Match play rule--replace the ball for a putt

[lchang]

This topic happen to come up in a casual round today.  This is from Rule 3.2 b (2):

 

Quote

If the opponent lifts his or her ball in breach of a Rule because of a reasonable misunderstanding that the player’s statement or action was a concession of the next stroke, a hole or the match, there is no penalty and the ball must be replaced on its original spot (which if not known must be estimated) (see Rule 14.2).

 

My question is:  was this a rule during that controversy between Suzann Pettersen and Allison Lee in the 2015 Solheim Cup?  If not--then if that happened today, would this be an applicable remedy?

[antip]

Do you have a link to that earlier episode?

[lchang]

9 minutes ago, antip said:

Do you have a link to that earlier episode?

 

https://thegolfnewsnet.com/golfnewsnetteam/2015/09/20/explaining-solheim-cup-controversy-suzann-pettersen-alison-lee-13160/

[Halebopp]

The inclusion of action was new for 2019. But I can't see how walking in between putts could in any way be considered a concession.

[antip]

IMO, you lose the hole for lifting that ball in that situation whether this is 2015 or 2019 - focus on the first line in 3.2b(2) - "a concession is made only when clearly communicated....". An opponent walking off the green (utterly rude and unsporting as it might be - I haven't seen footage - just a written description), IMO, is not a clearly communicated concession. If in doubt, check, don't assume - or you are exposed to the risk of the kind of bad faith behaviour that Pettersen displayed (which she apparently apologized for the next day). 

Edited September 4, 2020 by antip

[Halebopp]

Here's the video, Hull and her caddie did more than just "move in between putts" but it's still on Lee for picking up a ball she had no right to pick up without marking it first.

 

https://www.golfchannel.com/video/solheim-cup-2015-sunday-controversy-17

[antip]

43 minutes ago, Halebopp said:

Here's the video, Hull and her caddie did more than just "move in between putts" but it's still on Lee for picking up a ball she had no right to pick up without marking it first.

 

https://www.golfchannel.com/video/solheim-cup-2015-sunday-controversy-17

Thanks. I agree. It was nasty behaviour by the Europeans, but the referee had no option but to rule the way he did, and I see no different outcome under the 2019 rules.

[Augster]

You guys don’t think Hull’s action fall under “reasonable misunderstanding”? This rule was put in 2019 BECAUSE of the Solheim cup and the Kuchar/Sergio kerfuffle. 
 

Allison Lee THOUGHT she had heard a concession. That, I believe, falls under “reasonable misunderstanding”. I believe a ref would simply ask, “Did you think that putt was conceded and that’s why you lifted it?” If they answer “Yes”, as Allison would have, I believe the ref would just tell her to replace it and play on. 
 

It’d be tougher now, to believe a reasonable misunderstanding, with no fans in attendance. Back then you had fans in the peanut gallery yelling out “that’s good” and “pick it up” from the stands. Granted, a player should always get the concession from their opponent and double check it before lifting, but I think the new rule was put into place for situations like this, at the highest level, and someone misconstruing “good putt” to mean a concession at the local level. 

[Halebopp]

6 minutes ago, antip said:

Thanks. I agree. It was nasty behaviour by the Europeans, but the referee had no option but to rule the way he did, and I see no different outcome under the 2019 rules.

 

Not necessarily even nasty. I remember reading they had an agreement Pettersen would handle concessions, maybe Hull simply thought she'd concede it and started walking towards the next tee. Pettersen was merely standing off the green (which is pretty normal behaviour), like Lee says in the article.

[antip]

20 minutes ago, Augster said:

You guys don’t think Hull’s action fall under “reasonable misunderstanding”? This rule was put in 2019 BECAUSE of the Solheim cup and the Kuchar/Sergio kerfuffle. 
 

Allison Lee THOUGHT she had heard a concession. That, I believe, falls under “reasonable misunderstanding”. I believe a ref would simply ask, “Did you think that putt was conceded and that’s why you lifted it?” If they answer “Yes”, as Allison would have, I believe the ref would just tell her to replace it and play on. 
 

It’d be tougher now, to believe a reasonable misunderstanding, with no fans in attendance. Back then you had fans in the peanut gallery yelling out “that’s good” and “pick it up” from the stands. Granted, a player should always get the concession from their opponent and double check it before lifting, but I think the new rule was put into place for situations like this, at the highest level, and someone misconstruing “good putt” to mean a concession at the local level. 

IMO, reasonable understanding doesn't include concessions by the crowd. It was an unfortunate error by the player, but the interpretations don't get you out of the consequences.

[antip]

21 minutes ago, Halebopp said:

 

Not necessarily even nasty. I remember reading they had an agreement Pettersen would handle concessions, maybe Hull simply thought she'd concede it and started walking towards the next tee. Pettersen was merely standing off the green (which is pretty normal behaviour), like Lee says in the article.

Perhaps not, it's my armchair reaction to the limited visual, 5 years on. 

