Timing of a Ball Hanging on the Lip of the Cup

[Argonne69]

A player's walk to the hole has absolutely no effect on whether the ball falls in the cup. Why should a player lagging from 90 feet be granted more time than a player hitting a 3' putt? Why involve "reasonable" time to get to the hole? 

 

Change the rule to allow 10 or 15 seconds from the moment the ball stops rolling. Surely a player can count while they're walking? Oy. 

 

[sui generis]

34 minutes ago, Argonne69 said:

A player's walk to the hole has absolutely no effect on whether the ball falls in the cup. Why should a player lagging from 90 feet be granted more time than a player hitting a 3' putt? Why involve "reasonable" time to get to the hole? 

 

Change the rule to allow 10 or 15 seconds from the moment the ball stops rolling. Surely a player can count while they're walking? Oy. 

 

 

What problem are you attempting to solve?

[LeoLeo99]

2 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

What problem are you attempting to solve?

Eliminating the penalty in today's Tour tournament. 

[nsxguy]

3 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

What problem are you attempting to solve?

 

Today a player hit a putt from about 20(?) feet or so, walked up towards the hole pretty quickly but stopped about 5 feet short of the hole, for maybe only 2 seconds or so before going right up to it an looking down.

 

After he DID get there it was about 25 seconds and then the putt dropped.

 

Dubasek(?) explained it perfectly "Add 1 penalty stroke."

[nsxguy]

43 minutes ago, Argonne69 said:

A player's walk to the hole has absolutely no effect on whether the ball falls in the cup. Why should a player lagging from 90 feet be granted more time than a player hitting a 3' putt? Why involve "reasonable" time to get to the hole? 

 

Change the rule to allow 10 or 15 seconds from the moment the ball stops rolling. Surely a player can count while they're walking? Oy. 

 

 

Just a guess but the ball has to be overhanging the hole. From even 20 feet that might not be known and, the player might not even think of starting the count right away - likely wouldn't be the first thing on his mind.

 

But once he's at the hole and sees the ball's overhanging, he should know to start the count.

 

I guess that makes for a more valid/fair/consistent rule ?

[Argonne69]

55 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Just a guess but the ball has to be overhanging the hole. From even 20 feet that might not be known and, the player might not even think of starting the count right away - likely wouldn't be the first thing on his mind.

 

But once he's at the hole and sees the ball's overhanging, he should know to start the count.

 

I guess that makes for a more valid/fair/consistent rule ?

 

It's a tradeoff between a ball possibly hanging over the edge, and the "reasonable" walk to the hole. 

 

The '"reasonable" walk to the hole is poorly defined, and can be open to debate and abuse. If one can see the hole, then allowing 15 seconds, regardless of where the player hit the shot, would allow plenty of time to assess the situation. 

 

[Hawkeye77]

2 minutes ago, Argonne69 said:

 

It's a tradeoff between a ball possibly hanging over the edge, and the "reasonable" walk to the hole. 

 

The '"reasonable" walk to the hole is poorly defined, and can be open to debate and abuse. If one can see the hole, then allowing 15 seconds, regardless of where the player hit the shot, would allow plenty of time to assess the situation. 

 

 

"Trying to define walks can be dodgy!" ------- John Cleese

[rogolf]

It's just fine the way it is.  As Dusbabek said, there is some judgement involved in what is the "reasonable" time to reach the hole, and abuse does not get ignored when starting the count.

This Rule was brought into place because Don January once waited seven minutes because he thought his ball was still moving and there was a penalty for playing a moving ball.

[rogolf]

1 minute ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

"Trying to define walks can be dodgy!" ------- John Cleese

As in "silly walks".

[rogolf]

5 minutes ago, Argonne69 said:

 

It's a tradeoff between a ball possibly hanging over the edge, and the "reasonable" walk to the hole. 

