or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Rules of Golf › Scott Langley's 25-second Putt at The Memorial - Add a Stroke or Not?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Scott Langley's 25-second Putt at The Memorial - Add a Stroke or Not? - Page 7

Poll Results: Should he have added a stroke for waiting too long?

 
  • 46% (21)
    Add a stroke
  • 53% (24)
    Do not add a stroke
45 Total Votes  
post #109 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEfree View Post
 

 

So, assuming that a player violated 16-2 by taking an unreasonable length of time, do you think they are subject to a penalty under 6-7 for playing without undue delay?  For purposes of this thread, should those voting to assess Langley a penalty under 16-2 also give him another 2 shots under 6-7?

As I said, there is no penalty under 16-2 for being slow in getting to the hole. That is the function of 6-7.

 

The penalty in 16-2 only arises if the ball falls into the hole after 10 seconds have elapsed since he got there.

 

 

Extract from 16-2

When any part of the ball overhangs the lip of the hole, the player is allowed enough time to reach the hole without unreasonable delay and an additional ten seconds to determine whether the ball is at rest.

 

No penalty mentioned in 16-2 yet and the words in green below reinforce the point.

 

If by then the ball has not fallen into the hole, it is deemed to be at rest. If the ball subsequently falls into the hole, the player is deemed to have holed out with his last stroke, and must add a penalty stroke to his score for the hole; 

otherwise, there is no penalty under this Rule. 

 

 

The logic for the 16-2 penalty is that after 10 seconds the ball is (deemed to be) at rest. Normally the player would have to make another stroke to get the ball into the hole. To prevent the player standing there for 10 minutes for the ball to fall in for free, he either taps it in (1 stroke) or if it eventually falls in the penalty is applied in lieu of the stroke he should have made.

 

A further point. If he does stand watching the ball for ages, he could get another penalty for undue delay under 6-7. If it doesn't fall in eventually, he must hole the ball or he will not have completed the hole.

post #110 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlSpackler View Post
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

I had the same situation explained in a USGA/PGA of America Rules Workshop, and it was made very clear that "reasonable" meant that the player walked more or less directly to the hole, was then allowed a wait of 10 seconds, and if the ball was still overhanging the hole, it was at rest by rule.  There was no quibble in the explanation I received.  There was no allowance for waiting 9 seconds before approaching the hole, and then waiting still another 8 or 9 seconds after reaching the hole.  For that reason, I would still penalize.

 

If he took his 10 seconds before he started walking instead of walking and then waiting, and Bubba said something to the effect of "Your ball is still moving.", how does that factor in?

 

The player has a reasonable time to reach the hole from where ever the shot was made, then an additional 10 seconds.  If he delays at the start of the walk, then that is subtracted from the 10 second wait at the end.  Seems like an easy concept to grasp.  since the ball was essentially not actually moving for more than 20 seconds when it was overhanging the hole, the rule statement "deemed to be at rest" should have taken effect.  

 

When the rules say that something is "deemed", then it is a fact as far as the rules are concerned.  Just like a player playing a second ball from the tee without declaring a provisional, the original ball is "deemed" to be lost, even though the reality may be that it is perfectly findable and playable.

post #111 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

The player has a reasonable time to reach the hole from where ever the shot was made, then an additional 10 seconds.  If he delays at the start of the walk, then that is subtracted from the 10 second wait at the end.  Seems like an easy concept to grasp.  since the ball was essentially not actually moving for more than 20 seconds when it was overhanging the hole, the rule statement "deemed to be at rest" should have taken effect.  

 

When the rules say that something is "deemed", then it is a fact as far as the rules are concerned.  Just like a player playing a second ball from the tee without declaring a provisional, the original ball is "deemed" to be lost, even though the reality may be that it is perfectly findable and playable.

 

:surrender:

 

One thing I know is that @Fourputt knows the rules inside out and upside down, so I concede.

post #112 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

The player has a reasonable time to reach the hole from where ever the shot was made, then an additional 10 seconds.  If he delays at the start of the walk, then that is subtracted from the 10 second wait at the end.  

