Many of you (readers) questioned the ruling that official Jon Brendle doled to Andres Gonzales on the ninth hole during the first round at the Byron Nelson Championship. And to be honest, initially, I was confused why he wasn’t under penalty since he grounded the club and then the ball moved. But after speaking with Brendle and Andres, I have a clearer understanding of the circumstances.
Dres hadn’t settled his feet or addressed the ball yet. If you watch the video closely, you’ll see that he never puts the club down directly behind that ball to address it. He placed the club to the back, left of the ball.
“I never ground my club close to the ball,” said Dres via a phone call. “I always ground it at least three inches behind it. I was getting ready to get set up, but I hadn’t addressed it.”
He was surprised he wasn’t under penalty because the ball moved after he grounded the club, and before the ruling, he had already mentally added a shot to his score.
When Brendle, a longtime, highly-respected PGA Tour rules official, arrived to the scene, he asked Dres to show him what he had done. Brendle felt he had put it too far behind the ball to have caused it to move. Since the “lift, clean and place” rule was in effect, Brendle asked Dres if he had already done that, which he had. Dres had placed the ball on a tuft of grass.
“That told me it’d fallen off of (the tuft of grass),” Brendle said on the phone. “There was just no doubt in my mind. Because of where he had put the club, he didn’t cause the ball to move…When he showed me what he did, he was too far behind the ball and left. He wasn’t really taking his stance. He put the club way behind (the ball). It wasn’t really out where you play from.”
Brendle said had he put the club down directly behind the ball, it would have been a penalty and Andres would have had to move the ball back to its original position. The other officials were split on the decision, but Brendle made the call. He acknowledged it was an unusual situation. In fact, it was the first time he hadn’t thought a player was under penalty due to the circumstances.
Andres, who missed the cut, was relieved it wasn’t a penalty, but he felt “weird” initially.
“It almost felt like I was cheating because I grounded my club and the ball moved, but the official said I wasn’t under penalty,” said Andres. “Obviously I was glad it wasn’t. So were my playing partners. No one wants anyone to get a penalty.”
Rule 18-2b is the same rule that the USGA is in the process of changing after the controversy that ensued due to several players receiving penalties which may have impacted the result of tournaments — namely Webb Simpson at the Zurich Classic of New Orleans. For that reason, Andres felt slightly uncomfortable about the situation.
“Since they’re in the middle of changing the rule (18-2) and that was the first time it happened on camera, the whole thing was weird,” he said. “I don’t know, I was given a different ruling than I expected.”
Brendle explained the difference between what happened with Simpson and Andres. “Webb was going into his shot,” he said. “Andres was not really going into his shot. He had pulled the club away and he was looking at his ball.
“That’s the first time I’ve thought a guy wasn’t under penalty. Normally, they are.”
Brendle offered another interesting ruling anecdote. Right after he dealt with Andres, he was called over by Charles Warren, who had a question. Under the “lift, clean and place” rule, the players are given a club length to place the ball from the original position, no closer to the hole.
Warren’s ball was within a club length of a sprinkler head. He asked Brendle if he could place the ball on the sprinkler and then take relief from there. The answer was yes. What’s more, after the drop, Warren’s ball was once again in a new position and he was allowed to lift, clean and place it another club length.
“He ended up moving it three club lengths and changing the shot completely under the rules,” said Brendle.
Knowing the rules usually works to your advantage! And no, Warren’s actions didn’t violate the spirit of the game, in my humble opinion.
wow – that’s a terrible precedent to set – granting a ruling based on a potential rule change that hasn’t been put in place. That rule change is about balls rolling on the green and something other than the player causing the ball to move – like a gust of wind.
Oh well – let’s hope he didn’t open a can of worms – and Bobby Jones isn’t spinning in his grave too many times.
.
…”tuff” of grass?!?
Come on girl, you are better than that!
.
The only problem I have with the situation is that Andres didn’t show Brendle the same address position he assumed prior to the shot. Now that doesn’t affect proximity of the club to the ball so maybe it doesn’t matter.
Crazy times on the rules front.
I think that in this case the rules official was in the wrong. Only the player knows what actually happened – he must have thought the ball had moved as the direct result of him grounding his club (No matter how far he put it behind the ball!).
I think the player should have been more assertive and insisted on the penalty – after all he was asking whether or not he had to replace the ball – NOT was it a breach of the rules.
Hello, Stephainie.
I just learned of you,as a result of you article on a golf ruling.
Irvine Vally College is the defending California Community College Women’s Golf State Champions.
LPGA Commissioner, Mike Whan, recently sent me a
card containing a very nice note. Please consider
going to our college website ivc.edu Select Athletics – then Women’s Golf and also Coaching Staff
I have some ideas to help promote women’s community
college golf, college golf and building the fan base of
the LPGA Tour. After looking at our ivc website,I am hoping that you will want to consider me as a friend.
