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

[CarlSpackler]

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.

My "clearly" was in regards to the suggestion that a player could stand as long as he wanted from where they putted the ball. THAT would clearly violate "reasonable time" to me.

I don't think anything about this situation is clear. We've been bantering for quite a while and this poor guy had 10 seconds and a short walk to figure it out. If there had been a referee counting time as in a basketball game where a player has 10 seconds to get across half court, he probably would have moved quicker or known when the clock started. He had to figure this out on the fly. Even Feherty was confused about what to do and he yacks about golf for a living. I'm just cutting the guy some slack based on the situation.

@iacas - As you said, there is a difference in our thinking on reasonable. I don't count the time before he started walking and you do. I also give him leeway if Bubba distracted him by saying that his ball was still moving.

Wait. Did you just called me a prostitute.

[Golfingdad]

My "clearly" was in regards to the suggestion that a player could stand as long as he wanted from where they putted the ball. THAT would clearly violate "reasonable time" to me.

That's fine.  I was in no way picking on you, just laughing at the proximity of the two posts.

[MEfree]

It seems clear to me that different people interpret "unreasonable" differently.  Given that Tour Players routinely call in for rulings whenever they are uncertain of a rule, would it have been reasonable for Langley to ask for a ruling to find out how long he could take to get to his ball? My point being, some clarification would be nice.

[Rulesman]

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.

You hit the ball 160 yards to the hole. Will 15 seconds get you to it?

How close do you have to be to tell whether it is overlapping the edge or not?

If it is 1/4" away the rule does not apply.

So if he takes 30 seconds and the ball is overlapping he gets penalised, if it isn't he doesn't.

Reasonable or unreasonable?

[CarlSpackler]

That's fine.  I was in no way picking on you, just laughing at the proximity of the two posts.

No worries. I certainly don't mind getting picked on either.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

@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.

I had the same situation explained in a USGA/PGA of America Rules Workshop, and it was made very clear that "reasonable" meant that the player walked more or less directly to the hole, was then allowed a wait of 10 seconds, and if the ball was still overhanging the hole, it was at rest by rule.  There was no quibble in the explanation I received.  There was no allowance for waiting 9 seconds before approaching the hole, and then waiting still another 8 or 9 seconds after reaching the hole.  For that reason, I would still penalize.

[Gunther]

I had the same situation explained in a USGA/PGA of America Rules Workshop, and it was made very clear that "reasonable" meant that the player walked more or less directly to the hole, was then allowed a wait of 10 seconds, and if the ball was still overhanging the hole, it was at rest by rule.  There was no quibble in the explanation I received.  There was no allowance for waiting 9 seconds before approaching the hole, and then waiting still another 8 or 9 seconds after reaching the hole.  For that reason, I would still penalize.

Evidently, Slugger White missed that particular clinic. ;)

[Rulesman]

Incidentally, I think the point about 6-7 above is relevant.

There is no penalty in 16-2 for delay but it's applied via 6-7.

The penalty in 16-2 is only in lieu of the stroke he should/would have taken.

[saevel25]

You hit the ball 160 yards to the hole. Will 15 seconds get you to it?

How close do you have to be to tell whether it is overlapping the edge or not?

If it is 1/4" away the rule does not apply.

So if he takes 30 seconds and the ball is overlapping he gets penalised, if it isn't he doesn't.

Reasonable or unreasonable?

Yea I get that, I was just trying to figure a way to make the ambiguity of that rule minimized.

[Golfingdad]

Incidentally, I think the point about 6-7 above is relevant.

There is no penalty in 16-2 for delay but it's applied via 6-7.

The penalty in 16-2 is only in lieu of the stroke he should/would have taken.

6-7 would only come into play if he went over 40 seconds (or is it 30?) after he reached the ball AND if the group already happened to be on the clock, no??

It wasn't even 30 seconds from the point he hit the previous shot.  Don't think that is relevant here at all.

[rehmwa]

"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?"

since the comfy walk from 40-50 feet would take more time, wouldn't it?  three scenarios

10 feet - walk up and tap it in....... total elapsed time......10 seconds

10 feet - hesitate for 9 seconds then walk up and it falls in before address.......total elapsed time - 18 seconds

40 feet - walk up and 5 feet from the hole it falls in......total elapsed time........18 seconds

scenario 1 guy - he trying to keep the pace up and play by what he considers the rules to be gets an extra stroke

vs scenario 2, he should be upset at the other guy for dawdling

vs scenario 3, he should be upset at the rule as the other guy didn't do anything wrong

to be consistent - I guess if it sat for more than 10 seconds, and then fell in, scenario 3 guy should still have to add a stroke then?

funny stuff, golf rules.  learning a bit here again

Originally Posted by MEFree Given that Tour Players routinely call in for rulings whenever they are uncertain of a rule, would it have been reasonable for Langley to ask for a ruling to find out how long he could take to get to his ball?  My point being, some clarification would be nice.

