball up and walk away. So the idea that using a putter to tamp down a coin as a matter of some kind of "standard operating procedure" is ludicrous.

What makes it even worse is the fact that at least by dropping the coin on the ball, you'd be close enough to be able to identify with great certainty the point at which the ball lay prior to its being dislocated by the coin. You could then quite accurately replace the ball --- yet you're assessed a penalty.
But having that coin stick to your putter and then only noticing it after you've walked a considerable distance away from the point at which the ball ought to be and then being allowed to essentially GUESS where that point was and incur no penalty is BEYOND LUDICROUS.


Sorry Atticus, but a stupid rule is a stupid rule and this one takes the cake.

Just put the ball back where it was and play on. No harm, no foul.


-JP

Well, I won't concede to a stupid rule (never seen one), but will concede to a stupid analogy...tried to delete it, but couldn't.

[Fourputt]

It seems that there are people (mostly on golf DB's) who feel that any rule is stupid simply because they dislike it or fail to be able to comprehend the logic of it. No amount of explanation, no attempt at reasonable discourse will usually change their mind, so I will no longer make the attempt. Regardless of my own feelings on any rule, I defer to those (USGA and R & A) who are clearly more knowledgeable and conversant with the progression and evolution of the rules, and I see no reason to question them. They are what they are, the rules of the game, and if I'm going to play the game I play by the rules as set down. If those rules change, then I try to follow the changes to keep from getting crossed up myself. Others can do as they wish as long as I'm not competing against them.

I don't see any stupid rules. Some are more firmly based in the fundamental logic of the game than others, but that still doesn't make any of them stupid. Some of those less obviously logical rules or decisions have simply been derived from the necessity of addressing a specific situation, and there has to a point where the the situation addressed separates itself from a continuing action. This particular decision we are discussing happens to be one of those times. The point of separation is arbitrary, no question, but that point had to be established in some identifiable way, and this decision does so with no room for question or quibble. The rules committees were also very specific in stating that pressing down the marker is part of the marking process. They could easily have chosen the opposite and made it a breach, but because it is so often a natural part of ensuring that the marker won't interfere with another player's putt that they determined that it is a continuation of the "specific act".

None of that will convince JP of course... his mind is made up and he simply MUST be right. So I'll see you in the next thread... this one is quite dead.