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

[Lihu]

I voted for adding a stroke.

At 0:08 the ball basically stops moving visually from the video

At 0:18 Scott starts walking towards the ball

At 0:30 the ball finally falls in. He basically took his 10 seconds plus another 12 seconds. The ball clearly didn't look like it was moving. Feherty saying "The ball is moving all the time", I mean come on, he's what 50-60 yards away off the green, not way he could be seeing that ball move. By the rules I think it should be another stroke added.

I only did a visual count to ~<11 seconds. Did you count frames?

[Golfingdad]

No, that's not per the rules. He took far too long. He doesn't get to stand there at his address position, then slowly walk up, then stand there again.

He stood at his ball, not moving, for ten seconds. Literally, his feet didn't even move an inch. That's not allowed within the rules.

Yeah, I agree.  I got out my stopwatch and started it quite late, relative to when he could/should have started walking to the hole, and it was still over 14 seconds from that point until it fell in.  I'd vote for adding a stroke.

I'd also like to point out that, assuming I'm reading the rule correctly, it matters not whether its still moving after 10 seconds.  It says "If by then [the 10 seconds] the ball has not fallen into the hole , it is deemed to be at rest."

The fact that it's not in the hole is the determining factor of whether or not it's moving, not ... whether or not it's moving. ;)

[Jeremie Boop]

Yeah, I agree.  I got out my stopwatch and started it quite late, relative to when he could/should have started walking to the hole, and it was still over 14 seconds from that point until it fell in.  I'd vote for adding a stroke.

I'd also like to point out that, assuming I'm reading the rule correctly, it matters not whether its still moving after 10 seconds.  It says "If by then [the 10 seconds] the ball has not fallen into the hole, it is deemed to be at rest."

The fact that it's not in the hole is the determining factor of whether or not it's moving, not ... whether or not it's moving. ;)

But, you can't touch a moving ball :-P

[rehmwa]

I don't know that I agree with that. You're essentially relying on Bubba to know the exact rule on this?

I'm not claiming a strangers knowledge or lack of knowledge of the rules.  What I'm saying is I'd trust Bubba to be the other set of eyes to confirm he thinks it's still moving also.

If those two think the ball was still moving, then the 10 second clock never gets started.  (Edit:  Golfingdad makes a point there.  I can't speak to it, but it's a key point and if it's right, I'll step off of the discussion)

So either we're claiming we can see the ball better than those two and they are wrong in assuming it's still moving........, or asserting the player is either cheating or ignorant of the rule - as is the other player.

[Lihu]

Yeah, I agree.  I got out my stopwatch and started it quite late, relative to when he could/should have started walking to the hole, and it was still over 14 seconds from that point until it fell in.  I'd vote for adding a stroke.

I'd also like to point out that, assuming I'm reading the rule correctly, it matters not whether its still moving after 10 seconds.  It says "If by then [the 10 seconds] the ball has not fallen into the hole, it is deemed to be at rest."

The fact that it's not in the hole is the determining factor of whether or not it's moving, not ... whether or not it's moving. ;)

I think the main issue was determining if the ball is at rest. I interpreted this as part of the reasonable time to get to the ball. Hence, I think the actual wait is really only <11 seconds from the time he determined the ball was stopped (which is nebulous as we needed to interpret twitches in his body language), and the time he actually waited for the ball to fall in.

My visual cue was when he stopped talking to the other golfer.

EDIT: Actually, the last time he turned his head up to the other golfer was only 6-7 seconds till the ball fell in. Used a web-app stopwatch. EDIT:EDIT: took 3 readings between 6 to 7 seconds.

[MEfree]

If it was still moving (I can't tell but the announcers thought it was) it wouldn't matter how long it took would it?

But, you can't touch a moving ball :-P

I think a ball overhanging the lip is deemed to be at rest (regardless of whether it is moving or not) the sooner of 10 seconds after the player actually reaches the hole or, if he takes an unreasonable time to reach the hole, than a reasonable time plus 10 seconds.

If a ball is deemed to be at rest, then I think you can legally hit it even if it may actually be moving.

