Has Shane Lowry’s Open penalty sparked a rule change?

It became known as the Lowry Rule: a controversial two-stroke penalty that effectively ended the Irishman’s bid to win The Open again.

Shane Lowry was hit with the sanction following his second round at Royal Portrush last July when his ball seemed to move after he’d taken a practice swing in the rough.

The decision sparked worldwide headlines and split opinion, with some pundits arguing the letter of the law was too harsh.

But has that penalty now sparked a change? Chiefs at the R&A and USGA have just introduced a new Local Rule that could mitigate the punishment if a similar scenario happens again.

It says a player has not played from a wrong place if they are completely unaware their ball might have moved before making a stroke. So what happened to Lowry, what does the new Local Rule say, and what can we take from it?

What happened to Shane Lowry at The Open?

Shane Lowry was given a two-shot penalty after an incident when playing his second shot at the par-5 12th on the second day at Royal Portrush.

After he made a practice swing in the rough, video footage subsequently showed the ball appearing to move. In the rules, a ball is deemed to have moved if it leaves its original spot, comes to rest on any other spot, and can be seen by the naked eye.

Lowry parred the hole, unaware of any issue, and had reached the 15th when an R&A rules official spoke to him and told him the incident would be reviewed at the end of the round.

A subsequent R&A statement said: “During Round 2, 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.

“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?”

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.

“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 a wrong place and incurs a total penalty of two strokes.”

“If the ball moved, I would have called it on myself. My head was definitely looking down at the ball and I didn’t see it moving. But I’m out there signing for a 72 there now,” Lowry said speaking to reporters following the ruling.

His par became a double bogey seven, dropping him from a tie for 17th to 34th and he made the cut by one. He shot 74 and 66 over the weekend to finish in a tie for 40th.

What does the new Local Rule say?

In the latest set of rules clarifications updated on January 1, the R&A and USGA introduced Model Local Rule E-14: “Player Has Not Played from Wrong Place When Unaware Ball Might Have Moved”.

Outlining its purpose, rules chiefs explain that when a player’s actions cause their ball to move, they must replace it before playing – “even when they are unaware that it might have moved, as the player’s lack of knowledge of their own breach does not exempt them from the replacement requirements under Rule 9.4a“.

But they add that in the “narrow circumstance where a player is completely unaware their ball might have moved before making a stroke, a Committee can choose to adopt this Local Rule to address situations where the player’s lack of awareness provides no reason to even consider replacing the ball”.

When adopted, it provides that a “player who fails to replace their ball in these circumstances will not be treated as having played from a wrong place and will get only one penalty stroke for causing their ball to move under Rule 9.4b)”.

That is the case even if it “subsequently becomes known that they caused the ball to move”.

But this Local Rule does not remove the two-shot sanction – or loss of hole in match-play – if, before hitting a shot, the “player was aware the ball moved or might have moved, and it subsequently becomes known that the ball did move.

“This includes situations where the player believed they had correctly resolved any doubt they had about the movement of their ball before making their next stroke.”

The text of the Local Rule reads: “If a player causes their ball at rest to move and they fail to replace it before making their next stroke when they were neither aware that the ball had moved nor that it might have moved, the player gets one penalty stroke under Rule 9.4b (unless any of the exceptions under that Rule apply) but has not played from a wrong place if it subsequently becomes known that they caused the ball to move.

“But when a player is aware their ball at rest might have moved and fails to replace it before making their next stroke, the player gets the general penalty for playing from a wrong place under Rule 14.7a if it subsequently becomes known that they caused the ball to move.

“The general penalty applies even if the ball was not replaced because the player incorrectly determined that it did not move or that they were not the cause.”

What do I think?

There will be some who argue the miniscule movement of a golf ball offers no advantage and shouldn’t result in a penalty at all but that’s wishful thinking.

Where it becomes more problematic is when the sanction is applied later – primarily because TV cameras are involved – and the player had no idea their ball had moved.

If they don’t know, how could they then replace it?

To get the general penalty, under those specific circumstances, felt very severe. Now this Local Rule addresses that situation for committees who choose to use it.

In Shane Lowry’s case, he would still have received a penalty had it been in operation at The Open. But it would most likely have been one shot, not two.

At club level, this will make no difference. But in the rarefied atmosphere of major championships, such outcomes could be worth a lot of money.

Why is it only a Local Rule, which puts the impetus on competition committees to adopt it, rather than just being inserted into the Rules of Golf themselves?

We’re approaching the end of the current four-year cycle by which the rules are reviewed and it’s possible we could see this integrated when the 2027 rule book is finalised.

At the end of 2016, after that hugely controversial incident with Dustin Johnson at the US Open at Oakmont, a Local Rule was introduced which removed the one-shot penalty if a ball was accidentally moved on the putting green.

That was subsequently adopted in the 2019 rules and the same could happen here. But for now, it would be a surprise if this new Local Rule wasn’t adopted by the various tours – precisely to avoid the kind of headlines we saw at Royal Portrush in July.

Got a question for our expert?

Despite the changes to the Rules of Golf in 2019 and 2023, there are still some that leave us scratching our heads. I’ll try to help by featuring the best of your queries in this column.

What do you think of this new Local Rule? Has this ever happened to you on the course? Let me know by leaving a comment below, email me at s.carroll@nationalclubgolfer.com or get in touch on X.

• NOW READ: What is a Local Rule?

• NOW READ: Are these the five harshest golf rules?