Ball Moving on the Green

[Hawkeye77]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Suppose that a player hits a shot from 100 yards away. It spins back and appears to come to rest three inches short of the hole. The opponent concedes the 3" putt when it appears to come to rest and then one second later the ball falls into the hole. Did the player hole the 100-yard shot or the one after it? What if the time delay is two seconds? Three? Four? Five? Twenty (they have to walk 100 yards to get up there, after all)?

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.   

Edited July 31 by Hawkeye77

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

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.   

 

Please answer the question.

 

Would you consider the player to have holed the 100-yard shot if it fell a second after the concession? Two? Five? Ten? Twenty?

[Hawkeye77]

11 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

Please answer the question.

 

Would you consider the player to have holed the 100-yard shot if it fell a second after the concession? Two? Five? Ten? Twenty?

 

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.

Edited July 31 by Hawkeye77

[Saijin]

I don't know why but when I saw C/D I really thought you meant crossdressers.... it didn't register until later that it's person C and D.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Hawkeye77 said:

I thought I did.  The question posited that it "appeared" to come to rest, not that it was at rest.

 

You did not. There's no way for them to truly "know." So did he hole out with the 100-yard shot or not? Does your answer change as the number grows, and what's your support in the Rules of Golf for the time limit you decide on? What if the ball is beside the hole where it's a little easier to see motion than behind the hole where we can't always tell if the ball is rolling directly toward us?

 

Look, on one hand I think this is an incredibly rare situation as holes are almost never cut on 6%+ slopes that are almost required to get a ball to begin rolling again.

 

But, I don't think the answer is as clear as some have stated. I think you can still make a case for the player having holed out with the previous stroke.

 

1 hour ago, Hawkeye77 said:

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.

 

There's no agreement. It's someone thinking the ball might have stopped and conceding the next shot, then the ball goes in. There's no discussion. Answer the question.

 

1 hour ago, Hawkeye77 said:

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?

 

That's why I've asked. The same rule that covers a 10-foot putt everyone has a close up look at also covers this type of situation. So how would you rule, and would it change if the time was more than one second, how much more, and what Rule are you using to justify it?

 

1 hour ago, Hawkeye77 said:

If it was actually at rest

 

Right… They can't KNOW it was "actually" at rest.

 

In stroke play, if you hit a shot from 100 yards and walk up to the green and it begins moving as you set your bag down 40 yards away… it counts as holed. So the Rules support, one could argue, that the next stroke is conceded… if it's needed.

 

Johnny Cochran voice: "The stroke can only be conceded if it's actually needed!" (That's my devil's advocate argument, I think similar to @antip but I've not re-read his posts in detail, so maybe not.)

[Hawkeye77]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

 

You did not. There's no way for them to truly "know." So did he hole out with the 100-yard shot or not? Does your answer change as the number grows, and what's your support in the Rules of Golf for the time limit you decide on? What if the ball is beside the hole where it's a little easier to see motion than behind the hole where we can't always tell if the ball is rolling directly toward us?

 

Look, on one hand I think this is an incredibly rare situation as holes are almost never cut on 6%+ slopes that are almost required to get a ball to begin rolling again.

 

But, I don't think the answer is as clear as some have stated. I think you can still make a case for the player having holed out with the previous stroke.

 

 

There's no agreement. It's someone thinking the ball might have stopped and conceding the next shot, then the ball goes in. There's no discussion. Answer the question.

 

 

That's why I've asked. The same rule that covers a 10-foot putt everyone has a close up look at also covers this type of situation. So how would you rule, and would it change if the time was more than one second, how much more, and what Rule are you using to justify it?

 

 

Right… They can't KNOW it was "actually" at rest.

 

In stroke play, if you hit a shot from 100 yards and walk up to the green and it begins moving as you set your bag down 40 yards away… it counts as holed. So the Rules support, one could argue, that the next stroke is conceded… if it's needed.

