Weir’s crazy weekend at the Canadian Open

What moved Mike Weir’s ball at the Canadian Open?

“It’s been a crazy week,” Weir said. “Look at all this. I mean, this is bizarre.”

(If you wish to view the full definition, Rules or decision, Click on the link and you will be redirected to the full text.)

In an unusual chain of events, Mike Weir called over a Rules Official on the 18th hole during Saturday’s 2nd round at the 2009 Canadian Open.  In this post, I will discuss the definitions for addressing the ball & stance and explain how Rule 18-2a, Rule 18-2b, the Local Rule for Preferred Lies or Winter Rules and some decisions were all used to untangle the riddle of what (or who) was ultimately responsible for moving the ball in the 18th fairway.

As you can see from the picture above the event was played under heavy rains.  As such, the Committee instituted preferred lies (also known as Winter Rules).  Preferred lies provides an ever greater rewarded for accuracy to those that are consistently hitting fairways and it was no surprise that Nathan Green, who won the tournament, also led in driving accuracy by hitting almost 80% of fairways for the week.  (see why accuracy so well rewarded by clicking here for a previous post that explains how Preferred Lies/Winter Rules can be applied and other inclement weather options).

After hitting the 18th fairway, Weir marked, lifted, cleaned and placed his ball back into the fairway.  Rule 20-4 tells us that as soon as he lifted the ball he took it out of play and as soon as he placed it, it was again in play.  If you’ve seen Mike Weir play golf, he has a habit of starting his backswing, returing the club to position and then completing his stroke (click the video below to see an example of him teeing off on #18 at Augusta National).

Before we get into what happened, lets first focus on two very important definitions.

1) Addressing the ball 

“A player has “addressed the ball” when he has taken his stance and has also grounded his club, except that in a hazard a player has addressed the ball when he has taken his stance.

a.    Two this are needed to address the ball.  1) Stance and 2) Grounding the club

b.    The exception is present for hazards because Rule 13-4b prevents the player from touching ground in the hazard or water in the water hazard with your hand or your clubs (note placing your clubs in a hazard before playing is OK per Exception 1 to the Rule)

2) Stance

“Taking the “stance” consists in a player placing his feet in position for and preparatory to making a stroke.

On the 18th, Weir had taken his stance and began his pre-shot routine.  After his customary swinging back of the club his ball moved.  I have been unable to find specific details on the Ruling, there are two Rules the Committee would have been looking very closely at that both revolve around this question: 

Did Weir already addressed the ball before the ball moved? 

If the answer to this question is, “yes” he incurred a penalty stroke of Rule 18-2b and was required to replace the ball.

Rule 18-2b – Ball at Rest Moved After Address, states that if a ball moves after a player has addressed the ball (remember stance and club grounded) the player is deemed to have moved the ball. Weir himself was not certain whether or not he had addressed the ball.
 
This dilemma is what I find so attractive about the game of golf.  At all levels of golf competition players regularly call penalties on themselves.  After calling over Rules Officials and talking the situation over, Weir was uncomfortable saying he had not addressed the ball.  Due to the lack of information available and Weir’s discomfort in not incurring a penalty, the Committee Ruled that Weir had addressed the ball, breached Rule 18-2b and the incident would be reviewed on video after the round.  Note that anytime Rule 18 is breached the ball must be replaced (click here to see a previous post for further clarification of Rule 18).  Rule 18-2 also charges the player with a penalty stroke.  With the penalty, Weir’s incurred a penalty stroke, replaced the ball and scored a par on the 18th.

Pretty simple so far . . .

Before Weir returning his scorecard, he and the Committee reviewed some of the taped footage.  It was determined that he had not addressed the ball and the penalty stroke was rescinded.  His par on 18 was changed to a birdie 4.  This is the score Weir returned on hole eighteen for round 2.

The following day, the Committee reviewed additional footage and it was then determined that although it was still inconclusive that Weir had addressed the ball, he was deemed to have moved it.  After play was supsended Sunday due to rain, Weir sat down with the Committee and was informed the previous day’s Ruling was going to be reversed and the birdie once again became a par. 

Though I have been unable to find out a definitive answer, it appears the Committee Ruled that Weir incurred a penalty stroke under Rule 18-2a (before address) and not 18-2b (after address).

The key distinction here is that before a player has addressed the ball, if the ball moves the player is only penalized (under Rule 18-2a) if it is clear that the player made the ball move.

After the player has addressed the ball, the player is penalized (under Rule 18-2b) even if the player never touched or did anything to clearly move it.  Examples include tournaments played with high winds or on very fast greens where players will be very careful about addressing the ball (this is done by putting without grounding the club). 

After address, if the ball moves, the player would incur a penalty because once the ball has been addressed, Rule 18-2b applies and you are deemed to have made it move.

If the Committee penalized Weir under Rule 18-2a the following decisions were all applicable to the Ruling so made.  In each of these you will see the same general theme that decides the outcome on a question of fact – did the player’s actions move the ball or did the ball just move?  On Sunday, the Committee was able to look at additional video footage and felt that the previous day’s Ruling was incorrect.  Decision 34-3/7 - Player Procceeds on Basis of Ruling; Subsequent Facts Prove Ruling to be Incorrect provides the Committee the authority to view the additional evidence and correct the mistake.  In addition Decision 34-3/1 – Correction of Incorrect Ruling in Stroke Play provides additional authority to correct so long as the competition has not closed.  In this case the competition had not closed so the correction was the correct thing to do.  In addition, in the following decisions, you will see that resolving a question of fact should be done by finding all available evidence to assist in the decision.

Decision 18-2a/5 – Ball In Hazard Moves After Loose Impediment Outside Hazard Moves,
Decision 18-2a/30 – Ball Moves After Player Takes Several Practice Swings Near Ball and Touches Grass Behind Ball,
Decision 18-2a/30.5 – Ball Moves After Removal of Loose Impediment Near Ball and
Decision 18-2b/1 – Ball Moves after Stance Taken But Before Address.

Though this does not appear to be the case, if the Committee Ruled that Weir had addressed the ball, Rule 18-2b would apply and there would be no need to look for further clarification in the decisions book.  If the ball moves after address the ball must be replaced and the player incurs a one stroke penalty.

Weir found more comfort in having the penalty applied rather than have it hanging out there as a question of fact.  “Even though I don’t think I did, I guess there’s that gray-area possibility I could have,” Weir said. “So with that, I didn’t feel comfortable myself not taking it.”

In the end, it was Ruled initially that Weir had moved the ball after address, a breach of R.18-2b, then Ruled to have not moved the ball and finally the Committee agreed that he was responsible for moving the ball before he had addressed it in breach of Rule 18-2a.