[iacas]

I only did a visual count to ~<11 seconds. Did you count frames?

You're not counting everything. He can't just stand there at his original spot forever, THEN walk, THEN take ten seconds.

If those two think the ball was still moving, then the 10 second clock never gets started.  (Edit:  Golfingdad makes a point there.  I can't speak to it, but it's a key point and if it's right, I'll step off of the discussion)

I think Drew's point is exactly the point. The rules deem the ball not to be moving.

Because, really, it'd have to be moving near-microscopic amounts for it to be a millimeter from falling in, then after 25 seconds, to fall in.

Walk + ten seconds = at rest.

EDIT: Actually, the last time he turned his head up to the other golfer was only 6-7 seconds till the ball fell in. Used a web-app stopwatch. EDIT:EDIT: took 3 readings between 6 to 7 seconds.

You're not reading the rule properly. The clock starts well before that. Otherwise, again, a player could stand at his original position for a long time before starting to walk.

[Golfingdad]

I think the main issue was determining if the ball is at rest. I interpreted this as part of the reasonable time to get to the ball. Hence, I think the actual wait is really only <11 seconds from the time he determined the ball was stopped (which is nebulous as we needed to interpret twitches in his body language), and the time he actually waited for the ball to fall in.

My visual cue was when he stopped talking to the other golfer.

EDIT: Actually, the last time he turned his head up to the other golfer was only 6-7 seconds till the ball fell in. Used a web-app stopwatch. EDIT:EDIT: took 3 readings between 6 to 7 seconds.

Your giving him a pass on the unreasonable amount of time we waited BEFORE he started walking towards the hole, though.  He is only allowed "enough time to reach the hole without unreasonable delay" if you're going to wait to start the 10 second clock until he reaches the hole.

So it's my interpretation that you should count all of the extra time he takes before he starts walking as well.  I tried again, and this time I started the clock when I felt that the "reasonable" amount of time became "unreasonable" ... which was right after he flipped his putter up in his hands (the 11 second mark of the video) ... and then I stopped it when he started walking.  That was 7 seconds.

Then I started a new timer when he reached the hole and then stopped it when the ball fell in.  Another 7 seconds.  Had he not waited those extra "unreasonable" 7 seconds at the point of contact, then he would have certainly gone over the 10 seconds at the hole.  That's why it's worthy of the extra stroke, IMO.

And FWIW, since these guys don't carry around stopwatches, I would hope that they would just give him a stroke and not do some silly DQ thing.  As it was, he finished T28 (-4), with one extra stroke he would have finished T36 (-3).  It would have been a difference of about $16,000 for him.

[rehmwa]

So....is anyone claiming his intent was to cheat?  If so, I think someone needs to say it directly.

or are we just debating the ability of people in the process of doing something to sense clearly the difference between 10 or 20 seconds.

(frankly, I think the 10 seconds should start when the player himself is convinced that the ball has stopped.  And I can't read the player's mind well enough to pick up on it (flip a club, twitch a brow, start walking, etc etc etc).  Simply speaking, it still comes down to the player - is he clearly intending to cheat?  or is he honestly playing by the rules?)

So one scenario in the players mind, <> "what's that Bubba?,  do you see it move?   ok, thanks" ........<> in the hole.

vs second scenario, <>....... "what's that Bubba?,  do you see it move?   ok, thanks" ........<> in the hole.

all that aside - If Drew has it right, then Drew has it right (and actual 'motion' doesn't matter if we have a clear definition of when motion stops).  In that case, it still comes down to each hole should have a couple refs to just make the calls on the rules.  Especially if we don't trust the players and caddies to know them perfectly.....

edit:  anyway - did someone official actually make a decision to penalize or not?

[Lihu]

Your giving him a pass on the unreasonable amount of time we waited BEFORE he started walking towards the hole, though.  He is only allowed "enough time to reach the hole without unreasonable delay" if you're going to wait to start the 10 second clock until he reaches the hole.

