Hawkeye77

FWIW, easy to find references to what he talks about with the right arm in particular and no, it's not a "pull down" which you equate to "pressure down" and right or wrong on that with Cowen, so pretty much the rest of your stuff is off base from the beginning. I used to have Cowen's dvds - hard to follow for me but I put them away forever when I tried to watch his explanation of hitting a sand shot - he makes it so complicated and the explanation went on forever. He must be a great coach and I have absolutely no basis to criticize him other than he seems to have a hard time getting the message across to others in videos or even in some lessons he's given to folks for their YouTube channels - lol, he's a little intimidating. I thought at some point he might get poor James Robinson to the point of tears, just seemed awkward, and in a different way, but no less awkward than the ones he's filmed with Leadbetter.

I was talking about the context of the hypothetical as we have been which was a ball that appeared to be at rest (not in motion) when the concession was made not a ball in the air. What I've said the Rules provide is nothing more than what I've quoted earlier and in the context of the hypothetical. Sorry, I just don't know where this is coming from but happy to leave it aside. Going down the road of a concession while the ball is in the air isn't what the hypothetical was about, I haven't thought about it and assume you are correct.

Interesting. Is the language above the exact quotation of the ruling? I'll stick with what the Rules say, which is that upon the concession (if the ball is at rest) the opponent has completed the hole with a score including the next stroke and the ball may be removed. All of which means .......... the ball is no longer in play. No other way to read that, IMO. Guess they'll pull my hypothetical official's card, lol, or . . . someone else at the USGA will say, "no idea why that answer was given." The language in the Rules re natural forces to me seems the "way in" vs. "in play", but no point exploring that further. Edit: and not questioning the communication, just wondering if the USGA actually provided something more specific and Rules based in terms of references.

It's so stressful to vice-captain the President's Cup (yep, lost 90% of you already, lol) Davis Love III was only able to focus by carrying around a baby squirrel ("Sammy") - lucky for the squirrel, Boo Weekley had fallen off the team golf radar by then.

My sweetie and I will see Sir Paul in October! Very excited!

My wonderful wife still thinks I'm number one and on occasion has an interesting way of signaling that. 😀

Today was a full playing test with the new T350s - 27 holes. These irons will stay in the bag! It's taken a couple of evenings, brief range session before playing and a good afternoon of play to feel reasonably comfortable with the new shafts. Rather than hit the iron I would normally hit on approach shots I mixed it up a bit on a few holes and hit partial shots as well and with maybe one club more on a hole, two clubs more on another, etc. - also hit some running chip shots with the 48 degree and the 43 degree and the 9 iron. I hit two 6 irons that were, for me, towering and one the best shot I've hit in quite awhile - adjacent fairway, needed to get back over tall trees with a big fade to a green I couldn't reach but ended up just short and in great shape. That's a shot I haven't had for awhile and that I cannot hit with my Mizuno 6 iron. An exaggerated setup for sure on that was needed, but in general, I can't work the ball with these, i.e., can't get a little draw with the 48 into a green, or an 8i, whatever - just lasers on well hit shots high or low (not a bad thing) but that is so far my only nitpick. Stopping power is great. Height and spin and stop is what I bought these for and I'm pretty much adjusted to the soles. They do not feel/sound soft like the Mizunos, but the feel and sound from solid shots in the fairway is . . . solid and I like it. So, nothing in the description for my irons includes the word "player" for the first time since my Ping Eye 2+ - now "just" a GI guy (for now).

I'm not sure we were ever having the same conversation but I just got home from a nice afternoon of 27 holes, am going to catch up on my recording of the AIG Women's Open and try and think about all this and will likely respond in the wee hours of tomorrow morning while watching it live, but can't digest it now.

I disagree that those numbered examples are the "exact same" as what Pete Cowen teaches, nor everything else in the kitchen sink you are throwing at whatever the point is.

I've answered the question twice and honestly couldn't be any more clear in the answer. I didn't suggest any time limit, nor would one be applied in any sense per the Rules in that hypothetical. If you are claiming the ball appeared to be at rest because nobody could ever truly know it was at rest from 100 yards, that wasn't part of the original question and in that case, if it is indeed a universal truth, then the opponent probably isn't going to prevail in an argument about whether the ball had come to rest. I hit from 100 yards. My opponent believes the ball has come to rest, makes the concession. Ball goes in the hole. If don't agree the ball was at rest when the concession was made, then as I've said, the discussion ensues, the arguments are made, whatever facts each thinks are relevant are brought to bear and whatever ruling comes out of it comes out of it.

I thought I did. The question posited that it "appeared" to come to rest, not that it was at rest. If both players agree it was at rest at the time of the concession because it appeared to be at rest to them or for whatever reason they felt it was at rest, then ball isn't holed. If there is an argument it's down to whether it was actually at rest and all that goes into what made it appear to be at rest is up for grabs and no doubt the time from when it appeared to be at rest and when it went in the hole would be something someone would argue from. Did a gust of wind come up twenty seconds in? Is it more likely if it didn't fall in "quickly", it had/hadn't stopped? Lots of possibilities I suppose, but my answer doesn't change from 10 feet from the hole or 100 yards, or one second or thirty. If it was actually at rest ("appeared" seems to leave open a question about that, if that's how it was intended) and concession made the ball isn't holed. The rest is just whatever goes into the argument someone wants to make in support of their position at the time.

IMO there is a fact issue potentially to be resolved as to whether it was actually not moving/at rest if disputed. The amount of alleged delay is just part of the situation - was it stopped and then moved, was it not stopped and creeping, etc. You could stand by the side of the green for twenty seconds after a chip, the only difference being there would likely be a better opportunity to observe what the ball was doing when the concession was made and less chance of an argument. Whether from 100 yards or 10 feet the question would still be whether the ball had stopped moving when the concession was stated.

I know I'll be happy never to see proof of that!

On the Woad again . . . . Bottom of the cup on the first.

Which happens continually with all these stupid "bunk" takes. At least this one wasn't the troll at the outset the others have generally been, no swipe at the OP directly, lol, but the discussion steadily devolves.