Is This a Hole in One?

[Indy-Archer]

On 3/21/2019 at 9:33 AM, RustUK said:

I think it's a bit clearer in this shot from the video I took and hopefully I think part of the ball is below the surface.

I'm not near the expert that many of you are, and perhaps I'm simply being obtuse (sure wouldn't be a first!), but simply thinking geometrically here. If the rule states that if any part of the ball drops beneath the plane of the ground, then the ball is considered 'holed', and the ball is clearly more than halfway over the hole, and with a truly spherical and equally weighted object, if any more than half of the sphere extends over the hole, then doesn't part of the ball be definition HAVE to be beneath the plane of the ground around the hole? Even if it's imperceptible to the human eye, I don't see how it's possible for what appears to be 2/3 of the ball to be over the hole, but the ball still doesn't break the plane of the ground around it. It would seem to defy physics? 

[boogielicious]

9 minutes ago, RustUK said:

Unfortunately I ended up with the worst of both worlds 😂  We thought it was a hole in one, so I paid for a round of drinks in the club house.  I then had this nagging doubt that it might not count, hence the post on this forum.  So huge bar bill and no hole in one. 😂😂

When you get your real one next week, you've already paid for the round! 

[RustUK]

22 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

When you get your real one next week, you've already paid for the round! 

Funnily enough I nearly did it again on the same hole yesterday.  My shot was all over the flag in the air, but when I walked up the hill to the green, it was five feet past the hole.  Missed the birdie putt as well. 🙄

[rehmwa]

13 hours ago, billchao said:

A ball could be wedged between the flagstick and a rounded lip so the ball would be sitting below the putting surface had the hole been cleanly cut, but a depression on the lip is treated as part of the putting surface.

nailed it

On 3/21/2019 at 8:33 AM, RustUK said:

That really is a very trashed edge.

[Cantankerish]

On 3/25/2019 at 8:01 AM, Indy-Archer said:

I'm not near the expert that many of you are, and perhaps I'm simply being obtuse (sure wouldn't be a first!), but simply thinking geometrically here. If the rule states that if any part of the ball drops beneath the plane of the ground, then the ball is considered 'holed', and the ball is clearly more than halfway over the hole, and with a truly spherical and equally weighted object, if any more than half of the sphere extends over the hole, then doesn't part of the ball be definition HAVE to be beneath the plane of the ground around the hole? Even if it's imperceptible to the human eye, I don't see how it's possible for what appears to be 2/3 of the ball to be over the hole, but the ball still doesn't break the plane of the ground around it. It would seem to defy physics? 

You are entirely correct and not the first to make this observation.  I keep seeing some reference to the Rule, as if the capitalization makes it clear which rule gets to defy physics and geometry.

To be clear, the story is that a misshapen hole gets to do an end run around reason.  Of course, to subscribe to that line of thinking, you have to ignore the intent of the rules.  Any nine-year-old can look at that image and see that the ball is being prevented from falling only by the pin.  And the rules make note of that situation with the logical observation you make.  However in this case we have a gremlin preventing the rules from doing their job. There appears to be an imperfect lip on the edge the ball is on.  This lip is lower than the grass around it.  These guys who know for certainzies that this is not a holed ball have come to the conclusion that the depression that ball has fallen into is part of the horizontal putting surface and not part of the hole.  Since the ball is quite possibly not at any point below the bottom of that depression - which, remember is not part of the actual hole (that's right, a depression that is not a hole) - the ball is somehow more than half over the hole, and yet not at its lowest point below the plane of the putting surface, quite simply because the putting surface is no longer a plane.

I hope this helps.

 

[iacas]

26 minutes ago, Cantankerish said:

I keep seeing some reference to the Rule, as if the capitalization makes it clear which rule gets to defy physics and geometry.

The Rule is the rule of golf which defines whether a ball is holed in this instance. It's not complicated.

26 minutes ago, Cantankerish said:

Of course, to subscribe to that line of thinking, you have to ignore the intent of the rules.

That Rule has no intent. It simply defines when a ball is considered holed.

26 minutes ago, Cantankerish said:

quite simply because the putting surface is no longer a plane.

The putting surface is almost never a plane.

Once again, it's the corner at which the ball is sitting that determines the "below the level of the putting surface." Also as previously noted, even the far side of a hole might be higher or lower if it's cut into a slope.

[Cantankerish]

29 minutes ago, iacas said:

The Rule is the rule of golf which defines whether a ball is holed in this instance. It's not complicated.

All of your terse responses have left me trying to figure out what you are talking about.  It would not be complicated if you quoted the Rule instead of leaving the rest of to guess what it is your are talking about.  I have seen the small snippet from page one.  If there is more, I would very much like to see it, as we all would.  If there is not, then every one of your reference to the Rule are your interpretations of words and not the words themselves.  There are no references there to all of these variables you say are written in stone.  All words have intent.  There are no definitions without preconceived notions of the connotations of the words used in those definitions.  In this case, the circumstances would need a human being to reconcile the pertinent rules with the facts on the ground.  You would apparently like us to simply accept your interpretation as gospel with no room for dissenting opinions.

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, Cantankerish said:

All of your terse responses have left me trying to figure out what you are talking about.  It would not be complicated if you quoted the Rule instead of leaving the rest of to guess what it is your are talking about.

The Rule has been quoted several times, and you're free to look it up for yourself at any time.

3 minutes ago, Cantankerish said:

If there is not, then every one of your reference to the Rule are your interpretations of words and not the words themselves.

No, they're not. They're from the mouths of the guys who wrote the Rules.

3 minutes ago, Cantankerish said:

All words have intent.

Words do not have "intent" in this context, nor does the Rule about whether the ball is holed. It simply defines when one is and when one isn't.

---

Rule 13:

All I'm saying is that the "surface of the putting green" means the corner of the putting green at which the ball is sitting. That's how it was explained to me by the people who wrote the Rules of Golf.

"the surface of the putting green" does not mean the opposite lip of the putting green. It does not mean the highest point off the putting green. It means that corner of the putting green.

Imagine a ball sitting on the lip of the hole and a flagstick that leans over and pushes the ball into the ground a bit. It is not holed.

Nor, IMO, is the ball in the OP. I don't believe the center of the bottom of the ball is over the hole, and I don't really see the movement that they likely saw in person.

Had I seen the ball in person, I may "rule" differently, but given that I don't see the center of the ball over the lip of the hole, I don't believe it to be holed. I believe the center/bottom of the hole is sitting on grass.

And any tone you're reading into my posts is purely of your own creation.

[Cantankerish]

At what angle must an imperfection in the corner of the hole be considered to be not just a depression in the green, but rather the sidewall of the hole?  30 degrees?  70 degrees? 89 degrees?  Unless there is a rule for this, and players are expected to measure it themselves when the occasion arises, there simply must be interpretation.

Your interpretations are all over your "rule".  Even in your own post right above this one, you are telling us that it is your opinions at work.

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Nor, IMO, is the ball in the OP. I don't believe the center of the bottom of the ball is over the hole, and I don't really see the movement that they likely saw in person.

In our example, the ball is touching the green at more than one elevation.  So how do you know which elevation to consider when it is not even clear where the corner is?  You are expressing an opinion, an interpretation.  The Rule and the guys who wrote it are not making this call.  You are.

[billchao]

Alright, my Paint 3D skills are rudimentary, but hopefully this gets the point across:

Obviously not to scale, but notice how a ball on a rounded lip can be more than halfway over the edge of the hole and still not be in the hole. I think people forget to account for the change in angle on the rounded lip and how it affects the geometry.

[rehmwa]

THAT graphic looks familiar.  Nicely shown.  (this is the picture I see in the closeup picture that was posted)  Good course maintenance matters....and in your case, you'd draw that red line parallel to the ground from the point it touches, (I believe) as below the surface is defined on the point where the ball is.

This was the clarification I had to find (where the 'surface' is specifically defined - it changes if the edge of the hole is deformed vs if the edge is perfect)

Edited March 27, 2019 by rehmwa

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, Cantankerish said:

You are expressing an opinion, an interpretation.  The Rule and the guys who wrote it are not making this call.  You are.

