Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy (Post 2447473)

Shane Lowry's ball movement was very much less egregious than Windham Clarke addressing his ball, and tamping down the grass next to the ball with his club.

After controversy, Wyndham Clark calls for simpler rules

.

Originally Posted by BrianL99 (Post 2447498)

Wyndham Clark is well known as a POS.

5 days ago, Oakmont banned him from the golf course, based on his destruction in their locker room, during the US Open. Wyndham still hadn't apologized to the club, nor offered to pay for the damage.

Your browser is not supported | usatoday.com

Curiously, Kevin Kisner mentioned the situation during BO coverage this weekend and is getting pummeled for his stupid comment.

Access Denied

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2447514)

I do however agree with the previous post. It seems more and more common for players to bring 2 clubs over to their ball and then place (or press one down) behind the ball, and then the other, sometimes 2 or 3 times. I can only imagine that it improves their swing path, if only slightly. Maybe not as much as Reed in that waste area at the Hero, but to some degree. (Unless they are using that new memory turf grass :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:)

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy (Post 2447473)

Shane Lowry's ball movement was very much less egregious than Windham Clarke addressing his ball, and tamping down the grass next to the ball with his club.

After controversy, Wyndham Clark calls for simpler rules

Should have Clarke been assessed a penalty for improving his swing path? or does improving one's lie only include moving the ball or remarking a ball in any other location than the original? One cannot improve swing paths with branches or other natural impediments, except tamping down grasses??

These are the inconsistencies in the human judging which are blamed on the rules, and yet, it's the appearance of inconsistent application of rules by humans which is the cause of the confusion/blame?

definitely a first world problem for us, nonetheless. .

Originally Posted by dewilson58 (Post 2446813)

At the end of every round, I assess myself a two stroke penalty just in case I missed something.

Originally Posted by retiredguy123 (Post 2446761)

The rule is the rule. Personally, I agree with the ruling. The video is very clear that the player caused the ball to move. It's a game with rules.

Originally Posted by retiredguy123 (Post 2446780)

The answer is to get rid of marquee groups. The pairings should be selected randomly. That is how you treat all players equally.

But the player caused the ball to move. What difference does it make how it was reported?

Originally Posted by Badger 2006 (Post 2447558)

The players and officials should be the only ones to call infractions. The camera coverage is selective and in golf terms does not “protect the field”, which it must.

Originally Posted by retiredguy123 (Post 2447564)

Please clarify.

The officials did call the infraction. But, without a video, the officials would never see an infraction.

When you say players should call an infraction, are you just referring to the player who hits the shot, other players in the group, or players who are not in the group?

Are you saying that, if the camera clearly shows an infraction, it should be completely ignored? I don't think that approach would go over well with the spectators and television viewers.

Originally Posted by Old Traveller (Post 2447582)

I was under the impression that a camera view was no longer admissible evidence. I also thought that either the player, his caddy, opponent, opponent's caddy or an on the course rules official had to witness the infraction, otherwise no penalty. Maybe the R & A has a different rule.

Originally Posted by JGVillages (Post 2447584)

So you’re wanting to “unoprotect the field to keep spectators happy. In the NFL if every “non call” that was caught on camera had to be reviewed to satisfy the spectators you’d play the first half one day and the second half the next day.

Originally Posted by Old Traveller (Post 2447582)

I was under the impression that a camera view was no longer admissible evidence. I also thought that either the player, his caddy, opponent, opponent's caddy or an on the course rules official had to witness the infraction, otherwise no penalty. Maybe the R & A has a different rule.