Richie Ramsay Pulls a Kenny Perry, But Worse UPDATED WITH VIDEO

by Ryan Ballengee on Jun 11, 2009 11:11 AM EDT Comment 41 comments

In the playoff at this year's FBR Open, Kenny Perry was observed and filmed using his club to trample down grass behind his ball before hitting a chip shot in the event. The video was posted on YouTube and debated heavily among players, fans, and media. Did Kenny cheat or not? Strict interpretation of the rules would suggest he had. More loose interpretation - and the fact that the statute of limitations had run out for the February victory - seemed to indicate that we should just lay off of Perry. After all, he had no reputation as a cheater or rules bender in his long career.

Enter Richie Ramsay, the hearlded 2006 US Amateur champion and now professional on the European Tour. He was in contention last weekend at the Celtic Manor Wales Open. Ultimately, he finished T10 in the event but his reputation is being called into question now after a move on Sunday.

Mike Aitken reports:

Video footage of the Scot using his foot to press down the ground on the eighth hole of his second round before placing his ball on the sodden fairway had set alarm bells ringing for the European Tour's chief referee, John Paramor.

Paramor's concerns at Celtic Manor were so strong that when Ramsay, who had led at the halfway stage of the Wales Open, came off the course on Saturday evening, the men discussed the issue at such length, in a meeting which lasted for two hours.

Because Ramsay had not finished his round – he came back on Sunday morning to play the 17th and 18th – he was allowed to think about his situation overnight. Paramor explained the onus was on the player to police his own actions.

Ramsay acknowledged he did not sleep much and was worried what people would think of him. But he declined to call the two-shot penalty.

Ramsay understands this and was adamant he had not down anything wrong. "I looked at it on TV and said to John 'the perception is it doesn't look good'. But I can say 100 per cent I didn't improve the lie. I can only tell the truth."

Interestingly enough, Ramsay had another rules violation on Sunday for taking improper relief and it cost him a one-stroke penalty. It also isn't the first time that Ramsay has been accused of violating the rules.

[In the final of the 2006 US Amateur,] Ramsay had no-one but himself to blame when he found his ball in a hazard. It is forbidden to ground your club in any hazard, but that was exactly what the Scot did under the gaze of the TV cameras during a practice swing. Again, the penalty was to forfeit the hole.

So, it would seem that Ramsay's actions will be much more scrutinized in the future because of a developing pattern of lax enforcement and memory of the rules.

Geoff Shackelford reader Aleid found the video of the incident so now we can judge for ourselves. As a caution, they were playing lift, clean, and place that day.

0 recs | Comment 41 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Hmm....

I don’t remember a certain ~~Golf God~~ LPGA player getting much scrutiny after she had two incidents on the course, where either another pro called a rules violation on her or when another disputed her version of where a ball crossed into the hazard. Wasn’t there a pattern too or do golf’s elite get a free pass?

by Bill Jempty on Jun 9, 2009 12:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Good call, Bill. Annika shouldn’t be immune from this conversation. Or Vijay SIngh for that matter.

Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.

by Ryan Ballengee on Jun 9, 2009 1:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Give credit where credit is due

Randall Mell when he was still working for the Sun-Sentinel recalled the Annika-Paula tiff in either a article or blog post at the time of the 2008 Stanford International. Remember that tournament came down to those players going at in a playoff.

by Bill Jempty on Jun 9, 2009 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

nahh – you’re being too generous, Bill – there was no hair pulling or rolling around on the ground…it was overrated. :-D

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Jun 9, 2009 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

NO player is immune from the discussion if they break a rule – more often than not, these people call violations on themselves, BUT…a dispute between players is decided by a rules official whose ruling is what they live with. I disagreed with Annika on the ball crossing the hazard, too, but I was watching on TV and couldn’t tell for sure. Remember, too, that she was also on the short end of the stick in Solheim Cup play when she chipped in to win a hole, but played her shot out of turn and had to replace her ball and replay the shot.

How did Vijay get into the discussion ? Unprovable accusations from some Asian Tour event decades ago ?

Why not Paul Azinger and his uncounted wiff at Q-school that would have cost him his card if he had counted it ?

Or Monty’s improved lie after a rain delay when he had his feet in the bunker before the storm and out of the bunker on level ground after ?

