Shane Lowry’s two-stroke penalty at The Open sparks debate: Fair call or too harsh?

There seems to have been a lot of noise around the two-stroke penalty imposed on Shane Lowry in the second round of The Open.

Many players, commentators and fans have come to Lowry’s defence to say it was, at best, harsh.

Recommended For You

Scam alert: Abu Dhabi Police warn against fake ad links online

UAE, Nigeria forge stronger ties with signing of Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement

Spanish star Julio Iglesias accused of sexual assault by two ex-employees

Dubai Civil Defence to roll out smart uniforms with life-saving medical chips

Zoho Corporation opens its first data centres in UAE

 

Unknown to Lowry, his caddie and playing partners, and, only after officials checked with TV evidence, The R&A decided that a penalty was incurred when Lowry played a practice swing in the rough and the ball moved.

In a statement, the R&A clarified how Lowry had breached Rule 9.4 — Ball Played as It Lies; Ball at Rest Lifted or Moved.

It read, ‘During Round Two, Shane Lowry’s ball was seen to have moved while he was taking a practice swing for his second shot from the rough at the 12th hole.’

Three Key Rule Criteria

‘The Rules require three things to be assessed in such situations:

1. Did the ball leave its original position and come to rest on another spot?

2. Was the ball’s movement to another spot discernible to the naked eye?

And 3. If the ball did come to rest on another spot and the movement was discernible to the naked eye, is it known or virtually certain that the player’s actions caused the ball to move?’

‘Assessing whether the movement of the ball was visible to the naked eye in such a situation assumes the player being in a normal address position for the stroke,' the statement added.

‘In Shane Lowry’s situation, the movement of the ball to another spot, including the movement of the logo, was discernible to the naked eye. The naked eye test is satisfied whether or not the player was looking at the ball when it moved.

Assessing The Ball Movement

‘It was clear that the ball moved immediately after the player’s club touched foliage close to the ball during a practice swing and that the player’s actions caused the ball to move.

‘In these circumstances, there is a one-stroke penalty and the ball must be replaced. However, as the ball was played from the spot where it was moved to, the player played from the wrong place and incurred a total penalty of two strokes,' the statement concluded.

TV evidence and golf, over the years, has often created controversy when involved, and Rules have been adapted to ensure, wherever possible, disqualifications do not arise after scorecards are handed in. Every case needs to be looked at on its own merits.

The incident is unfortunate – especially as no one present in the group saw the ball move.

Why not make it a one-stroke penalty as the player was in no position to replace the ball – he had moved on?

Evaluating The Penalty Conditions

Commentator Paul McGinley argued it seemed unfair and the Rule should be looked at for revision – ‘We should be looking at the spirit of the Rule.’

What else could Lowry have done?

Lowry was disappointed there were not more TV angles to prove the case – as it states – movement to the ‘naked eye.’ No naked eyes were watching – it was a TV camera.

A thought is - should the Rulings be restricted to the playing group and the walking Rules Official with that group, with all the information available at the time?

Where and when do we stop looking at all 156 players all over the golf course, for the first two rounds and 70, this week, for the last two rounds?

It seems that Lowry was unlucky, but what must be applauded is how he took the news of the penalty and moved on – in what other sport are the Rules accepted in this manner?

Credit to Lowry!