So it's my interpretation that you should count all of the extra time he takes before he starts walking as well.  I tried again, and this time I started the clock when I felt that the "reasonable" amount of time became "unreasonable" ... which was right after he flipped his putter up in his hands (the 11 second mark of the video) ... and then I stopped it when he started walking.  That was 7 seconds.

Then I started a new timer when he reached the hole and then stopped it when the ball fell in.  Another 7 seconds.  Had he not waited those extra "unreasonable" 7 seconds at the point of contact, then he would have certainly gone over the 10 seconds at the hole.  That's why it's worthy of the extra stroke, IMO.

And FWIW, since these guys don't carry around stopwatches, I would hope that they would just give him a stroke and not do some silly DQ thing.  As it was, he finished T28 (-4), with one extra stroke he would have finished T36 (-3).  It would have been a difference of about $16,000 for him.

We could speculate that the conversation went as follows:

Scott: Dang, it didn't go in.

Bubba: Let's see if it stopped moving.

Scott: Yeah, it seems to be teetering a little.

Bubba: Looks like it might be stopping.

Scott: Yeah, okay. It's stopped, I guess I'll just tap it in.

Pause 6-7 seconds as he prepares to walk the rest of the way to the hole, and it goes in.

Scott: It went in.

Bubba: Cool. Yeah.

I'm sure these were not their exact words and there might be some role reversal, but it sure looked like they were talking about it while walking up to it.

I agree, by the book, he could have incurred a penalty. I guess it's also up to the ROs at the time to decide as well.

Well, at least I know that what I've been doing is correct (maybe a little rushed, even).

EDIT: Agree with @rehmwa .

[Golfingdad]

So....is anyone claiming his intent was to cheat?  If so, I think someone needs to say it directly.

or are we just debating the ability of people in the process of doing something to sense clearly the difference between 10 or 20 seconds.

Absolutely not.  That's why I said that I would hope that in this type of scenario they would just make the determination afterwards for the extra stroke.  Nothing more.  It shouldn't be on the player or their caddy to whip out a stopwatch really quickly after leaving a putt on the lip.  That would be silly.

They could just slow the greens down and this kind of thing wouldn't happen.

[rehmwa]

They could just slow the greens down and this kind of thing wouldn't happen.

Or, speed them up.  Either way, this exact stimp was clearly an error on the part of the grounds crew.....

[boogielicious]

Book him Dano!  Add a stroke.  10 seconds is quite clear in the rule.

[Spyder]

I agree that the rule is really, really clear. He should definitely have a stroke added.

However, this is one of those rare instances where I am kind of glad that the rule was not upheld. I think given the nature of what was going on on the green with Bubba staring it down and having some fun, and the crowd getting into it.. it's a good thing.

Yes, I know that the purists will take my comment and run with it and say something like "But where does it end!?!? If you let this slide for entertainment's sake, what's next?!!". I don't see the harm in this rule being "forgotten" here. I think it was cool in the grand scheme of things and it's a no harm, no foul situation in my opinion. The guy who finished below him may feel differently though considering the amount of money he gained from that putt dropping (I believe it was an additional $13,000).

As a viewer at home though, I'm glad a stroke wasn't assessed.

[Golfingdad]

I agree that the rule is really, really clear. He should definitely have a stroke added.

However, this is one of those rare instances where I am kind of glad that the rule was not upheld. I think given the nature of what was going on on the green with Bubba staring it down and having some fun, and the crowd getting into it.. it's a good thing.

Yes, I know that the purists will take my comment and run with it and say something like "But where does it end!?!? If you let this slide for entertainment's sake, what's next?!!". I don't see the harm in this rule being "forgotten" here. I think it was cool in the grand scheme of things and it's a no harm, no foul situation in my opinion. The guy who finished below him may feel differently though considering the amount of money he gained from that putt dropping (I believe it was an additional $13,000).

As a viewer at home though, I'm glad a stroke wasn't assessed.

Yeah, I get this.  I'm with you.

And you made me realize that I did my math wrong on the money.  I forgot to subtract 36th place money from all of the guys that tied for 28th, and also forgot to add it to all of the guys that tied for 37th.  (COuldn't do it if I wanted to anyway, because I have no idea what solo 36th money even is :))  Either way, it was going to be in the range of a 15k difference for him, but probably around 2K (maybe less) for all others involved.