I have to agree with you guys on Kenny Perry – he did break the rule, AND I don’t think he did it consciously. He always touches the ground behind his ball when setting up – but in this case, touching the ground tamps down the rough behind the ball, improving the lie. Just because it was unintentional doesn’t mean it’s not a penalty.

Who was it that had to accept a penalty in ’07 when he tapped down a divot that was a yard in front and to the right of his ball – and he had a wedge in his hands ? There was no way he was improving his lie or the line of his shot, he was tapping down a divot…taking care of the golf course while waiting to hit his shot.

It is impossible for us to judge what happened in the Ramsey case – we didn’t see it. I guess they were playing lift, clean, and cheat…errr…place, but was he stepping on his pitch mark where his ball originally landed ? The story doesn’t say. Had he placed his ball and declared it back in play ? Again, the story doesn’t say.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Jun 9, 2009 1:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I’m really wishing I can find the video of it from TV, but it doesn’t seem available

Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.

by Ryan Ballengee on Jun 9, 2009 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You better believe Jack, Arnie,

Tiger, Hogan, et al. stone cold know/knew the rules of golf.

If they asked an official, it is because they already knew the rule in question and was entitled to the possible beneficial outcome of a different ruling by an official. Any ruling by an official, even if incorrect, stands.

When Arnie had an embedded ball and played two balls in, he KNEW the rule. He did not want someone to demand he only play the embedded ball.

Tiger took advantage of his knowledge when he moved the 2,000 pound pebble. It sickens me to see young pros seek advice on drop options on lateral hazards.

by One-Eyed Golfer Guy on Jun 9, 2009 4:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

that 2,000 pound pebble still urks me. I wish they would change the wording of that rule – if the player can’t move the obstruction with his own hands – it’s an immovable obstruction. He asked for help outside of his caddy, and the official allowed it.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Jun 9, 2009 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

dropping a ball onto a sprinkler head in order to get a second free drop also goes against the spirit of the rules – and Tiger got away with that one, too. tighten that rule, too – he abused a rule that was intended to give a player relief from something too wide to get complete relief like a cart path, intentionally dropped onto the sprinkler head in order to get more relief.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Jun 9, 2009 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

correction – he was ALLOWED to abuse the rule – the rules official shouldn’t have allowed the drop onto the sprinkler head.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Jun 9, 2009 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, my high school golf coach had us attend Rolling Road’s rules banquet every year so that we could talk about and get a refresher on the rules. They can be used to your advantage, but you better not screw up enforcing them.

Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.

by Ryan Ballengee on Jun 9, 2009 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I have no problem with knowing how the rules are there to help you – but you can take advantage of someone’s kindness.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Jun 9, 2009 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why shouldn't he have allowed it?

The nearest point of relief is the nearest point of relief. You have a certain area to drop in and if that triggers another rules situation, you deal with it. The official can’t say, “Wait, if you drop there, you’ll trigger another rules situation that will give you benefit.” It’s either a good drop or it’s not.

The rules are the rules. If they work out in your favor once in a while, it’s foolish not to take advantage of it. That’s why there’s a massive book of decisions, too. But it’s the player’s prerogative to take the legal drop knowing that it might result in an even better outcome. How many times do players take drops that leave them in not great shape? Sometimes it works against you and sometimes it works for you.

by Double Eagle on Jun 9, 2009 6:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok – let’s try this illustration. I need to borrow your car to go to the bank and the grocery store. Being the swell guy you are, you toss me the keys. Instead of going to the bank and the grocery store, then back to your house, I decide to head over to the girlfriend’s house for a little fun, then the theater for a movie then dinner.

You loaned me the car – the spirit of that was that I could use it to go to two places and then back home – but I took advantage of you lending me the car and just took off to make a few other stops.

That’s what Tiger did by intentionally dropping the ball onto the sprinkler head – where an honest drop would have avoided the sprinkler head because the rules say that you get one or two club lengths from the original spot. He took advantage of the “kindness” of the rules.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Jun 10, 2009 9:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, there isn’t a book of rules about loaning a car to a friend. There’s a book of rules governing golf. That book was followed to the letter.

