rulespin
Paul Kruger is a PGA professional at
The Landings Club in Savannah, Georgia.
by Paul Kruger
rules and “rahmifications”
During the third round of the PGA
Championship at the Bellerive Country Club
in St. Louis, Missouri, on the 8th hole, Jon
Rahm pulled his drive into the left rough.
As he walked through the rough in search
of his ball, he felt his shoe touch his ball. At
that point, he summoned a Rules Offi cial for
assistance.
Rahm told the Rules Offi cial that the top
of his shoe contacted the ball, but he did not
believe he had moved his ball. Nevertheless,
the Rules Offi cial ruled that (a) Rahm had
caused his ball to move; (b) Rahm needed
to drop his ball, r ather than replace it; and
(c) Rahm could not clean his ball. Here are
several “Rahmifi cations” or discussion points
associated with these rulings:
Rahmifi cation #1: How do you determine
if a player has actually caused his ball?
Decision 34-3/9 [Resolution of Questions of
Fact; Referee and Committee Responsibility]
points out, “Resolving questions of fact is
among the most diffi cult actions required of
a referee, or the Committee as a whole. For
example, these situations include a broad array
of incidents such as determining whether a
player caused a ball to move ….”
Relevant guidance is presented in Decision
18-2/0.5 [Weight of Evidence Standard for
Determining Whether Player Caused His Ball
to Move]. According to this Decision, “When
a player’s ball at rest moves, the cause of a
ball’s movement has to be assessed. In many
situations, the answer will be obvious …. In
other situations, however, there may be some
question as to why the ball moved…. All
relevant information must be considered and
the weight of the evidence must be evaluated.
… If the weight of evidence indicates that it
is more likely than not that the player caused
the ball to move, even though that conclusion
is not free from doubt, the player incurs a one-
stroke penalty under Rule 18-2 and the ball
must be replaced.”
Given that Rahm was walking through the
rough, the Rules Offi cial’s assessment of the
weight of the evidence found that that it was
more likely than not that Rahm had caused
his ball to move.
Rahmifi cation #2: After a player has
accidentally caused his ball to move, does he
then replace or drop his ball?
According to Rule 18-2 [Ball at Rest Moved
by Player, Partner, Caddie or Equipment],
except as permitted by the Rules, if a player
causes the ball to move, the ball must be
replaced. However, if it is impossible to
determine the spot where the ball is to be
replaced, then Rule 20-3c [Placing and
Replacing: Spot Not Determinable] applies,
and (a) through the green or in a hazard, the
ball must be dropped as near as possible to the
place where it lay; (b) on the putting green,
the ball must be placed as near as possible to
place where it lay.
Given that it was impossible for Rahm to
determine where his ball was located prior to
his shoe contacting the ball, the Rules ruled
that Rahm had to drop his ball, instead of
replacing it.
Rahmifi cation #3: When may a player
clean his ball without penalty?
According to Rule 21 [Cleaning Ball],
a ball on the putting green may be cleaned
when it has been lifted under Rule 16-1b [The
Putting Green: Lifting and Cleaning Ball].
Elsewhere, a ball may be cleaned when lifted,
except when it has been lifted:
a. To determine if it is unfi t for play per
Rule 5-3 [Ball Unfi t for Play];
b. For identifi cation, in which case it may
be cleaned only to the extent necessary for
identifi cation per Rule 12-2 [Lifting Ball for
Identifi cation]; or
c. Because it is assisting or interfering with
play per Rule 22 [Ball Assisting or Interfering
with Play].
Continued on Page 8
7