 

The '"reasonable" walk to the hole is poorly defined, and can be open to debate and abuse. If one can see the hole, then allowing 15 seconds, regardless of where the player hit the shot, would allow plenty of time to assess the situation. 

 

Further, say the player is 100 yards from the green?  The Rule does not only apply to strokes made from the putting green.

[Hawkeye77]

2 minutes ago, rogolf said:

As in "silly walks".

You win! I made up the quote just to see if anyone would get it.

[Argonne69]

19 minutes ago, rogolf said:

Further, say the player is 100 yards from the green?  The Rule does not only apply to strokes made from the putting green.

 

Another example of why it's so hard to write the rules of golf. 

 

A player hits a shot from 200 yds out to an elevated green, and walks up to find the ball in the hole. Did it sit on the edge of the cup for more than 15 seconds? 

 

I'd say one can judge whether a ball is at rest from a short distance way from the hole, and whether it's overhanging the hole, but both situations are both open to interpretation. One could write the rule to include a visual look at the hole, but again everyone's eyesight is different, so being at the hole is really no different. 

 

So, changing the rule wouldn't really solve anything. Mea culpa. 

 

[Argonne69]

32 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

"Trying to define walks can be dodgy!" ------- John Cleese

 

 

[Augster]

Unless the ball is overhanging the hole, one has infinite time to wait for it to drop in. (Up to a slow play penalty) 

 

You don’t know it’s overhanging until you get there. I saw three balls THIS WEEK that I thought were overhanging after it was struck but it wasn’t once you got to the hole. 

Edited March 18 by Augster

[rogolf]

58 minutes ago, Argonne69 said:

 

 

 

[Nickb333]

Sure looked like that ball kept moving to me. 

[rogolf]

26 minutes ago, Nickb333 said:

Sure looked like that ball kept moving to me. 

Doesn't matter.  After the 10 seconds, it is deemed to be at rest and there is no penalty for playing a ball at rest.

[Nickb333]

21 minutes ago, rogolf said:

Doesn't matter.  After the 10 seconds, it is deemed to be at rest and there is no penalty for playing a ball at rest.

And that’s lame imo. The main reason I think it’s lame is this. A guy like Harmon or Garcia can spent a minute re-gripping or twitching over every shot without any penalty. But God forbid you watch your ball roll into the hole for too long. 
 

pulllease…

[Colin L]

4 hours ago, Nickb333 said:

And that’s lame imo. The main reason I think it’s lame is this. A guy like Harmon or Garcia can spent a minute re-gripping or twitching over every shot without any penalty. But God forbid you watch your ball roll into the hole for too long. 
 

pulllease…

My grandson eats far too quickly without getting indigestion. But God forbid you watch your ball roll into the hole for too long. 

[Mr. Bean]

10 hours ago, rogolf said:

It's just fine the way it is.  As Dusbabek said, there is some judgement involved in what is the "reasonable" time to reach the hole, and abuse does not get ignored when starting the count.

This Rule was brought into place because Don January once waited seven minutes because he thought his ball was still moving and there was a penalty for playing a moving ball.

 

The late Arnold Palmer wrote in his book Playing By The Rules about that incident that took place at Phoenix Open in 1960. He also sort of critized the exactly same thing as Argonne. AP asked why a person who is accustomed to move quickly gets less waiting time compared to a person who falls on their knees and moans quite a few seconds before slowly heading towards the hole. A fair question.

 

I do not find Argonne's suggestion too difficult to insert into the Rules. If you see (emphasis on "see", i.e. elevated green is excluded) your ball stopping very close to the hole you start counting. If that ball falls into the hole in less than 10 seconds it was clearly overhanging. If it falls later it was not (well, one may argue that technically it had been overhanging). This way the amount of time would  the same for everyone.

 

Sure, even with this practice there would be unclear situations especially in windy conditions on fast green. However, those conditions prevail only in high level pro competitions and there should be enough referees and tv cameras to tell whether the ball had traveled a fair distance due to wind or was the ball actually overhanging.