If we’re going to start getting into the spirit of the Rules, how about Padraig Harrington in the Masters, when he addressed his ball, stepped away, and then the wind blew it 3 feet further from the hole, for which he was penalized a stroke? Wouldn’t it be fair to say that the spirit of the Rules is supposed to address when the player caused the ball to move? Well, that’s not the way it’s written, so he got screwed. The Rules were followed to the letter. Tiger Woods followed the Rules to the letter and it worked out in his favor.

We can’t just stop and say, “well, clearly when the Rules were written, they meant .” No, we proceed under the rules as written, and later, the USGA may choose to make a decision covering that situation, which they do regularly.

by Double Eagle on Jun 10, 2009 10:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

no – you can’t – the rule book is specific about soling the club and THEN the ball moves. Tiger intentionally used the rule in a way it wasn’t intended – and he got away with it. He found a loophole – and that’s not the expectation of the rules – but he got away with it with the blessing of the rules official. You can’t go back and change the ruling – but, IMHO, you can rephrase the rules to keep things like that from happening again.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Jun 10, 2009 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Intent can't figure in

We cannot allow perceived intent to creep into interpretations of rules. For one, who even knows what the intent of some of these rules is? The modern rules go back decades. This is the same trouble we get in with the Constitution. People love to say, “they meant this or that,” when they clearly have no idea what was going through the minds of people in the 17th century.

I agree with you that the rules can be rephrased to eliminate things like this, and that’s what should happen. But at the time, we can’t try and worry about the intent because we just don’t know. I wouldn’t have a problem with a loose impediment being further defined as something that can be moved by the player himself, only. But I would have had a big problem with the official deciding that on the spot.

And regarding the Harrington situation, yes, the rule is clear about soling the club and then the ball moving. But unfortunately, it doesn’t matter that he completely stepped away before the ball moved, or that the ball was clearly moved by the wind. The only way to “reset” having soled the club is to have marked the ball and replaced it. Don’t you think that’s a bit of a technicality in this situation? If we’re talking about a ball perched in the rough, OK, but on the green?

by Double Eagle on Jun 10, 2009 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

say WHAT ?

what do you think “interpretation” is ? Intention is the starting point, or is SUPPOSED to be the starting point for how things work.

yes – I agree with you on the Harrington situation. When that rule was put in place, greens didn’t run 13-14-15-16 on heavily sloped greens. Greens were usually bermuda grass running in the 8-10 range. Which also goes to the Tiger situation – 40 years ago, courses didn’t have the extensive watering systems they have now. You wouldn’t have a sprinkler head in the rough to drop a ball onto.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Jun 10, 2009 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's fine...

…if intent is known and not assumed. Even still, if the letter of the law is not violated, then it can only figure in when the rule is modified or a decision published. The official can’t say, “I know this is perfectly within the Rule the way it is written, but they didn’t mean for this situation, so you can’t do it.” That’s not a matter for the course. It’s a matter for the Rules committee to tighten the loophole for the future.

I have to disagree on the irrigation, though. The course I worked at during college was built in the early 60’s (and the watering system was never upgraded – which was an absolute nightmare, believe me), so that situation could have easily occurred way more than 40 years ago. Only, it would have been a snap valve (which you inserted a sprinkler head into) and not a sprinkler itself.

Even still, in the decades since it became commonplace to have extensive watering, they could have refined that rule if they felt it was an issue. They revisit the rules every 4 years and I’m sure you’ve seen the size of the decisions book.

by Double Eagle on Jun 10, 2009 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That’s the point – either nobody thought about twisting the rule that way – or thought about it and considered it to be in bad form.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Jun 10, 2009 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Our most recent Ryder Cup captain has had

more than one incident where his fellow competitors looked at him sideways for his actions regarding rules on the course.

by One-Eyed Golfer Guy on Jun 9, 2009 6:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Knowing the rules has

undoubtedly saved me numerous strokes over the years, not vice versa, even when I have to call penalties on myself.