 

Where did you get that from or is it just a (reasonable) suggestion?

post #113 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rulesman View Post
 

 

Where did you get that from or is it just a (reasonable) suggestion?

I'd be asking the same question, Fourputt, but doubting that it would be a reasonable suggestion.   There are two distinct parts to the process.  The rule quite clearly gives 10 seconds from reaching the hole - that is the only precisely defined part.  It is a fixed time from a fixed point and it stands separately from the "walk to the hole".   If , in the earlier part of the process, the player has delayed his move to that point i.e. beside the hole, he is not necessarily in breach of the rule.   The question has to be whether that delay was reasonable or unreasonable.  The unreasonableness of a delay isn't really determined by the stopwatch but by the  actions of the player.  Then, if you determine that a delay was unreasonable, the number of seconds of unreasonableness is irrelevant: all that matters is the fact that the player delayed unreasonably and  the penalty stroke must be added.  In short, you can lose out either by getting the first bit wrong and delaying unreasonably or by the ball taking more than 10 seconds to drop after you get to the hole.  There is no need to combine the two parts and I think it would be confusing to do so.  

post #114 of 141
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColinL View Post
 

I'd be asking the same question, Fourputt, but doubting that it would be a reasonable suggestion.   There are two distinct parts to the process.  The rule quite clearly gives 10 seconds from reaching the hole - that is the only precisely defined part.  It is a fixed time from a fixed point and it stands separately from the "walk to the hole".

 

As I have also argued here, I believe you're reading that improperly.

 

The rule states that you have enough time to walk to the hole AND ten seconds. It doesn't state that the ten seconds FOLLOWS the walking to the hole, or starts when you arrive at the hole.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColinL View Post
 

The question has to be whether that delay was reasonable or unreasonable.  The unreasonableness of a delay isn't really determined by the stopwatch but by the  actions of the player.  Then, if you determine that a delay was unreasonable, the number of seconds of unreasonableness is irrelevant: all that matters is the fact that the player delayed unreasonably and  the penalty stroke must be added.  In short, you can lose out either by getting the first bit wrong and delaying unreasonably or by the ball taking more than 10 seconds to drop after you get to the hole.  There is no need to combine the two parts and I think it would be confusing to do so.  

 

I believe it's far less confusing to say that the "unreasonable delay" part is in reference to the walking.

 

Quote:
When any part of the ball overhangs the lip of the hole, the player is allowed enough time to reach the hole without unreasonable delay and an additional ten seconds to determine whether the ball is at rest. If by then the ball has not fallen into the hole, it is deemed to be at rest. If the ball subsequently falls into thehole, the player is deemed to have holed out with his last stroke, and must add a penalty stroke to his score for the hole; otherwise, there is no penalty under this Rule.

 

He is allowed enough time to reach the hole (i.e. walk to the hole) AND ten seconds. He can spend that ten seconds standing around on either side of the walking portion. If he takes 30 seconds to walk to the hole 20 feet away, that's an "unreasonable delay" in reaching the hole.

 

P.S. @Golfingdad, etc. This rule is 16-2, which is "The Putting Green," putting to rest some of your earlier concerns about people hitting a shot that overhangs a hole from 175 yards away. What that means to a ball overhanging that falls in as you're walking onto the green several minutes after hitting it, I don't know… :)

post #115 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rulesman View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

The player has a reasonable time to reach the hole from where ever the shot was made, then an additional 10 seconds.  If he delays at the start of the walk, then that is subtracted from the 10 second wait at the end.  

 

Where did you get that from or is it just a (reasonable) suggestion?