 

I doubt this is such a huge issue that RB's would consider a change but I would not mind that. At least a thorough pondering of pros and cons would be very welcome.

[Mr. Bean]

9 hours ago, Augster said:

1) Unless the ball is overhanging the hole, on has infinite time to wait for it to drop in. (Up to a slow play penalty) 

 

2) You don’t know it’s overhanging until you get there. I saw three balls THIS WEEK that I thought was overhanging after it was struck but it wasn’t once you got to the hole. 

 

1) I wonder what you mean by that. Infinite time? No way, never.

 

2) But would that matter? If it is not overhanging then it would not fall in by itself. If it is overhanging it may fall in while you are approaching and then you would know it was overhanging. Quite simple, is it not?

[Imp]

11 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

"Trying to define walks can be dodgy!" ------- John Cleese

Just don't ask anyone to bring in the coffee...

[Imp]

33 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

1) I wonder what you mean by that. Infinite time? No way, never.

 

2) But would that matter? If it is not overhanging then it would not fall in by itself. If it is overhanging it may fall in while you are approaching and then you would know it was overhanging. Quite simple, is it not?

The discussion of "what is reasonable time" before the 10 seconds starts has been beaten to death, so I'll flog it again.... (Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!)

 

Perfectly illustrated in Arnolds book above. To me, if the player flopped on the green knees down and hat in hand over face, looks around at the crowd, distraught-ish, then got up, walked away from the ball to seek out his mother/wife in the crowd and give her a WTF look, then went over to the ball, it probably would have fallen within the "10 seconds" when the player got to the hole.  Comparing that to the player that is much less of a drama llama, walks up, starts counting.  Flopping may be the right call. 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

The late Arnold Palmer wrote in his book Playing By The Rules about that incident that took place at Phoenix Open in 1960. He also sort of critized the exactly same thing as Argonne. AP asked why a person who is accustomed to move quickly gets less waiting time compared to a person who falls on their knees and moans quite a few seconds before slowly heading towards the hole. A fair question.

 

Simple: the time spent falling to your knees counts in the ten seconds. Which is how the rule is applied.

 

You get a reasonable time to traverse the distance, and ten seconds. It doesn't matter what the order is. If you stand where you hit your putt in disbelief for ten seconds, then walk to the hole, and it falls in two seconds after you get there, it's +1.

 

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

I do not find Argonne's suggestion too difficult to insert into the Rules. If you see (emphasis on "see", i.e. elevated green is excluded) your ball stopping very close to the hole you start counting. If that ball falls into the hole in less than 10 seconds it was clearly overhanging. If it falls later it was not (well, one may argue that technically it had been overhanging). This way the amount of time would  the same for everyone.

 

As you note, what if a ball stops, then the wind blows it into the hole two minutes later? C'mon. You can't justify a rule by saying "it only happens at high level pro competitions" because that's not remotely true.

 

The Rule as it is now is pretty good, and none of the proposed changes make more sense.

[Colin L]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

 

Simple: the time spent falling to your knees counts in the ten seconds. Which is how the rule is applied.

Falling to your knees is a bit overly dramatic, but time is allowed for some histrionics before you set off to the hole:

 

Determining the limits of a reasonable time to reach the hole depends on the circumstances of the stroke and includes time for a player's natural or spontaneous reaction to the ball not going into the hole...

Clarification 13.3a/1

 

 

[Imp]

22 minutes ago, Colin L said:

Falling to your knees is a bit overly dramatic, but time is allowed for some histrionics before you set off to the hole:

 

Determining the limits of a reasonable time to reach the hole depends on the circumstances of the stroke and includes time for a player's natural or spontaneous reaction to the ball not going into the hole...

Clarification 13.3a/1

 

 

Exactly. The '10 seconds' starts at quite an arbitrary time. Define "when a player arrives at hole"... You, Me, Fred, Mike, Sam, Rules official, will all start the time at a different time. 

