Backstopping-gate

            Of course, one week after I officially retire my website (the domain expired and I don’t have the time to update the whole site for 2019), there are a number of issues I want to address.  This article will read more like a position paper than my previous articles, but I feel this issue is important to discuss.

            Yesterday, we saw a situation with Amy Olson during the LPGA event in Thailand where Ariya Jutanugarn had hit a chip shot that came to rest close to the hole. Ariya started to head toward the hole to mark the ball and Amy clearly waved her off to play her shot quickly, and Ariya complied. Amy’s ball then collided with Ariya’s, resulting in a much better outcome than would have occurred without the ball in place.  Naturally, Golf Twitter Backstopping-gate was unleashed. 

            So the purpose of this article is to address several issues: 1) Why we need to be more selective with our outrage and use of the word “cheater”, 2) A closer look at Rule 15.3a, backstopping and what is actually a breach, and 3) Why is this even important?

           

            First, I found it almost disturbing that the word cheater was thrown around so quickly while discussing this situation. Whether or not you feel a penalty was warranted in this situation, cheating is very different from simply breaking a Rule. Cheating would be if both players knew they were not allowed to act the way they did, did it anyway and then tried to get away with it without penalty.  This is very clearly not what happened. Based on the player interviews, they were ignorant of the Rule and had no intent to skirt or circumvent any Rule of Golf. To label the ladies “cheaters” because of some over-zealous distaste for “backstopping” is not only wrong, but also is incredibly insulting to the young women being targeted.

            This faux outrage is symptomatic of a greater problem in society but has definitely surfaced in golf. Outrage at the new dropping procedure (is dropping from your knee really that hard?), outrage at the new caddie Rule (the only thing that changed is the timeframe, why is he back there at all anyway?) and outrage at backstopping (how often does the player actually hit the backstop, the current situation notwithstanding?). Particularly when it comes to the Rules, it seems many have found themselves experts, calling for the Tour to have its own Rules (what does that actually solve?), calling for the governing bodies to change the Rules (to what?) or to call the new Rules stupid without any basis or reason for saying it except that a player got penalized. Everyone needs to take a step back and remember it’s just a freakin’ game.

            So let’s take a look at this actual Rule. The Rule in question is 15.3a. Specifically, “backstopping” is governed by the final bullet of the Rule: If two or more players agree to leave a ball in place to help any player, and that player then makes a stroke with the helping ball left in place, each player who made the agreement gets the general penalty (two penalty strokes).” This Rule has been in place for stroke play for some time, but the penalty was lessened from disqualification to two strokes in the 2019 Rules.

            There are several components that must be in place for this penalty to occur:

1)   Two or more players must make an agreement to leave a ball in place,

2)   The agreement must be to leave the ball in place in order to help another player,

3)   The ball must be left in place when the stroke is made.

When we look at the situation with Olson and Jutanugarn, it is clear that #1 and #3 are in place, however, based on the player interviews, #2 is not in place. Therefore, the LPGA reached the conclusion that no breach occurred.

            Many would argue that “of course she left it in place to help,” but that’s not what the player said. If later we find out the player lied to avoid penalty, that’s a whole different situation.

            “Backstopping” has been an issue over the years because those three requirements need to be in place and it is widely known that there is an “unspoken rule” that players should leave a helping ball in place without saying anything as a way of circumventing the Rule. And frankly, it is a successful circumvention and if the governing bodies find this to be a significant issue to the game, they will need to address it so that the action, whether agreed upon or not, becomes a breach. That’s not my choice to make nor the discussion I’m trying to have.

            Looking at this situation, some in media have pointed to Interpretation 15.3a/1 to say that this situation warrants a disqualification. So let’s look at the true point of this Interpretation by paragraph to parse it out:

1)   This paragraph is to clarify that the Rule is knowledge based – if players agree to leave a ball in place to help another player and the stroke is made with the ball in place, a breach has occurred regardless of whether the players knew about it. Ignorance is not bliss.

2)   This paragraph just gives an example.

3)   This sentence just clarifies that a simple offer to leave it in place to help, counts as an agreement if the offer is accepted.