 

It's what the rule says.  You get a ten second wait.  The rule assumes that you are going to immediately move toward the hole, not just stand around picking your nose for a minute or two before moving.  If that was allowed under the rule, then the whole point of the 10 second wait would be irrelevant.  10 seconds is 10 seconds, regardless of where the waiting is done.  A "reasonable time" to move to the hole doesn't include taking a coffee break after you make your stroke.  Travel time changes depending on ones distance from the hole, and that adds a slight fudge factor, but the 10 second waiting time does not.  I don't really see how anything else can be read into that.  Nearly doubling the waiting time by taking almost the full time allowed before starting to move is an abuse of the intent of the rule.

post #116 of 141
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

It's what the rule says.  You get a ten second wait.  The rule assumes that you are going to immediately move toward the hole, not just stand around picking your nose for a minute or two before moving.  If that was allowed under the rule, then the whole point of the 10 second wait would be irrelevant.  10 seconds is 10 seconds, regardless of where the waiting is done.  A "reasonable time" to move to the hole doesn't include taking a coffee break after you make your stroke.  Travel time changes depending on ones distance from the hole, and that adds a slight fudge factor, but the 10 second waiting time does not.  I don't really see how anything else can be read into that.  Nearly doubling the waiting time by taking almost the full time allowed before starting to move is an abuse of the intent of the rule.

 

People are reading the rule as if the word "then" is in there.

 

Compare:

"the player is allowed enough time to reach the hole without unreasonable delay and an additional ten seconds"

versus

"the player is allowed enough time to reach the hole without unreasonable delay and then an additional ten seconds"

post #117 of 141

I think another wording that can easily cause dispute is "overhanging the hole". Takes a good angle to tell where the edge of a round ball is in relation to the ground below it.

 

Reminds me of the closest I ever came to getting a hole in one. When I told somebody about it I said the edge of the ball was hanging over the hole but it never fell in...But was it really?

 

Hell I don't know. I was looking at the ball from an angle that made it appear so but I didn't get directly above it and eyeball it straight down.  Who knows if I had put a vertical straight edge in the hole if it would have touched the ball or not.

 

Same with this clip. I really can't tell at which point the ball was stopped, oscillating, "rolling" (albeit barely), or hanging over the hole. 

 

If it's overhanging the hole the entire time I would change my vote. If it was never overhanging the hole until the very end but was creeping towards the hole I would leave my vote as it is.

post #118 of 141

Too late to edit but this should show what I was talking about. Same ball. Same spot. Slightly different angle (and not much). Ball is actually not overhanging the line using a square.

post #119 of 141
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS256 View Post
 

I think another wording that can easily cause dispute is "overhanging the hole". Takes a good angle to tell where the edge of a round ball is in relation to the ground below it.

 

I don't think that really matters much, as a ball that's not overhanging the hole has about a one in a million+ chance of falling in (really strong winds or a hole cut on a ridiculously steep slope), so it's pretty much a moot point. The golfer will have to tap in a ball that's not overhanging the hole and take that stroke anyway.

post #120 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

I don't think that really matters much, as a ball that's not overhanging the hole has about a one in a million+ chance of falling in (really strong winds or a hole cut on a ridiculously steep slope), so it's pretty much a moot point. The golfer will have to tap in a ball that's not overhanging the hole.


So you're telling me there's a chance? :-D

 

I have seen balls stopped and then start to roll again and roll several feet. Surely it could happen from less than an inch. 

 

Admittedly I have never seen the hole happen to get in the way when it did though (that I know of). Maybe I did and just thought it was overhanging from my vantage point.

 

Note: I also realize that the area just around hole locations on most courses are flat enough to make that very unlikely. Not so unlikely on some of the courses I play (right or wrong).

post #121 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

The player has a reasonable time to reach the hole from where ever the shot was made, then an additional 10 seconds.  If he delays at the start of the walk, then that is subtracted from the 10 second wait at the end.  Seems like an easy concept to grasp.  since the ball was essentially not actually moving for more than 20 seconds when it was overhanging the hole, the rule statement "deemed to be at rest" should have taken effect.  

 

When the rules say that something is "deemed", then it is a fact as far as the rules are concerned.  Just like a player playing a second ball from the tee without declaring a provisional, the original ball is "deemed" to be lost, even though the reality may be that it is perfectly findable and playable.

