Latest Backstopping Controversy Proves Golf Twitter Loves to Argue about Anything and Everything

I love golf twitter, I really do.  There are times when you won't laugh harder anywhere else on social media.  A lot of you are quick-witted, imaginative, and brilliantly perceptive. 

 

Then there are other times when a herd mentality takes over like it did today with the latest backstopping accusation directed at Ariya Jutanugarn and Amy Olson on the 18th green at the Honda LPGA Thailand.  It's not surprising because drama and controversy is always more entertaining than common sense.  But it is disappointing. 

Before we even look at the video footage of what happened, let's square away what backstopping is in the first place.  Because if you were being honest today, a lot of you had no idea what it was or even knew it existed (including both Jutanugarn and Olson).  And some people who claimed to be protecting the integrity of the game by making these accusations were really just acting like know-it-all snobs.  Sorry, but it's true. 

 

First, here's Rule 15.3.a from the Rules of Golf: 

"In stroke play, under Rule 15.3a, if two or more players agree to leave a ball in place on the putting green to help any player, and the stroke is made with the helping ball left in place, each player who made the agreement gets two penalty strokes.  A breach of Rule 15.3a does not depend on whether the players know that such an agreement is not allowed. 

For example, in stroke play, before playing from just off the putting green, a player asks another player to leave his or her ball that is near the hole, in order to use it as a backstop.  Without knowing this is not allowed, the other player agrees to leave his or her ball by the hole to help the other player.  Once the stroke is made with the ball in place, both players get the penalty under Rule 15.3a." 

 

There's also a provision in Rule 15.3a/1 that calls for disqualification for knowing violations of this rule (which also serves to show that ignorance of this rule is not a defense): 

"If the players know that they are not allowed to make such an agreement, but still do it, they are both disqualified under Rule 1.3b(1) for deliberately ignoring Rule 15.3a." 

The gist of this rule is that we're not going to allow players to help each other to the detriment of other players in the field.  And rightly so. 

Therefore it's illegal for one player to leave their ball on the green so that a second player gains an advantage of being able to use it as a backstop (or think of it like a roadblock). 

 

If Player A marks their ball on the green, and Player B follows that by hitting their shot too hard, it's likely Player B's ball will travel far past the hole with nothing to stop it. 

However, when Player A's ball remains on the green (instead of marking it), then that same ball hit by Player B gains the advantage of potentially hitting Player A's ball and slowing it's momentum. 

In doing so Player B's ball would be closer to the hole than it would otherwise have been, and that could mean an easier putt, better score, more prize money, and maybe even a title.  Meanwhile the first ball is allowed to be moved back where it was originally resting without any penalty. 

 

Now let's go back and look at a key provision of the rule (the key part in bold for illustration): 

"... players agree to leave a ball in place on the putting green to help any player, and the stroke is made with the helping ball left in place, each player who made the agreement..." 

"Agree to help any player."  This means the decision or agreement to leave the first ball on the green in the first place has to be made with the intent of helping either player.  That's just a fact.  There's no interpretation here. 

In deciding if there's a violation of this rule it doesn't matter if a player is aiming at the hole or at the second ball.  It doesn't matter if the players knew or didn't know that such a decision or agreement is illegal.  The only thing that matters is that the players made this decision or agreement for the purpose of or with the intent to help either player.  And this of course can be (and usually will be) inferred from the circumstances. 

So let's check out the video: 

Even worse with the full video pic.twitter.com/lpras0mF4L

— Duncan French (@Teamfrench23) February 22, 2019

After Jutanugarn hits her shot you can see her asking Olson if she should mark her ball, but quickly steps back as Olson waives her off.  The short time frame of five seconds between Jutanugarn backing off and Olson starting her practice swings (as well as the 20 total seconds total it takes before Olson actually hits her shot) supports the presumption Olson was just ready to take her shot.  Simple as that.  Nothing sinister. 

The fist bump was considered by many to be the smoking gun of collusion however, or at the very least a suspicious and a very bad look.  As they fist bump it even looks to me like Olson says, "Thanks buddy." 

 

But does that raise all of what we witnessed to the conclusive point of their intent to leave Jutanugarn's ball on the green to gain an advantage?  This doesn't even come close to "beyond a reasonable doubt." and it's not even in the ball park of "more likely than not." 

It just doesn't look like two brazen players fist-bumping as if to say, "Hey it worked out just like we planned"  Instead it looks like two players who are so completely surprised by what happened that they had to laugh at the unexpected result. 

What really threw gas on the fire and sent golf twitter into complete hyperventilation however, was the LPGA's very own unenlightened tweet - which they later deleted (and of course that's always going to raise eyebrows).  Granted, this was fantastically oblivious, but the heedless tweet of  the LPGA's twitter manager is far from conclusive in helping decide if there was an agreement or intent formed between Jutanugarn and Olson. 

 

While backstopping has occurred on Tour in the past, it's never really been a widespread issue or hot topic.  Most players will ask others to mark their ball if it's around or close to their line of play.  If the ball is out of the way, they'll just leave it there and hit their shot. 

However Jimmy Walker re-opened the debate last year when the 2016 PGA Championship winner admitted to leaving his ball down and not marking it to help certain players he likes.  And this admission is clearly lock stock, and barrel a violation of the rule.

Usually a guy will ask if he would like to mark it. If you don’t like a guy you will mark anyway. If you like the guy you might leave it to help on a shot. Some guys don’t want to give help at all and rush to mark their ball. To each his own.

— Jimmy Walker (@JimmyWalkerPGA) June 9, 2018

After the round ended Olson said she was just trying to help with pace of play after their threesome (including Michelle Wie) had already been waiting 10 minutes to hit their shots (they were waiting for a Wie -requested ruling on a different matter).  Eventually the LPGA agreed there was no intent to gain an advantage, and issued the statement below.

Our statement regarding Amy Olson at the Honda LPGA Thailand: pic.twitter.com/T1Lpavk4RS

— LPGA (@LPGA) February 23, 2019

But even without Olson's statement, where was the guilt?  Where was the hard evidence of intent or collusion.  In applying the Rules of Golf players are innocent until proven guilty.  And no rush to judgement should cloud that paramount truth, even as twitter has become the modern day Colosseum where even good people can transform into wrathful furies of reckless indignation.