4)   This paragraph covers something new and has been misinterpreted in the media lately. This is where we have cheating and where a disqualification under a different Rule (Rule 1.3b(1)) comes into play: if players KNOW they are not allowed to make such an agreement, but do so anyway, they are disqualified.  This is not a Committee option, this is not under Rule 15.3, this is two players knowing a Rule exists and deliberately not following it.

So, should Ariya have gone up and marked the ball? Probably. But the reasons she did not and that Amy had her not do so do not fall under a breach of Rule 15.3a. Close call that hinges upon the player interview? Yes, it sure doesn’t look good in the footage, but read the LPGA’s statement and Amy Olson’s interview. Golf assumes the honorable player and though her ignorance of the Rule is regrettable, it is most certainly not grounds for attacking her character.

            Now finally, I have a different take on this Rule that may cause more of that Twitter outrage I rallied against earlier.  Why do we care about this so much? Why is this Rule such a hotspot issue? When I read through my timeline and saw the initial outrage yesterday I was “fortunate” enough to have a 2 hour drive ahead of me on my way to our second multi-day Rules workshop for the year and I started thinking (I know, I know when did thinking ever get me someplace?)…

            I’m not sure this penalty needs to be in place. ::Calm down everyone:: From a philosophical Rule of Golf perspective, there are a number of like situations that would result in one player benefitting from an object being left in place to assist their play. So let’s look at this step-by-step:

1)   If a movable obstruction ends up in a position to assist a player, not only may the player leave that obstruction in position, but if another player removes it against their wishes, the player has the right to have the obstruction replaced (see Interpretation 8.1d(1)/2. Interestingly enough, the word backstop shows up in this interpretation.)

2)   The ball in play is a movable obstruction. Now, it’s a special movable obstruction that is treated differently in some cases, but it is a movable obstruction. However, an abandoned ball is just a movable obstruction. If a previous group left an abandoned ball in position to serve as a backstop, there is nothing in the Rules preventing a player from leaving it there, or agreeing with another player to leave it there. (For those who say “15.3 says a ball at rest on a putting green,” I point you to the definition of In Play which states specifically that “When the Rules refer to a ball at rest or in motion, this means a ball that is in play.”)

3)   So why are we not allowed to agree to leave this specific movable obstruction in place, even if we do so with the intent to have it assist? Why do we care about backstopping? Are we all in agreement that if the balls actually do collide that it is an accident? Throughout the modernized Rules of Golf, we accept the results of accidental deflections without penalty. In fact, if this same collision we saw had happened after strokes from 50 yards away instead of around the green, we wouldn’t be having this conversation at all. So why do we care now that we’re around the green?

So that’s my hot take. “Backstopping” in the way we “almost” saw with Olson and Jutanugarn shouldn’t be a penalty. For the reasons listed above and below, I would love it if the Rules of Golf Committee would revisit this in the next revision and decide that the two-stroke penalty is not warranted. They already lessened the penalty from DQ to two strokes, so obviously at the very worst the ROGC felt that two strokes is more than enough to cover the potential advantage.

      The argument against that is the “protect the field” argument. And I’m on board there, I hear it. But let’s think some more.

I’m all in favor of disqualifying players for serious misconduct if a player asks for a helping ball to be lifted and the player refuses to do so and makes the stroke. That should be a problem. Opponents in match play need to have the right to have an assisting ball lifted, and players in stroke play need to have that right to ask for a helping ball to be lifted if they really feel that leaving it in place is an issue. If a player then refuses to lift, we have a penalty and I would be fine with it being a DQ. 

“But other players in the field aren’t there to protect their interests.” OK. How big is this potential advantage? Players are supposed to be making their best attempt to get the ball into the hole, not trying to hit a random ball on the green. There are numerous occasions where players end up playing with different advantageous or disadvantageous conditions, why is this one so different?

“But other players didn’t get the benefit of having the ball in place.” Well other players may not be playing from the same spot. And again, what about the movable obstruction or loose impediments that the player is allowed to leave in place and may even have replaced if removed against their wishes? How is that different?

So you’re welcome to disagree and feel that it would not be protecting the field to leave a helping ball in place, and currently the Rule agrees with you. But as we look down the road and the issues we’ve had with this Rule, perhaps a different take is warranted. I, for one, will follow the book and Rule accordingly whatever the governing bodies decide, but I hope they do take another look at it and decide whether or not the potential advantage is significant enough to keep a complex and controversial Rule in place.