I agree with your interpretation, except the use of the word reasonable.  The rule doesn't say the player must act reasonably.  Rather, the rule requires the player NOT to delay UNreasonably.  AKA there is no clearly stated requirement that the player must proceed to the hole immediately after making his stroke.  Taking a step back from the rule, generally speaking, certain behavior is clearly deemed reasonable (by most) while other behavior is clearly deemed unreasonable (by most).  In between you have a lot of gray area behavior that may or may not be deemed reasonable.  As this thread attests, not everyone can agree what is reasonable or unreasonable.  

 

Pretend there was no rules book in golf and Langley was playing a match against Bubba- do you think that Bubba would have said- dude, you are acting unreasonable by standing there for 10 seconds before you start walking?

 

I believe it was Rulesman who recalled a rules clinic that went over a variety of behavior that caused delays before the player started walking- none of that behavior was deemed to be unreasonable.  Golf is not a game played by robots- when a putt hangs over the edge of the hole, it is completely natural for the player to react in a way inconsistent with walking straight to the hole.  With this in mind, (and the fact Langley wasn't penalized), it seems as if behavior must clearly be UNreasonable to be penalized.  When there is a doubt as to the reasonableness of the behavior, it seems reasonable to think the theory is along the lines that guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to penalize rather than a player having to prove he acted reasonably to avoid a penalty.   

post #122 of 141
Thread Starter 

Reasonable and unreasonable are antonyms. You're either one or the other. You cross over at some point. That point is just located at different places for different people.

 

I'd have still added the stroke. He wasn't dropping to his knees, or taking off in a sprint to make an epic fist pump. He was just standing there, then he walked, and stood there again. The timer had started, and eclipsed ten seconds long ago, by where I place that cross-over point.

post #123 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

Reasonable and unreasonable are antonyms. You're either one or the other. You cross over at some point. That point is just located at different places for different people.

 

I'd have still added the stroke. He wasn't dropping to his knees, or taking off in a sprint to make an epic fist pump. He was just standing there, then he walked, and stood there again. The timer had started.

Black and white are antonyms.  You're either one or the other.  You cross over at some point.  That point is just located at different places for different people.  I disagree.

 

Had he dropped to his knees for 10 seconds instead of staring in disbelief (or whatever he did), would you vote not to penalize?  

post #124 of 141
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEfree View Post

Black and white are antonyms.  You're either one or the other.  You cross over at some point.  That point is just located at different places for different people.  I disagree.

Seriously?

There's no middle ground, but different people have different points.

Black and white "crosses over" at 50% between them.

Had he fallen to the ground, his clock still would have started. Others put the point at a different location.
post #125 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

 

 

 

The rule states that you have enough time to walk to the hole AND ten seconds. It doesn't state that the ten seconds FOLLOWS the walking to the hole, or starts when you arrive at the hole.

 

 

 

When any part of the ball overhangs the lip of the hole, the player is allowed enough time to reach the hole without unreasonable delay

 

and an additional ten seconds to determine whether the ball is at rest

 

 

The additional 10 seconds is specifically to determine whether the ball is at rest. He can't do that before he walks to the hole

 

 

Dec 16-2/2

Q.In a match between A and B, A putts and his ball apparently comes to rest, but is overhanging the hole. Within five seconds, B concedes A's next stroke and knocks his ball away. Was B entitled to knock A's ball away?

A.No. Under Rule 16-2, A is allowed a reasonable time to reach the hole and an additional ten seconds to determine whether his ball is at rest. Since B infringed A's rights, in equity (Rule 1-4), 

post #126 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rulesman View Post
 

When any part of the ball overhangs the lip of the hole, the player is allowed enough time to reach the hole without unreasonable delay

 

and an additional ten seconds to determine whether the ball is at rest

 

 

The additional 10 seconds is specifically to determine whether the ball is at rest. He can't do that before he walks to the hole

 

 

What is considered walking to the hole? How far a way does the person have to be? I would like some clarification so I am not shorted on my allotment of time I am allowed to wait for the ball to drop. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Rules of Golf
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Rules of Golf › Scott Langley's 25-second Putt at The Memorial - Add a Stroke or Not?