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

[billchao]

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

Sorry @Fourputt , I didn't quote you to say that you were wrong or you missed something. I quoted you because we're all talking about how he walked "to the ball," when in fact, he did no such thing. I was just trying to take your argument one step further.

[isukgolf]

Not that my opinion matters ... but I have to go with what is appearing real time with both the players as the event unfolds ...  and it looks like they  believed it to still be moving ... to the naked eye (theirs in this case)

maybe a another ruling is forthcoming, similar to the the ball oscillating at rest ... I believe rule 18-4 ...

[CarlSpackler]

I went with no added stroke. In watching the ball, it appears to move, twice actually, in the initial 10 seconds and then again as he is walking towards it at which point he stops and asks Bubba who also appears to be watching it closely. If he had not been consulting Bubba and just watching and waiting, then I would go with adding a stroke, but I believe he was reasonably trying to determine if the ball was still moving. I suppose the defining question is, does the clock reset if the ball oscillates towards the hole?

[Gunther]

I too, vote with the Rules Official, who did not deem the time to reach the ball as unreasonable, no added stroke.

[anthony]

Add a stroke for sure. It's clearly a breach of the rules. If he walked right up to it, and it fell in at the last second, I would say don't add a stroke. But, that big loop around the hole was clearly some sort of stalling technique. Not that I can blame the guy.

[14ledo81]

I would say from the spot he putted, he had already "reached the hole".  He was easily close enough to see the ball and the hole from his original location.  Clock should/could have started right away.

How far away would he have to be to say he needed to walk to "reach the hole".  If it was a 2' putt, he obviously would not need to walk anywhere.  Where do we draw that line??

[bubble]

Quote:

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.

Have'nt read the rule in english but for me it says :

- reasonable time to reach the ball. (example : you play first from the fairway you will wait for others to play you wont be required to rush to the green, on the green you still are required to walk around others lines etc)

- then 10 seconds to determin if the ball is at rest.

the ball is not at rest from what is observed and said, threfore the 10 seconds never start.

anyway you can count 9 seconds from the point he gets to the ball, the thing is in live action nobody's couting  with utube. nothing is perfect.

[iacas]

Have'nt read the rule in english but for me it says : - reasonable time to reach the ball. (example : you play first from the fairway you will wait for others to play you wont be required to rush to the green, on the green you still are required to walk around others lines etc) - then 10 seconds to determin [U]if the ball is at rest.[/U] the ball is not at rest from what is observed and said, threfore the 10 seconds never start. anyway you can count 9 seconds from the point he gets to the ball, the thing is in live action nobody's couting  with utube. nothing is perfect.

He doesn't get to stand there for ten seconds before walking to his ball.

[BENtSwing]

So, are situations like these reviewed sometime during or after the round by the officials? Obviously there is no guy with a stopwatch that comes running out right after the ball stops (or didn't stop)....so, how does that work?

It seemed like both players watching the ball were aware of the rule(s) and they either saw the ball slightly moving, or pretended to lol...so I voted 'no penalty stroke' but I'm not at all sure one way or the other.

[Gunther]

He doesn't get to stand there for ten seconds before walking to his ball.

Actually, he does, deemed so by the rules official after the round. Probably for 2 reasons: the term reasonable is subjective and in this case the official thought it reasonable perhaps because the ball was oscillating. Or 2, because the ball was in fact, still moving. Either way, it was reviewed and no penalty was assessed

[iacas]

Actually, he does, deemed so by the rules official after the round.

He does not. That time counts. The rule is fairly clear and do not mention a ball still moving. I disagree with the RO. Politics are at play. Reasonable is subjective. But I think many would have penalized. The poll attests to that.

[Rulesman]

Reasonable is subjective. But I think many would have penalized. The poll attests to that.

What proportion of those polled are qualified referees?

[iacas]

What proportion of those polled are qualified referees?

That's not particularly relevant, but at least two of the "penalty" votes are by qualified referees. Everyone will have a different definition of "reasonable" in this case. As I said, politics played a role in the Tour official. And they are paid by the players.

[Gunther]

He does not. That time counts. The rule is fairly clear and do not mention a ball still moving. I disagree with the RO. Politics are at play. Reasonable is subjective. But I think many would have penalized. The poll attests to that.

Couple things: 1. Don't believe politics were involved with Scott Langley being the guy involved and the championship not hinging on the decision. Tiger or Phil? You probably have a point. 2. I think the poll counters your argument quite strongly, 63-36 is a landslide for the ruling as it was made.

[Golfingdad]

2. I think the poll counters your argument quite strongly, 63-36 is a landslide for the ruling as it was made.

Not really.  He said "reasonable is subjective" and "many would have penalized."  8 out of 22 is not a majority, but it certainly falls in line with "many" in that context.  i.e., it's not a "landslide" in favor of no penalty.

And I said I'd vote he deserves a penalty (although I can appreciate what @Spyder 't yet ... so make that 9 out of 23.

[Gunther]

Fair enough but in polling or elections, 60+% is a very strong majority; one might reasonably classify it landslide.

[iacas]

Fair enough but in polling or elections, 60+% is a very strong majority; one might reasonably classify it landslide.

When you poll millions, sure. Thus far you're talking about a five-vote lead.

Errr, four votes now. Someone voted while I was writing?

[Gunther]

Your site, I expect folks to come to your side. Fact remains, there's been virtually no discussion of this outside of this site of which I'm aware so my guess is if we were to poll millions, we'd probably be looking at 75 to 80% siding with the ruling as it was made.