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

[iacas]

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.

I think the winky indicated that he was being facetious… ;-)

[saevel25]

[QUOTE name="iacas" url="/t/75113/scott-langleys-25-second-putt-at-the-memorial-add-a-stroke-or-not/72#post_1002505"] I think the winky indicated that he was being facetious… ;-) [/QUOTE] He needs to use the actual ICON smiley face for me to notice it :whistle: Ooops!!

[Gunther]

He needs to use the actual ICON smiley face for me to notice it :whistle: Ooops!!

Good point but I mostly use the Android app and I've yet to find those emoticons. Can I not use them from this platform or am I missing them somewhere? A bit off topic but I'd appreciate a little guidance

[saevel25]

Good point but I mostly use the Android app and I've yet to find those emoticons. Can I not use them from this platform or am I missing them somewhere? A bit off topic but I'd appreciate a little guidance

Not really guidance, more of my mistake.

[CarlSpackler]

The latter.

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

The way I read it, the word reasonable addresses the time it takes to walk to the ball, but the ten seconds addresses how long a player can stand over a ball and wait for it to fall in. The "penalize him" crowd is considering the time he stood in the place he putted to be 10 seconds, but I don't start the countdown clock until after he stops. The conversation also troubles me. If Langley had a question about how to play this, is he reasonably allowed to ask Bubba? Perhaps Bubba told him that the ball was still moving causing him to stop and respond. I don't know, but give him leeway. If he had walked to the hole and stood there over the ball for 10 seconds or more, then I would have nailed him to the wall.

[14ledo81]

I still maintain that he had already "arrived at the hole" when he hit the actual shot.  From his standpoint, he certainly could clearly see the hole and when the ball stopped moving.

Again, if some think he had not already "arrived at the hole", where would you draw the line?  3' putt?  5' putt?

[CarlSpackler]

I still maintain that he had already "arrived at the hole" when he hit the actual shot.  From his standpoint, he certainly could clearly see the hole and when the ball stopped moving.

Again, if some think he had not already "arrived at the hole", where would you draw the line?  3' putt?  5' putt?

I would say at a distance where the where the putter can make contact with the ball. JMO.

[14ledo81]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 14ledo81

I still maintain that he had already "arrived at the hole" when he hit the actual shot.  From his standpoint, he certainly could clearly see the hole and when the ball stopped moving.

Again, if some think he had not already "arrived at the hole", where would you draw the line?  3' putt?  5' putt?

I would say at a distance where the where the putter can make contact with the ball. JMO.

Good point.  I was thinking more on the lines of being able to see the proximity of the ball to the hole, and whether or not the ball is moving.

[iacas]

The way I read it, the word reasonable addresses the time it takes to walk to the ball, but the ten seconds addresses how long a player can stand over a ball and wait for it to fall in. The "penalize him" crowd is considering the time he stood in the place he putted to be 10 seconds, but I don't start the countdown clock until after he stops. The conversation also troubles me. If Langley had a question about how to play this, is he reasonably allowed to ask Bubba? Perhaps Bubba told him that the ball was still moving causing him to stop and respond. I don't know, but give him leeway. If he had walked to the hole and stood there over the ball for 10 seconds or more, then I would have nailed him to the wall.

"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."

To be pedantic about it, it doesn't specify where and when the ten seconds counts - you could "spend" part of your ten seconds before you walk to the hole. You can't just stand there for six minutes, walk toward the hole, and start counting your ten seconds then.

I do not think he proceeded without an unreasonable delay, so I count a portion of the ten seconds he stood there looking at the ball and not moving toward the ten seconds, and then all of the nine seconds before he tapped in after he'd (slowly) walked toward the hole (via an unnecessary arc).

[rehmwa]

Is that walking slowly

- a 'slow walk' Billy Horschel style?  (twitch once while simultaneously sprinting to the ball)

- or a 'slow walk' Jim Furyk style? (twitch three times while restarting the walk four times)

- or a 'slow walk' young fatty Stadler style?  (walk 10 feet, take a breather from the oxygen tank, rest for a bit, eat a sandwich, walk the rest of the way)

the difference could be as much as a minute for a 20 foot putt......

Pretty much at this point the only exceptions I'm taking is when people say ("CLEARLY" it's.......)  apparently it's not.

[boogielicious]

Langley's walk reminds me of this Far Side comic.

There has been discussion about oscillation being movement.  Well let's take it to the extreme.  What if it was really windy that day?  The ball comes to rest on the edge of the cup, but the wind keeps moving it slightly.  Does the player get to wait an indefinite amount of time?  No. The rule clearly states 10 seconds as the only objective measurement.  Everything else is subjective.

[CarlSpackler]

It says "without reasonable delay" and so standing there for ten seconds, then walking slowly (and not even directly toward the hole) is not "without reasonable delay."

"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."

