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

[Ernest Jones]

Your site, I expect folks to come to your side.

That's pretty weak.

[iacas]

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.

So what's your point, at this point? You're no longer debating the actual rules or the merits of this particular case. You're citing popularity, which has little in common, historically, with what's actually right.

And please don't think that's me trying to be rude. I just feel like you're no longer actually debating the case.

1) He took too long to stand there, so the time started.

2) He surpassed the ten seconds easily.

3) The Rules of Golf state that a ball hanging over the lip is at rest, so whether it appeared to be moving (at what, half a millimeter per second?) is irrelevant, per the rules .

That's my case. It hinges on "reasonable" but standing there is not reasonable. It was a delay, and there was no reason for it, because he had ten seconds to wait if he wanted to. So the 19 seconds (not counting the walking) that he took was, IMO, "unreasonable delay."

[rogolf]

The penalty for undue delay (Rule 6-7) is two strokes in stroke play.  Is that what you're suggesting?

[Fourputt]

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.

This is a stupid comment.  I argue with Erik all the time - just ask him.  And 95% of those millions wouldn't even know what the rule is.  Did you, prior to this discussion?  Most of them couldn't tell you how to find the rules of golf on the internet.

The whole point of having the rule is to set a time limit on how long a player can reasonably wait after the ball is overhanging the hole.  That time was exceeded by more than 50% in this case, therefore the stroke should be assessed.

Even as far back as 1980 this rule, with a much less defined time limit, was already in existence to try and limit the delay that such a situation could cause.  From the 1980 Rules of Golf:

When any part of the ball overhangs the edge of the hole, the owner of the ball is not allowed more than a few seconds to determine whether it is at rest. If by then the ball has not fallen into the hole, it is deemed to be at rest.

[iacas]

The penalty for undue delay (Rule 6-7) is two strokes in stroke play.  Is that what you're suggesting?

I think it's been rather obvious that I'm citing rule 16-2. But just for you, I changed the words to "unreasonable" delay. Happy?

This is a stupid comment.  I argue with Erik all the time - just ask him.

I welcome debate and discussion. And nobody's ever scored several points by citing the popularity of something. It can be a factor, but it's most often a very, very small one, particularly regarding rules issues.

A "few seconds" is even less than 10.

[Dormie1360]

I don't know.  The rule doesn't say a delay is not allowed.  It says an "unreasonable" delay is not allowed.  I can not find anything that helps in defining "unreasonable".  So, I think it's certainly possible to have differing opinions/rulings, on this type of situation.

I don't think the Langley ruling was that cut and dry either way.  I can live with the ruling they made.

[iacas]

I don't know.  The rule doesn't say a delay is not allowed.  It says an "unreasonable" delay is not allowed.  I can not find anything that helps in defining "unreasonable".  So, I think it's certainly possible to have differing opinions/rulings, on this type of situation.

I don't think the Langley ruling was that cut and dry either way.  I can live with the ruling they made.

I don't think it was cut and dry either. I'm still not 100% certain I'd penalize, but I'm still leaning that way 65/35 or so.

If the Rules are going to say ten seconds, they perhaps they should clarify and say ten seconds total from the time the ball reaches the hole, plus the time to walk to the hole at a reasonable pace. That would have given Scott in this situation about 13 seconds… or 12 fewer than he used.

[BENtSwing]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunther

Your site, I expect folks to come to your side.

That's pretty weak.

That was pretty weak @Gunther ...I'd say most of us don't hesitate to disagree with @iacas if we differ in opinion. There aren't many that suck up to the owners of this site...those that do, we all cringe at lol.

Back on topic, what would be the reason(s) that the officials would let this penalty/missed stroke slide if he indeed violated a rule?

[Golfingdad]

That was pretty weak @Gunther ...I'd say most of us don't hesitate to disagree with @iacas if we differ in opinion. There aren't many that suck up to the owners of this site...those that do, we all cringe at lol.  Back on topic, what would be the reason(s) that the officials would let this penalty/missed stroke slide if he indeed violated a rule?

They wouldn't unless they were incompetent. In this case, though, it's as dormie says I think - not cut and dried, basically a grey area. If they're not 100% that it should be a penalty, then they kinda hafta leave it alone.

