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

[Dormie1360]

7, I mean 8 pages on this, ouch.

Rule 16-2 allows the player time to reach the hole without unreasonable delay.  This amount is subjective and varies on circumstances.

An additional 10 seconds to determine if the ball is at rest.  (This amount of time is fixed.)

An official making a ruling would have to determine what is "enough time to reach the hole without unreasonable delay" in the circumstances, and then add the static 10 seconds to the time.  At the point (whether the player himself has reached the hole or not,) if the ball has not fallen into the hole, it is deemed to be at rest and the rest of R16-2 would be applied.

The issue with Langley is at what point, in his circumstances, did the official think he should have been at the hole, then adding 10 seconds.

I hope this helps everyone.

[iacas]

He delayed an unreasonable amount IMO. I don't know how to make that any simpler. For that reason I'd apply the ten seconds both before and after. It's a blurry line but that is how I'd apply it. I'm not changing your opinions nor you mine.

[CarlSpackler]

Dang my lip is getting sore from biting it so much.

[Dormie1360]

He delayed an unreasonable amount IMO.

I don't know how to make that any simpler. For that reason I'd apply the ten seconds both before and after. It's a blurry line but that is how I'd apply it.

I'm not changing your opinions nor you mine.

Wasn't trying to argue with your opinion......I think the Langley issue could have easily gone either way.

I'm just explaining the rule and when the 10 seconds starts.  There seems to be some confusion on this.

[CarlSpackler]

I think we should start a pool on how long this thread will go on. ;-)

[Rulesman]

Advice (not a formal ruling) from the R&A; is a that if the player arrives at the hole within a relatively reasonable time, then the 10 sec clock starts then.

If he takes an unreasonable time, the referee would start the 10 sec clock when he would have been expected to arrive (given a bit of leeway).

There would be no penalty under 6-7. If the ball did not fall in before the clock stopped, the player would in effect pay the penalty of having to make the stroke or the penalty stroke applied if it fell in later.

Note, significant stress was placed on the subjective view of the referee taking into account all the circumstances.

[iacas]

If he takes an unreasonable time, the referee would start the 10 sec clock when he would have been expected to arrive (given a bit of leeway).

Which is another way of saying what I said - that time on both sides of the walk can be considered.

[Dormie1360]

Advice (not a formal ruling) from the R&A; is a that if the player arrives at the hole within a relatively reasonable time, then the 10 sec clock starts then. If he takes an unreasonable time, the referee would start the 10 sec clock when he would have been expected to arrive (given a bit of leeway).

This is the same as I was told from the USGA.

[Fourputt]

So, after all of this, the answer to the original question is still, it depends on the official, and whether he considers the time Langley spent waiting before starting to approach the hole as being unreasonable.  Some of us do and some don't.  I might actually give slightly more latitude to a longer putt, but in this case he was only 10 feet from the hole to start with, so nearly 25 seconds from the time that the ball apparently stopped seems excessive to me.

A lot of players might have actually started toward the hole before the putt stopped rolling - we've all seen the victory walk - then stopped in shock 3 feet away when the ball didn't fall into the hole.  Are we more likely to penalize them for taking the same amount of time as Langley did, simply because instead of standing around twiddling their thumbs for 9 seconds, they did the entire wait at the hole?  There has to be some sort of equity applied in these rulings which involve the term "reasonable".

[CarlSpackler]

So, after all of this, the answer to the original question is still, it depends on the official, and whether he considers the time Langley spent waiting before starting to approach the hole as being unreasonable.  Some of us do and some don't.  I might actually give slightly more latitude to a longer putt, but in this case he was only 10 feet from the hole to start with, so nearly 25 seconds from the time that the ball apparently stopped seems excessive to me.

A lot of players might have actually started toward the hole before the putt stopped rolling - we've all seen the victory walk - then stopped in shock 3 feet away when the ball didn't fall into the hole.  Are we more likely to penalize them for taking the same amount of time as Langley did, simply because instead of standing around twiddling their thumbs for 9 seconds, they did the entire wait at the hole?  There has to be some sort of equity applied in these rulings which involve the term "reasonable".

Well said.

[rehmwa]

Much better

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golf-central-blog/video-everys-putt-stops-then-drops-16th/

[ejimsmith]

This doesn't bother me.  The ball fell in, and it all seemed reasonable to me.

I follow the rules, but I'm not a Nazi about it.

[iacas]

I follow the rules, but I'm not a Nazi about it.

[ev780]

Help me here.  David Feherty says that he ball was still moving.  Bubba was right there watching and it appears that he concurred.  So it was a legal putt as I see it.  Otherwise it is on Bubba to protect the field.  He didn't so it is done and legal.

What am I missing?

[Spyder]

This doesn't bother me.  The ball fell in, and it all seemed reasonable to me.

I follow the rules, but I'm not a Nazi about it.

I follow the rules of poker too, but I'm no stickler. I mean, if you deal me a third card in hold'em, it's your problem and we can just let it ride.

Just busting your chops a bit. I too am glad that a penalty was not assessed and I like the no call, call.