Timing of a Ball Hanging on the Lip of the Cup

[nsxguy]

12 hours ago, Nickb333 said:

The only reason it stood the test of time IMO, is because it’s very rarely used. I suspect that is why so many folks just shrug when a situation like this one occurs. 
 

In this instance, (even if I’m very generous and concede that the ball took 20 seconds to drop) it cost the player at least $10,000. That’s nothing to shrug over iMO. 
 

Anyway, given the amount of time players take to make 50-60 shots each round, it seems ridiculous to argue about even an extra minute over a Putt that likely won’t happen 10 times in a career. 

 

Fair enough but isn't the "test of time" usually a pretty good reason for a rule ? Especially for an incident that doesn't happen very often ?

 

a) Don't most, if not all, of those 50-60 shots a round require more time than the putt on the lip ? To judge the distance, wind direction and strength, etc. ? How long does it take to assess a ball on the lip ?

 

And b) how would you like to be waiting to hit to that green ? You're watching the guy hit a 20 ft putt, take a look at the heavens, stroll slowly to the hole, and stand there for 40 seconds while you're ready to hit ? I know, I know, no big deal, right ?

[Nickb333]

We’re just going to disagree on this. I have no problem with that. I made my case. 
 

Anyway…
 

Everything is just fun and games until your ox gets gored. 

[rogolf]

8 minutes ago, Nickb333 said:

We’re just going to disagree on this. I have no problem with that. I made my case. 
 

Anyway…
 

Everything is just fun and games until your ox gets gored. 

I don’t know of any ox being gored in a game of golf.  When you sign up for the event, you’re agreeing to play by the Rules. After all, it is only a game. 

[Colin L]

On 3/20/2024 at 4:05 AM, Nickb333 said:

......In this instance, (even if I’m very generous and concede that the ball took 20 seconds to drop) it cost the player at least $10,000. That’s nothing to shrug over iMO. 
 

Anyway, given the amount of time players take to make 50-60 shots each round, it seems ridiculous to argue about even an extra minute over a Putt that likely won’t happen 10 times in a career. 

It never makes any sense to equate a win or a loss to one stroke out of 70. 80, 90 or whatever. But if you must think in this way, perhaps you might say that he lost the money because he didn't hit his putt firmly enough for the ball to go into the hole in the first place.

 

Anyway as with any rule, it would have been the same for any other player in the field had their overhanging ball dropped after the time allowed.  !0 seconds is obviously arbitrary, but since it applies to all it is fair.  

 

You say you have made your case but I have to disagree.  There wasn't a case to answer. 

 

I'mm off to my weekly old farts' class at the local range.  I'll try to get this into the coffee break conversation.

Edited March 21 by Colin L

[Halebopp]

The one thing people have ignored is the fact that most people are capable of estimating ten seconds. You're very unlikely to go outside of 9-12 seconds with the estimate and I feel safe in assuming the ruling bodies accept that variance. But if the time was 30 seconds, you could very easily be looking at anything from 25 to over 40 seconds (I got 11 and 41 seconds respectively without any warm up or outside clues). It would require a clock, which adds a whole new step and complication into the process.

 

And as said, in my opinion the time to get to the hole plus ten seconds is plenty of time for the ball to fall in. One can also view the longer time it takes to get to the hole from 200 metres away than from three feet as a reward for a relatively better stroke.

[Colin L]

6 hours ago, Colin L said:

I'm off to my weekly old farts' class at the local range.  I'll try to get this into the coffee break conversation.

Failed.

 

As befits our senior years, the conversation was exclusively about tweaked muscles, (all), prolapsed discs (two of us), aching joints (all of us), bursitis in a knee (me), visits to the physio (all of us) and visits to a chiropractor (not me - it sounds too horrific).

 

 

[rogolf]

1 hour ago, Colin L said:

Failed.

 

As befits our senior years, the conversation was exclusively about tweaked muscles, (all), prolapsed discs (two of us), aching joints (all of us), bursitis in a knee (me), visits to the physio (all of us) and visits to a chiropractor (not me - it sounds too horrific).

 

 

Sounds very much like our post-game discussion on Tuesday!

[Imp]

On 3/19/2024 at 9:19 PM, rogolf said:

Let's face it, this Rule has been in place for nearly 40 years (my estimate, could be a decade wrong) and it's now being discussed ad nauseam just because of one instance that occurred last weekend?  Perhaps the Rule has already stood the test of time and is just fine?

1964. 60 years. Close. A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat, eh?

Edited March 21 by Imp