And, court, I feel Arnie’s embedded ball situation was much more heinous than either of Tiger’s examples…

by One-Eyed Golfer Guy on Jun 9, 2009 6:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Agree about Arnie

Because while we can debate the “spirit” of the Rules in the Tiger examples, there is no doubt in my mind that in both examples, the letter of the law, as written at the time, was followed. The Arnie situation is more dubious. If Ken Venturi’s account is accurate, it’s a black mark on the record of the King.

by Double Eagle on Jun 9, 2009 9:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

How do you figure Arnie’s solution was worse ? He played two balls in, which is something that is clearly in the rules. If you can’t get a resolution at the time, you play two balls in and get a decision later. Back then, you didn’t always have a rules official on hand for a decision.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Jun 10, 2009 9:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

According to Venturi, he didn’t announce that he was playing a second ball until he got a bogey with the first one.

by Double Eagle on Jun 10, 2009 10:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That’s probably the only really bizarre story about Arnie’s career that I’m aware of. Same with Kenny Perry’s incident. Isolated incidents happen to everyone. Repeated issues, though, are a problem.

Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.

by Ryan Ballengee on Jun 10, 2009 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah...

…I find it hard to believe that anyone could play a career in competitive golf and not blow a rule once in a while. Some things are so subtle. They print real-life rules gaffes in Golf Digest (or Golf Magazine) and half the time, the pro wasn’t even aware of the situation. If not for someone seeing it, they would have just played on.

It’s the repeat violators, or even worse, the ones who, when confronted, start to maybe stretch the facts of the situation or to deny that things happened at all.

by Double Eagle on Jun 10, 2009 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree.

Who was the player last year who got into a discussion about something that happened to another player – he didn’t realize that it was a rule and he had broken that rule. He went to the officials and explained what he did and accepted the DQ for signing an incorrect scorecard afer breaking a rule he didn’t even know existed.

You can’t name another sport that does that.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Jun 10, 2009 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not sure about that one...

…but there was JP Hayes who was in Q-school and realized he had accidentally played a prototype ball that might not have been approved and DQed himself the next day.

Amazing, but that’s what makes golf great.

by Double Eagle on Jun 10, 2009 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I want to say it was Zach Johnson, but that’s not right. The conversation was, I believe, with Stewart Cink, but I can’t remember who it was who turned himself in.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Jun 10, 2009 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yup, the JP Hayes incident stands out in my mind. I seem to recall Aaron Baddeley doing something similar.

Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.

by Ryan Ballengee on Jun 10, 2009 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

still searching...

….can’t find the self-imposed DQ I’m thinking about, but found this one from David Toms during the last British Open at St Andrews…

“David Toms disqualified himself on Friday for a possible rules violation in Thursday’s first round.”

“At the Road Hole, the 17th at St. Andrews, Toms was not sure if his ball was moving when he ran home his short putt for double-bogey. If the ball had moved, it would have carried a two-shot penalty and Toms did not include that in his final scorecard, which he signed.”

“It was just one of those iffy areas about whether or not a rule was violated and I was the only one that saw it,” said Toms, who opened with a 74 on Thursday. “I might have hit a moving ball when I went to tap-in and I just felt it was better that I disqualified myself.”

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Jun 10, 2009 1:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Interesting video – in his support, it looks like he was making sure that he wasn’t in casual water, but that’s just speculation.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Jun 11, 2009 11:27 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, that is about the only possible defense that he has, though I really don’t buy it.

Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.

by Ryan Ballengee on Jun 11, 2009 11:30 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

ok – he has a fairway wood in his hand – why would he tamp down the grass when you want the surface to lift the ball up a touch ?

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Jun 11, 2009 11:52 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Possibly to create a “tee” of sorts for himself?

Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.

by Ryan Ballengee on Jun 11, 2009 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

no…you don’t create a tee by flattening out the ground – what kind of tees are you using ?? (lol) it didn’t look like he made a depression in the ground and then set his ball on the front lip

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Jun 11, 2009 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That is effectively a tee. It might be a dumb way to do it, but it’s easier to hide that way than pulling a Laura Davies.

Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.

by Ryan Ballengee on Jun 11, 2009 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

true – but you can’t tell in that video. you can’t see any sort of depression, and you can’t tell where he put the ball down in relation to where his foot was.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Jun 11, 2009 2:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Definitely, tough to tell for sure. Looks a lot more egregious than Kenny Perry, IMO

Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.

by Ryan Ballengee on Jun 11, 2009 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

you could very well be right – I guess I tend to give golfers, especially pros, the benefit of the doubt by the nature of the game. I just can’t tell by that video.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Jun 12, 2009 10:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs