Did Matsuyama get away with one ?

So at the Tour Championship on Thursday, Matsu left one hanging on the lip.

He did the usual raise of the head/why me ? thing before walking towards the hole. OK, no big deal as he doesn't have to start his walk immediately.

But he walks to the hole and as his last step, the one that would have put him at the hole he strides to the left instead. Presumably he takes another small step or 2 and watches his ball from there.

The ball falls in.

To me, he waited too long and I believe this youtube video shows exactly that. Episode starts around the 40 second mark if you can't wait. His step to the left, instead of right to the hole, is at at 58 seconds. Ball drops at 1:11.

What say you ?

[http://youtube.com/watch?v=GAaF5CCC6eY](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAaF5CCC6eY "http://youtube.com/watch?v=GAaF5CCC6eY")

I think you should call it in, but call DeChambeau first since I think he has a bone to pick with the stopwatch gang.

Nothing to see here.

My take, holed within 10 secs.

Looked legit. By my view it was 17 seconds between the ball leaving his club and it dropping and no rules broken.

Rules say you are allowed enough time to reach the hole without unreasonable delay and an additional 10 seconds to wait to see if it falls. By my count he doesn't delay getting the ball and the ball fell within 10 seconds.

Legal, but just. He stepped past the hole with that sideways movement near the hole and that is when I started my count. Ball dropped right on 10, so all good to my eyes. That said, I've never seen the 10 seconds limit applied rigourously in a big tournament at the 11 or 12 second mark - or even a bit later at times.

I think this is an absolutely horrible rule because of its inconsistency in application, driven particularly by the inconsistent duration of people making a move towards the hole. And RBs have legitimised bad behaviour by saying it is okay for people to be surprised and react slowly to the disappointment of the ball not dropping straightaway. Yet it is so easy to markedly narrow the scope of the current inconsistency by starting the clock as soon as the ball gets to the lip - my approach would be to say the clock time is 15 seconds and it starts when the ball is on the lip. Stop all the BS of players intentionally gaming the walk to the hole, and there is also no logical reason to give a longer time just because one putt is from 10 metres and another is from 3 metres. I'd apply this approach anytime the ball is played from on the putting green

Why have any timer at all? What is the reasoning? Delaying the game? How often this happens to warrant a debatable rule/ruling?

A worse timing situation is the 3-minute search. It begins when a player starts to search . . . which at times can be quite subjective (in a way, we all "start to search" the moment a ball leaves our sight, looking for position references or whatnot. Then we "kind of search" on our way to that location, then I'll acknowledge we "formally" begin our search -- but the moment that formalatiy begins is as subjective as anything in golf.

> @QEight said:

> Why have any timer at all? What is the reasoning? Delaying the game? How often this happens to warrant a debatable rule/ruling?

We have what we have. It has been there a long time. It is inequitable and inconsistent in application. It can be improved very easily.

And, yes, I have seen players standing there for minutes going "it's still moving, I'm not allowed to play a moving ball...".

they showed a replay of it shortly after with a timer on the screen and he was well within his time limit

I can't tell from the video posted in the OP, I can't see the golfer when it matters.

> @antip said:

> Legal, but just. He stepped past the hole with that sideways movement near the hole and that is when I started my count. Ball dropped right on 10, so all good to my eyes. That said, I've never seen the 10 seconds limit applied rigourously in a big tournament at the 11 or 12 second mark - or even a bit later at times.

> I think this is an absolutely horrible rule because of its inconsistency in application, driven particularly by the inconsistent duration of people making a move towards the hole. And RBs have legitimised bad behaviour by saying it is okay for people to be surprised and react slowly to the disappointment of the ball not dropping straightaway. Yet it is so easy to markedly narrow the scope of the current inconsistency by starting the clock as soon as the ball gets to the lip - my approach would be to say the clock time is 15 seconds and it starts when the ball is on the lip. Stop all the BS of players intentionally gaming the walk to the hole, and there is also no logical reason to give a longer time just because one putt is from 10 metres and another is from 3 metres. I'd apply this approach anytime the ball is played from on the putting green

This could work for balls on the green, but what about from the fringe, bunker, fairway, etc.

> @SkiSchoolPro said:

> > @antip said:

> > Legal, but just. He stepped past the hole with that sideways movement near the hole and that is when I started my count. Ball dropped right on 10, so all good to my eyes. That said, I've never seen the 10 seconds limit applied rigourously in a big tournament at the 11 or 12 second mark - or even a bit later at times.

> > I think this is an absolutely horrible rule because of its inconsistency in application, driven particularly by the inconsistent duration of people making a move towards the hole. And RBs have legitimised bad behaviour by saying it is okay for people to be surprised and react slowly to the disappointment of the ball not dropping straightaway. Yet it is so easy to markedly narrow the scope of the current inconsistency by starting the clock as soon as the ball gets to the lip - my approach would be to say the clock time is 15 seconds and it starts when the ball is on the lip. Stop all the BS of players intentionally gaming the walk to the hole, and there is also no logical reason to give a longer time just because one putt is from 10 metres and another is from 3 metres. I'd apply this approach anytime the ball is played from on the putting green

>

> This could work for balls on the green, but what about from the fringe, bunker, fairway, etc.

Status quo. You can't apply this sensibly for shots from off the green but you can remove some current ugliness in an entirely fair way with one simple putting green approach. There's a choice to be made based on deciding which is the bigger problem.

> @Sawgrass said:

> A worse timing situation is the 3-minute search. It begins when a player starts to search . . . which at times can be quite subjective (in a way, we all "start to search" the moment a ball leaves our sight, looking for position references or whatnot. Then we "kind of search" on our way to that location, then I'll acknowledge we "formally" begin our search -- but the moment that formalatiy begins is as subjective as anything in golf.

I would agree with that observation. Assume you are playing in a PGA Tour event and have hit a ball somewhere hard to find where you feel sure that finding the ball is going to present you with a better option than S&D, your best strategy is to get to the ball as slowly as possible giving the crowd and marshal's more time to find your ball.

Golf is like that at times.

dave

> @QEight said:

> Why have any timer at all? What is the reasoning? Delaying the game? How often this happens to warrant a debatable rule/ruling?

Arnold Palmer wrote a nice story of the birth of this Rule in his book Playing by the Rules. Although the story was not exactly how it went in real life it tells us why there must be a time limit.

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > @QEight said:

> > Why have any timer at all? What is the reasoning? Delaying the game? How often this happens to warrant a debatable rule/ruling?

>

> Arnold Palmer wrote a nice story of the birth of this Rule in his book Playing by the Rules. Although the story was not exactly how it went in real life it tells us why there must be a time limit.

Do you mind summarizing? I've never heard that anecdote.

> @Edaw68 said:

> > @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > > @QEight said:

> > > Why have any timer at all? What is the reasoning? Delaying the game? How often this happens to warrant a debatable rule/ruling?

> >

> > Arnold Palmer wrote a nice story of the birth of this Rule in his book Playing by the Rules. Although the story was not exactly how it went in real life it tells us why there must be a time limit.

>

> Do you mind summarizing? I've never heard that anecdote.

Well, AP wrote of an incident at Phoenix Open in 1963 where Don January waited for eight (8) minutes for his ball to fall into the hole from the lip. Don refused to play the ball into the hole because in his opinion it was still moving. In AP's story the ball finally fell in and Don said 'I told you it was moving'. Later I read from another source that the ball in fact did not fall in but Don in the end yielded to putt it out.

Nevertheless, this particular incident lead to publishing this Rule about 10 seconds in 1964.

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @Sawgrass said:

> > A worse timing situation is the 3-minute search. It begins when a player starts to search . . . which at times can be quite subjective (in a way, we all "start to search" the moment a ball leaves our sight, looking for position references or whatnot. Then we "kind of search" on our way to that location, then I'll acknowledge we "formally" begin our search -- but the moment that formalatiy begins is as subjective as anything in golf.

>

> I would agree with that observation. Assume you are playing in a PGA Tour event and have hit a ball somewhere hard to find where you feel sure that finding the ball is going to present you with a better option than S&D, your best strategy is to get to the ball as slowly as possible giving the crowd and marshal's more time to find your ball.

>

> Golf is like that at times.

>

> dave

I think there is a big difference in that the 10 seconds rule is amenable (and simply) to a fix that would significantly remove its current inconsistent and inequitable application. The ball search timing complexity, IMO, is a different beast entirely.

> @antip said:

> > @QEight said:

> > Why have any timer at all? What is the reasoning? Delaying the game? How often this happens to warrant a debatable rule/ruling?

>

> We have what we have. It has been there a long time. It is inequitable and inconsistent in application. It can be improved very easily.

>

How?

> @Newby said:

> > @antip said:

> > > @QEight said:

> > > Why have any timer at all? What is the reasoning? Delaying the game? How often this happens to warrant a debatable rule/ruling?

> >

> > We have what we have. It has been there a long time. It is inequitable and inconsistent in application. It can be improved very easily.

> >

> How?

>

Starting the clock as soon as the ball has seemingly stopped at the lip instead of giving the player possibility of getting additional time by kneeling down in frustration or using other means of expressing discontent before heading towards the hole.

> @Newby said:

> > @antip said:

> > > @QEight said:

> > > Why have any timer at all? What is the reasoning? Delaying the game? How often this happens to warrant a debatable rule/ruling?

> >

> > We have what we have. It has been there a long time. It is inequitable and inconsistent in application. It can be improved very easily.

> >

> How?

>

This was presented in my other posts and includes the issues Mr B noted.

> @antip said:

> > @Newby said:

> > > @antip said:

> > > > @QEight said:

> > > > Why have any timer at all? What is the reasoning? Delaying the game? How often this happens to warrant a debatable rule/ruling?

> > >

> > > We have what we have. It has been there a long time. It is inequitable and inconsistent in application. It can be improved very easily.

> > >

> > How?

> >

>

> This was presented in my other posts and includes the issues Mr B noted.

OK. I had rather hoped you had a solution to the possible long walk on some St Andrews greens.

I would limit it to strokes from the green though if it really is an issue.

> @Newby said:

> > @antip said:

> > > @Newby said:

> > > > @antip said:

> > > > > @QEight said:

> > > > > Why have any timer at all? What is the reasoning? Delaying the game? How often this happens to warrant a debatable rule/ruling?

> > > >

> > > > We have what we have. It has been there a long time. It is inequitable and inconsistent in application. It can be improved very easily.

> > > >

> > > How?

> > >

> >

> > This was presented in my other posts and includes the issues Mr B noted.

> OK. I had rather hoped you had a solution to the possible long walk on some St Andrews greens.

> I would limit it to strokes from the green though if it really is an issue.

My proposal was for putting greens only.

> @Newby said:

> > @antip said:

> > > @Newby said:

> > > > @antip said:

> > > > > @QEight said:

> > > > > Why have any timer at all? What is the reasoning? Delaying the game? How often this happens to warrant a debatable rule/ruling?

> > > >

> > > > We have what we have. It has been there a long time. It is inequitable and inconsistent in application. It can be improved very easily.

> > > >

> > > How?

> > >

> >

> > This was presented in my other posts and includes the issues Mr B noted.

> OK. I had rather hoped you had a solution to the possible long walk on some St Andrews greens.

> I would limit it to strokes from the green though if it really is an issue.

Why would you do that? If you putt from the PG 20 meters away and I putt from the apron 5 meters away why would you grant only you the time to wait for a ball to fall in?

If that time was taken from the moment the ball seemingly stopped it would not matter where the ball was played there from. As the Rule is today there is a difference which makes the Rule as it is rather silly.

On the contrary, I don't see any issue with the current Rule - it is applicable to all strokes and easily applied. If it ain't broken, don't fix it!

Golf is not a game of perfect, and it sounds like we're picking nits.

> @rogolf said:

> On the contrary, I don't see any issue with the current Rule - it is applicable to all strokes and easily applied. If it ain't broken, don't fix it!

> Golf is not a game of perfect, and it sounds like we're picking nits.

Mr. Palmer writes about the fuzzy side of this Rule in his book on pages 140-141. In year 2000 Honda Classic Brian Gay was penalized for having waited for 13 seconds before his ball fell into the hole after a tv spectator had contacted the Committee. Mr. Gay is a fast player and he went to his ball without hesitation. Palmer writes 'if Gay had fallen on his knees and groaned in agony.... before walking up to the ball he would have been well within ten-second time limit. Being a fast player cost Gay one shot and $88,493 in prize money'.

Easily applied, you say..? Handles all kinds of players equally, right..?

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > @rogolf said:

> > On the contrary, I don't see any issue with the current Rule - it is applicable to all strokes and easily applied. If it ain't broken, don't fix it!

> > Golf is not a game of perfect, and it sounds like we're picking nits.

>

> Mr. Palmer writes about the fuzzy side of this Rule in his book on pages 140-141. In year 2000 Honda Classic Brian Gay was penalized for having waited for 13 seconds before his ball fell into the hole after a tv spectator had contacted the Committee. Mr. Gay is a fast player and he went to his ball without hesitation. Palmer writes 'if Gay had fallen on his knees and groaned in agony.... before walking up to the ball he would have been well within ten-second time limit. Being a fast player cost Gay one shot and $88,493 in prize money'.

>

> Easily applied, you say..? Handles all kinds of players equally, right..?

Yep, a single incident, correctly applied, in 20 years isn't a big issue.

> @tmharv said:

> they showed a replay of it shortly after with a timer on the screen and he was well within his time limit

>

> @2bGood said:

> Looked legit. By my view it was 17 seconds between the ball leaving his club and it dropping and no rules broken.

>

> Rules say you are allowed enough time to reach the hole without unreasonable delay and an additional 10 seconds to wait to see if it falls. By my count he doesn't delay getting the ball and the ball fell within 10 seconds.

>

No argument with any delay to move to the hole, only that he got to, or SHOULD have, the hole at the 58 second mark. That's when *I* believe the clock should have started. On the Golf Channel replay they waited longer than the step to the left to start their clock.

> @Fade said:

> I can't tell from the video posted in the OP, I can't see the golfer when it matters.

One can pretty easily see that Matsu's last step (that we can see) would have been right AT the hole but instead he steps to the left. At that point the clock (IMO) should have started. That point is at :58. Ball drops at 1:11.

No need to count for yourself. If you keep moving your mouse, the lower bar, the bar with the controls AND the timer, you can see these times pretty clearly.

> @nsxguy said:

> > @tmharv said:

> > they showed a replay of it shortly after with a timer on the screen and he was well within his time limit

> >

>

> > @2bGood said:

> > Looked legit. By my view it was 17 seconds between the ball leaving his club and it dropping and no rules broken.

> >

> > Rules say you are allowed enough time to reach the hole without unreasonable delay and an additional 10 seconds to wait to see if it falls. By my count he doesn't delay getting the ball and the ball fell within 10 seconds.

> >

>

> No argument with any delay to move to the hole, only that he got to, or SHOULD have, the hole at the 58 second mark. That's when *I* believe the clock should have started. On the Golf Channel replay they waited longer than the step to the left to start their clock.

>

> > @Fade said:

> > I can't tell from the video posted in the OP, I can't see the golfer when it matters.

>

> One can pretty easily see that Matsu's last step (that we can see) would have been right AT the hole but instead he steps to the left. At that point the clock (IMO) should have started. That point is at :58. Ball drops at 1:11.

>

> No need to count for yourself. If you keep moving your mouse, the lower bar, the bar with the controls AND the timer, you can see these times pretty clearly.

**The player is allowed a reasonable time to reach the hole and ten more seconds to wait to see whether the ball will fall into the hole. **

I would not start counting until the player has parked himself near the hole and starts to examine the situation.

> @Fade said:

> > @nsxguy said:

> > > @tmharv said:

> > > they showed a replay of it shortly after with a timer on the screen and he was well within his time limit

> > >

> >

> > > @2bGood said:

> > > Looked legit. By my view it was 17 seconds between the ball leaving his club and it dropping and no rules broken.

> > >

> > > Rules say you are allowed enough time to reach the hole without unreasonable delay and an additional 10 seconds to wait to see if it falls. By my count he doesn't delay getting the ball and the ball fell within 10 seconds.

> > >

> >

> > No argument with any delay to move to the hole, only that he got to, or SHOULD have, the hole at the 58 second mark. That's when *I* believe the clock should have started. On the Golf Channel replay they waited longer than the step to the left to start their clock.

> >

> > > @Fade said:

> > > I can't tell from the video posted in the OP, I can't see the golfer when it matters.

> >

> > One can pretty easily see that Matsu's last step (that we can see) would have been right AT the hole but instead he steps to the left. At that point the clock (IMO) should have started. That point is at :58. Ball drops at 1:11.

> >

> > No need to count for yourself. If you keep moving your mouse, the lower bar, the bar with the controls AND the timer, you can see these times pretty clearly.

>

> **The player is allowed a reasonable time to reach the hole and ten more seconds to wait to see whether the ball will fall into the hole. **

>

> I would not start counting until the player has parked himself near the hole and starts to examine the situation.

Correct. As previously stated I have no problem with any slight delay before walking towards the hole but I submit that once the player starts to the hole he is expected (required ?) to walk directly TO it,,,,,,, and wait right there.

So then, according to your description, I can walk to the refreshment stand to get a Coke and then come back and "park myself near the hole" and wait 10 MORE seconds ?

C'mon. He walked towards the hole and should have gotten there,,,,,,,,, but instead he walked off to the side to stand and wait further away from the hole instead of going directly to it.

> @nsxguy said:

> > @Fade said:

> > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > @tmharv said:

> > > > they showed a replay of it shortly after with a timer on the screen and he was well within his time limit

> > > >

> > >

> > > > @2bGood said:

> > > > Looked legit. By my view it was 17 seconds between the ball leaving his club and it dropping and no rules broken.

> > > >

> > > > Rules say you are allowed enough time to reach the hole without unreasonable delay and an additional 10 seconds to wait to see if it falls. By my count he doesn't delay getting the ball and the ball fell within 10 seconds.

> > > >

> > >

> > > No argument with any delay to move to the hole, only that he got to, or SHOULD have, the hole at the 58 second mark. That's when *I* believe the clock should have started. On the Golf Channel replay they waited longer than the step to the left to start their clock.

> > >

> > > > @Fade said:

> > > > I can't tell from the video posted in the OP, I can't see the golfer when it matters.

> > >

> > > One can pretty easily see that Matsu's last step (that we can see) would have been right AT the hole but instead he steps to the left. At that point the clock (IMO) should have started. That point is at :58. Ball drops at 1:11.

> > >

> > > No need to count for yourself. If you keep moving your mouse, the lower bar, the bar with the controls AND the timer, you can see these times pretty clearly.

> >

> > **The player is allowed a reasonable time to reach the hole and ten more seconds to wait to see whether the ball will fall into the hole. **

> >

> > I would not start counting until the player has parked himself near the hole and starts to examine the situation.

>

> Correct. As previously stated I have no problem with any slight delay before walking towards the hole but I submit that once the player starts to the hole he is expected (required ?) to walk directly TO it,,,,,,, and wait right there.

>

> So then, according to your description, I can walk to the refreshment stand to get a Coke and then come back and "park myself near the hole" and wait 10 MORE seconds ?

>

> C'mon. He walked towards the hole and should have gotten there,,,,,,,,, but instead he walked off to the side to stand and wait further away from the hole instead of going directly to it.

I wouldn't allow the Coke, but would allow the full "ten more seconds to wait to see whether the ball will fall into the hole", after the player puts him/herself in his/her preferred position to do so. He/she may not even reach the hole - literally - to reach that position, he/she might stop a yard or two short to do so.