Nope. I’m sharing what they told me at a recent event where this very topic was tossed to the group. I’m repeating what I was told.

I additionally do not believe the center of the ball is over air. I believe it’s resting on ground.

You seem to be arguing just to argue at this point. Which is fine, but get off your horse.

That flagstick is leaning A BUNCH.

P.S. And once again, were I there to observe it myself, I may come to the opposite conclusion - that some of the ball is below the lip. I’m only going by what I can see here. As are the folks I’ve consulted with.

[billchao]

8 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

THAT graphic looks familiar.  Nicely shown.  Good course maintence matters....and in your case, you'd draw that red line parallel to the ground, (I believe) as below the surface is defined on the point where the ball is.

Why would the red line be higher? It represents the imaginary plane of the putting green over the hole. The surface of the putting green is the rounded lip.It doesn't stop being the putting surface just because it's lower than it used to be.

My ball there is on the lip so it's on the putting surface. More than half of it is physically in space above the hole, yet no part of the ball is in the hole itself.

[Cantankerish]

Bill, I appreciate your graphic.  I think we all can agree about the physical circumstances, but you had to decide where to color black for sidewall of hole and green for putting surface.  I imagine you had not seen my previous post about making that decision.  How do any of us know at what point on the slope of that lip the green ends and the sidewall begins?  It is a matter of opinion.  Opinion. 

 

Edited March 27, 2019 by Cantankerish
No need to escalate

[billchao]

1 minute ago, Cantankerish said:

but you had to decide where to color black for sidewall of hole and green for putting surface

When you look at the side wall of a hole, you see dirt (or painted dirt) and grass, right? Grass is on top. That's the green line. Dirt is the side wall, which I drew in black.

6 minutes ago, Cantankerish said:

How do any of us know at what point on the slope of that lip the green ends and the sidewall begins?  It is a matter of opinion.  Opinion.

You can't look at a hole and define where the green ends and the side wall begins? The green is grassy and green, generally speaking. The side wall is the part that's below the surface, which would be the dirt and where the grass roots are. I didn't realize that was up for debate. When a lip is rounded, it adds some slope to the putting surface, but the lip is still part of the putting surface.

---

The point is more than one person has tried to argue the ball must be in the hole if more than half of it is over the hole but they're not getting the geometry quite right.

13 minutes ago, Cantankerish said:

By the way, Erik has been editing my posts for some reason.  I took screen shots.

They're off-topic and not productive to the discussion, like this statement I quoted is. I'm only quoting it and not removing it to make it a point to let you know it's time to stop with stuff like that.

[iacas]

@billchao with some good posts while I was teaching. The grass line is usually fairly clear.

[Vinsk]

I think the irk factor here is that the definition is clear yet in this case where the flagstick is clearly preventing the ball from being holed it’s being considered a screw job. Obviously if any part of the ball is below the hole the ball is considered holed. Why? Well because simple physics/gravity deem that true. But the same holds true for a ball that’s more than halfway over the edge unless some other force is preventing the ball from falling, in this case the flag. Screw job yes? 

However, this wouldn’t have happened had the flag been properly placed. So based on the rule which like @iacas mentioned isn’t complicated, it doesn’t meet the qualifications to be holed. The screwing isn’t from the rule, it’s from the flagstick. And you’re just as likely, probably more likely, to catch a break from a flagstick in your upcoming rounds. So no Ace, nice birdie. 

Edited March 28, 2019 by Vinsk

[rehmwa]

18 hours ago, billchao said:

Why would the red line be higher? It represents the imaginary plane of the putting green over the hole. The surface of the putting green is the rounded lip.It doesn't stop being the putting surface just because it's lower than it used to be.

My ball there is on the lip so it's on the putting surface. More than half of it is physically in space above the hole, yet no part of the ball is in the hole itself.

no - you read me wrong.  the surface of the green is where the red line intercepts at the ball side.  We are in agreement.  It's parallel to the ground at the point on the left.  (I said - at the point 'where the ball is').  I'm just saying the red line isn't an angle.  It only matters where the ball is.

Edited March 28, 2019 by rehmwa