Some of my ideas might trigger future articles, by you.
Respectfully, Coach Ben Burnett (949) 422 – 9424
Stephanie,
I find some of the decisions by American rules officials to be incredible. If you look at the first 15 seconds of the Video, Andres took a practice swing – then took his stance to play the shot and grounded the club. No matter what happens after that, the player is guilty of causing the ball to move. Initially, when Andres moved his ball under the local rule, it remained at rest for more than 5 seconds – so his ball is in play
and in this instance the player is guilty of moving his ball. It is unbelieveable to hear a Rules official tell a player he grounded his club too far away from the ball. The question Andres wanted an answer to was “Do i have to replace my ball under penalty”. You can accuse me of being a traditionalist but i would love to hear Tom watson version of this incident.Don’t bend the rules – obey them !!! I am a rules official with a Golf union in Europe. kind regards.
Sorry, but de official was wrong. The player taked his stance and grounded the club, then he adressed the ball. Rules does not took about how near must be the club from the ball.. Respectfully
Thanks for attempting clarification. This article highlights the problems inherent in Rule 18-2b, and I wish you had explored them more fully. It underscores, in particular, the challenges of interpreting and applying the rule, and it calls into question the extent to which officials should be involved in that process.
Your interviews, for instance, point to an obvious contradiction at work here. Gonzales says, “I never ground my club close to the ball … I always ground it at least three inches behind it.” That’s a perfectly acceptable way to address your golf ball, but it nevertheless constitutes a form of address. What does he mean, then, when he adds that he “was getting ready to get set up, but … hadn’t addressed it”? If he never grounds his club directly behind the ball, then how was the club’s position any different from its position at address? His club could still cause the ball to move, even if he wasn’t about to begin his swing. And how is this situation different from briefly grounding your club between waggles, a moment in which the ball could move? Consider: if I stand directly behind my ball to line up my shot, ground my club near the ball, and cause it to move, must I not incur a penalty stroke — even though I didn’t assume my traditional address position? (Similarly, if a playing competitor is walking to his ball in the fairway and dips his club in a lake to clean the face, he is guilty of grounding his club in a hazard, even if he wasn’t immediately preparing to hit his shot.)
Excusing Gonzales from a penalty because “He wasn’t really taking his stance” and because his club “wasn’t really … [positioned] where you play from” is the real problem here and, as a previous commenter suggests, sets a bad precedent. Brendle based his decision more on his expectations for what constitutes a normal form of address than on the evidence of the situation. To him, a player doesn’t take his address position with the club behind and to the left of the ball. But why not? Gonzales himself says that’s precisely how he does it — at least three inches behind the ball. And how is this case different from Webb Simpson’s? What if Webb had said he just set his putter behind the ball and didn’t take his typical address position? Would that have changed the ruling?
A decision like this one necessarily demands subjective interpretation and application, so why is it not entirely at the player’s discretion? If Gonzales or Simpson thought that grounding his club caused the ball to move, then he should incur a penalty stroke. Why is the player’s understanding of situations like these not the primary point of reference? Why should a rules official intervene and assign judgment either way? Isn’t golf great because it’s a game, in part, of personal accountability?
Cabrera was penalized in a similar situation some years ago, and his case was not at all as obvious as this case.
Rule 18-2 is very clear on the subject. The player should have been penalized. Preferred lie has nothing to do with this video, as I see it. The ball moved after it had been at rest, and after the player has taken a practice swing close to the ball. What more is there to discuss?
Hi Stephanie,
I guess “Lee’s Sportswear’s” spell check doesn’t know the difference between a “tuft” of grass and a small rock made up of compacted volcanic ash. Your use of “tuft” will not cause you to lose a stroke. In fact your usage was perhaps the perfect use of the word “tuft”. I’m not sure where “tuff” came from. Maybe Lee needs a good pair of reading glasses.
As Gonzales did not show the rules official exactly what happened – he did not have his feet in the same position, I beleive the proper pocedure was by passed and then the focus became the placing of the ball and the position of the club. Lets remember the Golden Rule the ref is always right even when he’s wrong
I think that rule is stupid. When teeing off, sometimes we hit the ball off the tee. But we are allowed to tee it off no penalty. Now The ball is in some very loose ground, and when we address the shot. Which this has happened to me plenty of times. Even in the rough. The ball just shifts a little not even a full revolution. You know what I’m talking about. All of us who this has happened. I think if your blade,putter, touches the ball at address. Then yes a penalty should be applied. But just one inch behind the ball and it barely shifts. Come on. If we really put the camera on the ball on a windy day and the putter is behind the ball. We would all be DQ. This is what I think.