 

Johnny Cochran voice: "The stroke can only be conceded if it's actually needed!" (That's my devil's advocate argument, I think similar to @antip but I've not re-read his posts in detail, so maybe not.)

 

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.  

 

 

 

 

Edited July 31 by Hawkeye77

[iacas]

3 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

I've answered the question twice and honestly couldn't be any more clear in the answer.

 

No, you haven't. What's the player's score given those time frames? That's all I'm asking for: the score.

 

3 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

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

 

Yes it was. That's all they had to go by. What they think they could see from 100 yards away.

 

Assuming that was the player's second shot, did he make 2 or 3?

 

3 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

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.

 

Great. What if the ball comes to rest for ten seconds, and then goes in? How about five? Two? At what point would you, having this brought to you, count the player's score as 3 rather than 2?

[Hawkeye77]

5 hours ago, iacas said:

 

No, you haven't. What's the player's score given those time frames? That's all I'm asking for: the score.

 

 

Yes it was. That's all they had to go by. What they think they could see from 100 yards away.

 

Assuming that was the player's second shot, did he make 2 or 3?

 

 

Great. What if the ball comes to rest for ten seconds, and then goes in? How about five? Two? At what point would you, having this brought to you, count the player's score as 3 rather than 2?

 

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.

[antip]

LOL, there has been so much hand-wringing over this issue, let me be very clear. 
This question has gone in to the USGA. The question: putting green scenario in match play, player A's putt, his third stroke, comes to rest a foot above the hole, opponent B concedes A's next stroke but before A can lift their ball a gust of wind blows it into the hole. What has A scored for the hole?

The ruling is A scored 3. A concession does not take a ball out of play (see the definition of in play), this scenario of the ball being moved by natural forces after the concession and before any action that takes the ball out of play, such as lifting, is no different than if the opponent had conceded the next stroke while the ball were still in motion and the concession became irrelevant because the ball was holed.

[iacas]

Well that puts an end to my attempts to try to lead people to the answer.

 

So, yes, if a ball is at rest, pick it up to concede it if you think there’s a one in a million chance the wind will blow it in. 🤣

[Hawkeye77]

7 hours ago, antip said:

LOL, there has been so much hand-wringing over this issue, let me be very clear. 
This question has gone in to the USGA. The question: putting green scenario in match play, player A's putt, his third stroke, comes to rest a foot above the hole, opponent B concedes A's next stroke but before A can lift their ball a gust of wind blows it into the hole. What has A scored for the hole?

The ruling is A scored 3. A concession does not take a ball out of play (see the definition of in play), this scenario of the ball being moved by natural forces after the concession and before any action that takes the ball out of play, such as lifting, is no different than if the opponent had conceded the next stroke while the ball were still in motion and the concession became irrelevant because the ball was holed.

 

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.

Edited August 1 by Hawkeye77

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

I'll stick with what the Rules say, which is that upon the concession (if the ball is at rest)

 

The rules don't say that.

• The player holes out or the player’s next stroke is conceded, or

They say that. They say nothing about the ball being at rest, and if the player never needs to make "the next stroke," then…

 

I can concede the next shot while the ball is in the air. Doesn't mean that if it comes to rest for half a second before rolling into the hole, I can claim that the player made a 4 not a 3. Or one second. Or five seconds.

[Hawkeye77]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

 

The rules don't say that.

 

• The player holes out or the player’s next stroke is conceded, or

They say that. They say nothing about the ball being at rest, and if the player never needs to make "the next stroke," then…

 

I can concede the next shot while the ball is in the air. Doesn't mean that if it comes to rest for half a second before rolling into the hole, I can claim that the player made a 4 not a 3. Or one second. Or five seconds.

 

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.

Edited August 1 by Hawkeye77

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

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.

 

That doesn't matter, and you missed the point that the rules say nothing about the ball being at rest.

 

9 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

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.

 

You don't know where "the rules don't say that, they say this" is coming from?

 

9 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

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.

 

Oh man.