 

I'd argue if rules bodies are going to enforce a 10 second rule for a hole to be filled by a ball, then dammit, they need to put players on the shot clock throughout the field. Ball to fall is enforced at a very short time, and the other in reality is 2-5 minutes when it should be 40 seconds... 

I would be ok with changing the rule to match 5.6 (because it's codified already, shouldn't be a separate rule) 40 seconds when ready to play, I.e., getting to the hole to tap it in which should allow for the same song and dance as every other putt: line up the putt, check the other side, make sure it's ready to play. aimpoint, plumb-bob, If it drops after doing everything else and before you put the club behind the ball? THEN, you're holed. 

Edited March 18 by Imp

[davep043]

33 minutes ago, Imp said:

Exactly. The '10 seconds' starts at quite an arbitrary time. Define "when a player arrives at hole"... You, Me, Fred, Mike, Sam, Rules official, will all start the time at a different time. 

 

I'd argue if rules bodies are going to enforce a 10 second rule for a hole to be filled by a ball, then dammit, they need to put players on the shot clock throughout the field. Ball to fall is enforced at a very short time, and the other in reality is 2-5 minutes when it should be 40 seconds... 

I would be ok with changing the rule to match 5.6 (because it's codified already, shouldn't be a separate rule) 40 seconds when ready to play, I.e., getting to the hole to tap it in which should allow for the same song and dance as every other putt: line up the putt, check the other side, make sure it's ready to play. aimpoint, plumb-bob, If it drops after doing everything else and before you put the club behind the ball? THEN, you're holed. 

You're still not taking into account a longer shot that finishes next to or overhanging the hole.  It takes something like 1 minute to walk 100 yards.  So if my 100-yard wedge comes to rest, and then is moved by the wind into the hole just before I get to the green, the penalty is assessed?  Where do you draw the line, a 30-foot putt, 60 feet, 40-yard pitch, where?

 

Separately, you reference 5.6, which says:

" It is recommended that the player make the stroke in no more than 40 seconds after they are (or should be) able to play without interference or distraction"

AFTER they are able to play....  Seems a lot like allowing a reasonable time to get to the ball before the clock starts. 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Colin L said:

Falling to your knees is a bit overly dramatic, but time is allowed for some histrionics before you set off to the hole:

 

Yes, but if you extend the reaction beyond a reasonable amount, the clock starts ticking.

[rogolf]

48 minutes ago, Imp said:

Exactly. The '10 seconds' starts at quite an arbitrary time. Define "when a player arrives at hole"... You, Me, Fred, Mike, Sam, Rules official, will all start the time at a different time. 

 

I'd argue if rules bodies are going to enforce a 10 second rule for a hole to be filled by a ball, then dammit, they need to put players on the shot clock throughout the field. Ball to fall is enforced at a very short time, and the other in reality is 2-5 minutes when it should be 40 seconds... 

I would be ok with changing the rule to match 5.6 (because it's codified already, shouldn't be a separate rule) 40 seconds when ready to play, I.e., getting to the hole to tap it in which should allow for the same song and dance as every other putt: line up the putt, check the other side, make sure it's ready to play. aimpoint, plumb-bob, If it drops after doing everything else and before you put the club behind the ball? THEN, you're holed. 

This is not the responsibility of the ruling bodies (USGA and R&A).  They have laid the groundwork for the Committee in charge.

And the job openings for trained referees would skyrocket! 

This is a non-starter imo.

And one of the things referees are taught, "never time a group or player into a wait."

Edited March 18 by rogolf

[tatertot]

13 hours ago, rogolf said:

Doesn't matter.  After the 10 seconds, it is deemed to be at rest and there is no penalty for playing a ball at rest.

Is it 10 seconds after the ball comes to rest? If the ball never stopped loving, the 10 seconds never started.