To be pedantic about it, it also doesn't specify where the ten seconds counts - you could split it and "spend" part of it before you walk to the hole. You can't just stand there for six minutes, walk toward the hole, and start counting your ten seconds then.

That would clearly be an unreasonable time to walk to the hole which would certainly be a penalty. A player is entitled a reasonable time (subjective) AND 10 seconds to determine if his ball is "at rest". What the rule doesn't state is what happens if the player decides the ball is not "at rest" which is what they were trying to figure out. Fortunately for Langley, the ball dropped in and it didn't require a series of massive C4 explosions.

[saevel25]

Honestly I rather see the rule changed to say, The ball is on the lip, count to 15 seconds, after that its considered to not have been a holed putt. That would take out the uncertainty of what is reasonable time.

[jamo]

Honestly I rather see the rule changed to say, The ball is on the lip, count to 15 seconds, after that its considered to not have been a holed putt. That would take out the uncertainty of what is reasonable time.

"Ten seconds" is right in the rule. Are you just saying you want the "reasonable time" removed to clarify it?

[iacas]

That would clearly be an unreasonable time to walk to the hole which would certainly be a penalty.

Reminds me of the old joke.

Guy asks a woman if she'd sleep with him for ten million dollars. She says yes. Guy then asks if she'd sleep with him for a hundred dollars. She says "I'm not a prostitute." Guy says "Sure you are, you already agreed to sleep with me for money, now we're just haggling over the price."

Your definition of "reasonable" is different than mine. That's all.

I'll take a different tactic. Let's agree that he took "a reasonable amount of time to get to the hole." I'm still not including the time he stood there, making no attempt to get to the hole, and am counting that toward his ten-second allotment.

A player is entitled a reasonable time (subjective) AND 10 seconds to determine if his ball is "at rest".

Actually, the rule deems the ball to be at rest, it's not up to the player to determine it.

And the use of "and" is not the same. Let's say you get five seconds to walk to the ball. 5 and 10 is 15. It doesn't say you get unlimited time before, then 5, then 10.

What the rule doesn't state is what happens if the player decides the ball is not "at rest" which is what they were trying to figure out. Fortunately for Langley, the ball dropped in and it didn't require a series of massive C4 explosions.

It doesn't need to. The rule says the ball is at rest if the player takes the reasonable amount of time plus the additional ten seconds.

"Ten seconds" is right in the rule. Are you just saying you want the "reasonable time" removed to clarify it?

That's how I took it. Or keep the ten seconds and remove the "reasonable amount of time to approach the hole." (On phone so that is likely not the precise language).

[saevel25]

"Ten seconds" is right in the rule. Are you just saying you want the "reasonable time" removed to clarify it?

Pretty much. I would say once the ball looks like its hanging on the lip, you get 15 seconds. If you want to walk to the hole, go at it, but once that 15 seconds is up the putt is deemed to not have been holed, even if it then proceeds to fall in.

So in the OT's video, it would be pretty much when the guy reacts to the putt not going in.

[Golfingdad]

Pretty much at this point the only exceptions I'm taking is when people say ("CLEARLY" it's.......)  apparently it's not.

That would clearly be an unreasonable time to walk to the hole which would certainly be a penalty.

Hehe!

Would agree, btw, that there is no definition out there of what "reasonable" means.  We're making assumptions.  I've never actually seen this happen before, and all other times when a ball stops on the lip the reaction is always "How can that ball stop there?!  I can't believe it!"  And then the guy half-jokingly waits a couple of seconds hoping for it to fall and it never does, so he taps it in.  This is the first time that I've seen it actually fall in and now all I can think of is "Why does a guy who hits it to that point from 12 feet not 'deserve' to have it count, but a guy who hits it from 40 or 50 feet does deserve it to count?"

Because of that, I think I'm now glad that they didn't penalize him, and I'm glad that it sounds like they are really lenient on enforcing this.

Guess I'm pretty wishy-washy here, eh?  Sorry about that.

[MEfree]

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?

So what is the difference between "undue" delay and "unreasonable" delay?  Is there anything in the rules that says 6-7 and 16-2 can't both apply?

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".

This definitely helps explain why they didn't penalize.  It would be helpful if they had some decision in the rules book so that everyone would have the chance to see what is deemed reasonable vs unreasonable.

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

I fully agree there could be more clarification but

Pretty much. I would say once the ball looks like its hanging on the lip, you get 15 seconds. If you want to walk to the hole, go at it, but once that 15 seconds is up the putt is deemed to not have been holed, even if it then proceeds to fall in.

So in the OT's video, it would be pretty much when the guy reacts to the putt not going in.

having a hard, say 15 seconds, might not work in all situations.  Say you hit a shot from the fairway that is overhanging the hole.  It might even be a situation where you can't even see the ball and not be aware that the ball actually took 20+ seconds to fall.  Would you have to add one stroke if TV cameras showed it hanging 20 seconds before falling?