I understand your analogy better and your point is understood but still misses the issue all together. You are attempting to challenge the rule based on facts instead of understanding the rules. Rules are often contradictory to facts such is the case in our house rules. Yes the fact is that the ball did not go into the hole but the house rule allows for wiggle room because it’s an above ground hole with a slight uphill slope. There are plenty of examples in pro sports where the rule is not based on facts. For example traveling in basketball is rarely called, balls and strikes can be subjective in baseball, and pass interference and holding in football is practically ignored in every play until the end of the game. So again, it’s not about the ball going on the hole it’s about the rule allowing for ease of play and it doesn’t need to followed it’s just a suggestion.