So Mike Weir today had an odd thing happen. He was in his preshot routine, you know his, where he takes the club half way back and then sets up again. Well during that half swing, the ball moved. So the rules officials said they'd assume for now it's a one stroke penalty and they'd have to use TV replay to see if that's right or wrong. Apparently Weir was looking at the target and didn't see IF he grounded his club. It wasn't until the looked at the ball again after his club was going back that he saw it moved.

I know if he had taken his stance AND grounded his club, he'll be assessed a 1 stroke penalty but does addressing the ball imply you've finished your pre-shot routine, which he obviously had not? I mean technically, given his routine, he wasn't attempting to 'address' the ball, he was still in preparation.

Thoughts?

Here's an excerpt from Mike's website on the incident yesterday:

"...Then on 18, after hitting another great drive, I had a bit of an incident. As I was getting ready to hit, the ball suddenly moved. Because it's lift, clean and place, I put the ball on the edge of an old ball mark to give me a good lie and it rolled over. I had to try and determine if I'd caused it to move or if I had grounded my club, which would have resulted in a penalty. I talked it over with officials and we weren't able to decide so we decided we'd review it on television and determine it before I signed my card. I played my shot and ended up with either a four (no penalty) or a five (with the penalty). It took a while, but on the tape, you could clearly see that I never grounded my club and that the ball moved as I was in my waggle I didn't cause it to move. So I ended up with a birdie and that was a sweet way to finish."

So looks like he ended up with birdie...and an ACE this morning.

I'm afraid, that we do not know all details about that incident.
If the ball had moved, while the player addressed the ball, he would get one penalty stroke plus another one, if the ball was'nt replaced.
So I can only assume, that he replaced the ball, befor playing it.

Otherwise he would have incurred two PS, if the video would have proven, that he had addressed the ball.

McFade

As best I can tell from the way it played out, the rules officials said to play it as if it had moved due to his address. So he asked if he should put it back or not. And so based on the feedback they said yes. So he put it back, took the penalty and played out the hole. Then via TV replay they decided he had never soled his club so they took away the one stroke penalty. At least that's how I understand it.

Sounds like a pretty good ruling.

McFade

You are on track the official made the ruling to play it as if it had moved and so he could not have received an additional penalty. I do the same routine. I take the club back to check my swing path and then adjust and take my swing it gives me more confidence in my swing. I did just read though that the officials decided to discuss the incident again with Weir and since he said “Even though I don’t think I did anything that caused [the ball to move], I didn’t feel comfortable in not taking it,” So in the end he go a 5 on the 18th hole and ended with a 67 for the day. I don’t remember an incident where they had a ruling reversal like that before although I am sure it has happened. Weir is a stand up guy in my book. With the bad weather anything can happen today I hope he makes a strong come back.

This shouldn't have been a big issue. It's real simple. If he grounded his club....penalty. If he didn't.....no penalty.
The official was very wishy washy, all he had to do was ask Weir if he grounded his club. If Weir said no...no penalty. If Weir said yes....penalty. If Weir didn't know....review and decision in score tent before cards are signed.
The problem is, such a big issue was made out of "maybe" Mike Weir did something to make his ball move, that he was almost compelled to take the penalty on himself.
BTW, he did in fact end up with a penalty and it was an incorrect ruling.

Bill, are you sure? In Weir's blog he wrote that we wasn't penalized in the end. He took it initially but when they reviewed it he said they reversed it.

But the thing I saw was Weir said he didn't know if he grounded the club or not. He was looking at the target and not his club and so he was asking the officials what to do. he said all along he normally does not ground his club on during his setup but since he wasn't looking at the ground he wasn't sure if he had or had not. But even the TV replay was iffy.

But if was sort of funny to hear the tv commentators going back and forth "he did...eewwwww, maybe not...he did....ewww maybe not...if he did..."


But anyway,

Even so, it should have been a simple, non issue decision.

Agreed! Maybe it's all connected to tv ratings?

Scott,Bill. I read a report on this, and it said in the end he scored a 5 on the hole WITH THE PENALITY. Seems he decided it was the right thing to do, even if he didn't ground his club, and didn't deserve the penality. This agrees with the final socres posted in my local newspaper for that hole.

I could be wrong because with all the rain, what hole was played what day in what round is kinda confusing. But as I remember it the clubhouse rules officials told him to play it that way, taking the penalty, and they would review it later. So he initially scored it as a 5, but once reviewed, they did determine he did not ground the club and removed the penalty. So he scored a 4 that day -remember this was a round 3 score even though it may have been played Sunday, they had rain delaying them. So looking at the PGAtour.com results for him, he carded a 4 in round 3 on Sat on 18.

So in the end I think they got it right, it just added to the confusion when the golfer did NOT know if he grounded his club.

No they didn't............He got the penalty.
He didn't ground his club or step close to the ball, or brush the ground by the ball, or pick up any loose impediment, or anything. He should not get a penalty shot unless he grounded his club........he did not.

You are right Bill it is part of his routine to take the club back to check his swing but it is also part of his routine not to ground the club. But what he said was that he could not say for sure that he did not do anything to cause the ball to move. See my quote above. So he took the penalty on that premise because he was not wathing the ball when he looked at the target. I think he was trying to be fair. Is it not the rule that if you are not sure that you did something to cause the ball to move that you take the penalty or am I misunderstanding.

Beside officiating, part of a tournament officials job is to PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE PLAYER. If the ruling had been made in a decisive and efficient manner, Mike Weir would not have had to ponder doubts in his mind. The way it was handled, would have made it look like Mike Weir was getting away with something in many peoples mind. Mike Weir would not want to have integrity questions raised so he took the path of least resistance and accepted the penalty.
Now, that said, there are incorrect rulings made every day in sports, so C'est la vie.

Very good point Bill I did not think of it from that point of view at all. Good call.

So maybe I am seeing this differently but according to Weir this is what the final determination was (this is directly from his blog after the round)

"I played my shot and ended up with either a four (no penalty) or a five (with the penalty). It took a while, but on the tape, you could clearly see that I never grounded my club and that the ball moved as I was in my waggle I didn't cause it to move. So I ended up with a birdie and that was a sweet way to finish."


So you guys are smarter than me and it's been a really long week but it looks like even Weir says in the end, they took away the penalty. Now, he DID take it originally but was allowed to change his score on the card before he signed it. So in the end he had a 4...according to him...but he wasn't sure what was happening the entire hole so maybe he's wrong on his blog too


But not to argue that small issue, in the end I agree with everyone here, it was not handled in a good way.

The next day they gave a different ruling and penalized him.

From what I read after the officials gathered more video footage and had Weir review it they asked him again are you sure you did nothing to move the ball. And Weir said it was inconclusive so he took the penalty and that was on Monday before play. I think Bill called it right the officials did not do a good job there.

So the day after the rules officials give him a ruling, they can changed their mind and re-penalize him? That's evil

Bottom line is in the end, he DID get the penalty.

And that's the bottom line...