This is even better - Call for a rules official to come over.  That'll stop the start of the clock...  Or at least take more than 10 seconds for sure.  Best stalling tactic ever.

[CarlSpackler]

Quote:

I had the same situation explained in a USGA/PGA of America Rules Workshop, and it was made very clear that "reasonable" meant that the player walked more or less directly to the hole, was then allowed a wait of 10 seconds, and if the ball was still overhanging the hole, it was at rest by rule.  There was no quibble in the explanation I received.  There was no allowance for waiting 9 seconds before approaching the hole, and then waiting still another 8 or 9 seconds after reaching the hole.  For that reason, I would still penalize.

If he took his 10 seconds before he started walking instead of walking and then waiting, and Bubba said something to the effect of "Your ball is still moving.", how does that factor in?

[Ernest Jones]

Quote:

If he took his 10 seconds before he started walking instead of walking and then waiting, and Bubba said something to the effect of "Your ball is still moving.", how does that factor in?

That's where it gets to be a tough call. If I had watched it with no sound I'd penalize with no question, but his playing competitors and Feherty both said the ball was still moving. I think that, under the circumstances, the correct call was made or the correct-est call in any case...

[Golfingdad]

If he took his 10 seconds before he started walking instead of walking and then waiting, and Bubba said something to the effect of "Your ball is still moving.", how does that factor in?

That's where it gets to be a tough call. If I had watched it with no sound I'd penalize with no question, but his playing competitors and Feherty both said the ball was still moving. I think that, under the circumstances, the correct call was made or the correct-est call in any case...

No offense meant, but you guys are giving me nightmares back to the last experience I had with Jury Duty.

Whether or not it was actually moving doesn't have anything to do with the ruling.  The rule says that once it's overhanging the lip of the hole, which it pretty much appears to be doing the second it "stops," then once 10 seconds elapses, it is, BY DEFINITION, not moving.  It is defined to be "at rest."

That is the one part about this issue that is very clear.  The debatable part is what is meant by "unreasonable" in regards to Langley's actions.  Nothing about the action of the ball comes into play here.

[CarlSpackler]

No offense meant, but you guys are giving me nightmares back to the last experience I had with Jury Duty.

Whether or not it was actually moving doesn't have anything to do with the ruling.  The rule says that once it's overhanging the lip of the hole, which it pretty much appears to be doing the second it "stops," then once 10 seconds elapses, it is, BY DEFINITION, not moving.  It is defined to be "at rest."

That is the one part about this issue that is very clear.  The debatable part is what is meant by "unreasonable" in regards to Langley's actions.  Nothing about the action of the ball comes into play here.

My issue is with him stopping because Bubba said something to him. I'm not 100% sure that is the case, but wondering if that comes into play. In other words, if my opponent has a ball hanging on the lip and I engage him in a conversation that makes the time run over 10s, can I then say, sorry, you took longer than 10s so you get penalized.

Sorry. Momma always thought I would be a lawyer.

[Gunther]

My thought about the ball continuing to oscillate is that it gave the ruling official an opportunity to use it as justification for his ultimate decision around whether Langley took a reasonable amount of time to approach the ball, i.e., Langley hesitated because the ball continued to oscillate. I agree that it doesn't come into play strictly speaking within the rule but I do believe that the ball's prolonged movement was factor in this case and in the decision.

[Rulesman]

6-7 would only come into play if he went over 40 seconds (or is it 30?) after he reached the ball AND if the group already happened to be on the clock, no??

It wasn't even 30 seconds from the point he hit the previous shot.  Don't think that is relevant here at all.

6-7 is independent of any Pace of Play Condition of Competition which may or may not have been specified by the committee. It stands on its own.

The figures you quote are simply typical of PoP CoCs used in high level competitions if a player is 'on the clock'.

Rule 6-7

The player must play without undue delay and in accordance with any pace of play guidelines that the Committee may establish.

Note 2: For the purpose of preventing slow play, the Committee may, in the conditions of a competition (Rule 33-1 ), establish pace of play guidelines including maximum periods of time allowed to complete a stipulated round , a hole or a stroke .

[MEfree]

Incidentally, I think the point about 6-7 above is relevant.

There is no penalty in 16-2 for delay but it's applied via 6-7.

The penalty in 16-2 is only in lieu of the stroke he should/would have taken.

So, assuming that a player violated 16-2 by taking an unreasonable length of time, do you think they are subject to a penalty under 6-7 for playing without undue delay?  For purposes of this thread, should those voting to assess Langley a penalty under 16-2 also give him another 2 shots under 6-7?