[Rulesman]

Another forum populated primarily by experienced referees (paid and unpaid) has had no comments at all.

However, an interesting comment from a different forum.

When I was at the R&A; Referee's School at St Andrews in February, there was a practical demonstration of this issue presented by Grant Moir, Director, Rules of Golf, R&A; and Andy McFee, European Tour Chief Referee. They were both very generous about how much time a player should be allowed to delay arriving at the hole through "acting up" - dropping the putter, falling to his knees, and other such histrionics. When the video that they used was shown to our group, everyone felt that the player had delayed too long and that the ten second count should have started sooner. Having been instructed that day on how to officiate in the situation, I am not surprised that Slugger deemed it OK. It all comes down to what at the highest level is considered to be "enough time to reach the hole without unreasonable delay".

[Gunther]

So what's your point, at this point? You're no longer debating the actual rules or the merits of this particular case. You're citing popularity, which has little in common, historically, with what's actually right. And please don't think that's me trying to be rude. I just feel like you're no longer actually debating the case. 1) He took too long to stand there, so the time started. 2) He surpassed the ten seconds easily. 3) The Rules of Golf state that a ball hanging over the lip is at rest, so whether it appeared to be moving (at what, half a millimeter per second?) is irrelevant, per the rules . That's my case. It hinges on "reasonable" but standing there is not reasonable. It was a delay, and there was no reason for it, because he had ten seconds to wait if he wanted to. So the 19 seconds (not counting the walking) that he took was, IMO, "unreasonable delay."

Thought I made my point earlier, guess I didn't need to argue the peripherals that you brought up, which really were irrelevant to the core argument. The term reasonable is subjective. The RO believed Langley's delay in moving towards the ball was reasonable due to the circumstances, I.e., ball continued to oscillate. No uproar or even minor controversy among pro's or media there or in the media afterward. Therefore, it was the proper call IMO. And don't worry about being rude to me, I'm pretty tough. ;)

[iacas]

No uproar or even minor controversy among pro's or media there or in the media afterward. Therefore, it was the proper call IMO.

The lack of outroar plays no part in whether it was correct or not, just the same as the uproar over Tiger getting help moving the boulder received an outroar (and was wrong). @Rulesman , that's disappointing to read.

[Gunther]

The lack of outroar plays no part in whether it was correct or not, just the same as the uproar over Tiger getting help moving the boulder received an outroar (and was wrong). @Rulesman , that's disappointing to read.

Mmm, you use the results of an unscientific website poll to support your argument and I use overall media response to support mine. Not sure I see the difference there.

[iacas]

Mmm, you use the results of an unscientific website poll to support your argument and I use overall media response to support mine. Not sure I see the difference there.

I used the results to show disagreement, not as evidence of what was "right." Me: "Reasonable is subjective. But I think many would have penalized. The poll attests to that."

[Rulesman]

@Rulesman, that's disappointing to read.

What specifically was disappointing, the lack of comments on one forum or the specific advice given by at the rules school?

If the former, presumably the subjective opinion of others is that the RO made a not unreasonable decision in the circumstances as seen by them. People who disagreed are the only ones likely to make any sort of fuss. Apart from the defined 10 seconds, the rest is the experienced subjective assessment of the situation made by the man on the spot.

If the latter, I can't comment because I don't know what was actually said or demonstrated.

[iacas]

The latter. This appears to be an area of the rules that can be clarified. Why have a hard "ten seconds" right alongside "reasonable"?

[Gunther]

I used the results to show disagreement, not as evidence of what was "right." Me: "Reasonable is subjective. But I think many would have penalized. The poll attests to that."

Lol. Fair enough but I'm gonna go ahead and believe I won this round, if it's all the same to you. ;)

[saevel25]

Lol. Fair enough but I'm gonna go ahead and believe I won this round, if it's all the same to you. ;)

Not really because there is nothing to win. This is purely a philosophical debate that can't be won because it is based on a rule that has to be interpreted due to its ambiguous nature. That a lone makes this impossible to win on either side. Some are going to say he waited too long, some are going to say he didn't.