[bubble]

i counted 9 seconds.

that is I gave the player 3 seconds to get to the ball even thought he didn't move.

then I counted to 9.

any way anouncer says the balle is mouving so it's not a "ball en suspend au bord du trou" (sorry dont know the name in english for that one).

[iacas]

I agree that the rule is really, really clear. He should definitely have a stroke added.

However, this is one of those rare instances where I am kind of glad that the rule was not upheld. I think given the nature of what was going on on the green with Bubba staring it down and having some fun, and the crowd getting into it.. it's a good thing.

Yes, I know that the purists will take my comment and run with it and say something like "But where does it end!?!? If you let this slide for entertainment's sake, what's next?!!". I don't see the harm in this rule being "forgotten" here. I think it was cool in the grand scheme of things and it's a no harm, no foul situation in my opinion. The guy who finished below him may feel differently though considering the amount of money he gained from that putt dropping (I believe it was an additional $13,000).

As a viewer at home though, I'm glad a stroke wasn't assessed.

That all still would have happened (the crowd and all that)… and then the proper score could have been recorded afterward.

i counted 9 seconds.

that is I gave the player 3 seconds to get to the ball even thought he didn't move.

then I counted to 9.

Already addressed. You can't stand there as long as you want, then walk, and THEN start the timer. You have to count the nine or ten seconds after the ball had clearly come to rest and he could have started walking.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

He waited the full 10 seconds, then took far too long to walk to the ball before it fell.  The rule is quite clear.  He should have added a stroke.

I'd like to point out that he didn't walk to his ball, he walked a large arc around the hole and ended up some four feet from his ball when he stopped to watch it again.

What did you think I meant when I said that he took far too long?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Yeah, I agree.  I got out my stopwatch and started it quite late, relative to when he could/should have started walking to the hole, and it was still over 14 seconds from that point until it fell in.  I'd vote for adding a stroke.

I'd also like to point out that, assuming I'm reading the rule correctly, it matters not whether its still moving after 10 seconds.  It says "If by then [the 10 seconds] the ball has not fallen into the hole, it is deemed to be at rest."

The fact that it's not in the hole is the determining factor of whether or not it's moving, not ... whether or not it's moving. ;)

But, you can't touch a moving ball :-P

The ball is not moving.  After 10 seconds overhanging the hole it is deemed to be at rest, regardless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

I don't know that I agree with that. You're essentially relying on Bubba to know the exact rule on this?

I'm not claiming a strangers knowledge or lack of knowledge of the rules.  What I'm saying is I'd trust Bubba to be the other set of eyes to confirm he thinks it's still moving also.

If those two think the ball was still moving, then the 10 second clock never gets started.  (Edit:  Golfingdad makes a point there.  I can't speak to it, but it's a key point and if it's right, I'll step off of the discussion)

So either we're claiming we can see the ball better than those two and they are wrong in assuming it's still moving........, or asserting the player is either cheating or ignorant of the rule - as is the other player.

It doesn't matter if the ball is moving.  The reason for the rule is to eliminate the player standing around for 5 minutes waiting for the Earth to move.  After 10 seconds the ball is not moving.  It doesn't matter what anyone sees or thinks he sees.

So....is anyone claiming his intent was to cheat?  If so, I think someone needs to say it directly.

Intent has nothing to do with it.

i counted 9 seconds.

that is I gave the player 3 seconds to get to the ball even thought he didn't move.

then I counted to 9.

any way anouncer says the balle is mouving so it's not a "ball en suspend au bord du trou" (sorry dont know the name in english for that one).

Once again, the ball was overhanging the hole.  He waited 10 seconds.  The ball had not fallen.  It is deemed to be at rest. He walked toward the hole as allowed.  He then stopped and waited some more, which is not allowed.  In the video, the ball stopped over the hole at the 8 second mark.  It didn't drop until the 31 second mark.  That is 23 seconds, where at most he only got 10 to wait and 5 to walk, so he was a good 8 seconds outside of the window.