[Wendy123]

1 hour ago, Augster said:

You guys don’t think Hull’s action fall under “reasonable misunderstanding”? This rule was put in 2019 BECAUSE of the Solheim cup and the Kuchar/Sergio kerfuffle. 
 

 

This Rule is not new.It dates back to at least 1989. That's my oldest Decisions book.

[Hawkeye77]

Lee's subjective hearing of a concession that didn't occur is not something that gave her an out under the rules and they are not substantially different now.

 

Disagree completely the behavior was "nasty".

 

Lee completely messed up, then turned on the waterworks, boo hoo, and of course the whole world jumped down Pettersen's throat. She was the only person unfairly treated in the whole affair and didn't deserve the poor treatment.

 

The entire incident was on Lee and she should have owned it at the time like a professional (or just like an ethical golfer) and moved on immediately.  Instead, it was a pity party and looking for any available scapegoat instead of looking in the mirror. 

 

But, look at the reactions on here and elsewhere over Lexi Thompson intentionally moving her mark - the rules suck, that's so harsh, she only moved it a little bit, she's so upset - we can't have a result that upsets someone so much.  Still remember her playing the victim forever, then finally twittering out she'd moved on by finding a little dog for a companion.  Whatever. I think she had such a hard time because she knew she cheated and just couldn't deal with admitting it, so it did make me think there may be a conscience in there and therefore hope.

Edited September 4, 2020 by Hawkeye77

[antip]

23 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Lee's subjective hearing of a concession that didn't occur is not something that gave her an out under the rules and they are not substantially different now.

 

Disagree completely the behavior was "nasty".

 

Lee completely messed up, then turned on the waterworks, boo hoo, and of course the whole world jumped down Pettersen's throat. She was the only person unfairly treated in the whole affair and didn't deserve the poor treatment.

 

The entire incident was on Lee and she should have owned it at the time like a professional (or just like an ethical golfer) and moved on immediately.  Instead, it was a pity party and looking for any available scapegoat instead of looking in the mirror. 

 

But, look at the reactions on here and elsewhere over Lexi Thompson intentionally moving her mark - the rules suck, that's so harsh, she only moved it a little bit, she's so upset - we can't have a result that upsets someone so much.  Still remember her playing the victim forever, then finally twittering out she'd moved on by finding a little dog for a companion.  Whatever. I think she had such a hard time because she knew she cheated and just couldn't deal with admitting it, so it did make me think there may be a conscience in there and therefore hope.

Yet Pettersen subsequently apologized, so it seems I have company in believing her behaviour wrong. I don't defend Lee here at all either, she erred in picking her ball up in match play when the team depended on her score - that is about as basic a team match play error as is possible to make.

But to revert to the original question, and as a number of contributors have noted, the referee's call would still be appropriate now.

[david.c.w]

Not debating the rules or the outcome, but I think the impetus for the entire situation lies with Hull and the 2 European caddies.   Regardless of what they said, IMO they were CLEARLY walking to the next tee, not to stand next to Pettersen.  I know that walking to the next tee happens at this level, but not from where they were. 

 

Question to the rules guru's, what sequence of words equals a concession?  We all know, "That's good", "Pick it up", and maybe even,  "Good halve".

 

But what if someone says a less concrete phrase, or gives the opponent locks eyes and nods?  I don't have really a good example, but is there an official concession procedure?

 

 

[Halebopp]

5 hours ago, Augster said:

You guys don’t think Hull’s action fall under “reasonable misunderstanding”? This rule was put in 2019 BECAUSE of the Solheim cup and the Kuchar/Sergio kerfuffle. 
 

 

What was the kerfuffle with Kuchar and Garcia? I'm pretty certain Garcia would've picked up had he thought the putt was conceded. Had Kuchar actually conceded the putt before Garcia made a stroke at the ball, the miss wouldn't have mattered anyway. The only problem was that he wasn't thinking straight or wasn't aware of the rules as he would've been allowed to replay the stroke without a penalty because the ball hit his foot accidentally. But he didn't.

 

@david.c.w Anything less than the obvious phrases you brought up would not qualify as a concession in my books but depending on the circumstances the opponent could be allowed to replace the ball without a penalty due to a misunderstanding and there's no official procedure for concessions.

[Hawkeye77]

9 hours ago, antip said:

Yet Pettersen subsequently apologized, so it seems I have company in believing her behaviour wrong. I don't defend Lee here at all either, she erred in picking her ball up in match play when the team depended on her score - that is about as basic a team match play error as is possible to make.

But to revert to the original question, and as a number of contributors have noted, the referee's call would still be appropriate now.

 

She only apologized because of the tremendous and disproportionate media response and IMO nothing to apologize for.  It took its toll on her and was unfair.

 

Right under the rules of golf, and if Lee erred . . . . . . . Pettersen had nothing to apologize for.

 

Again, IMO, but hard to call Suzann "nasty".

Edited September 4, 2020 by Hawkeye77

[LeoLeo99]

1 hour ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

She only apologized because of the tremendous and disproportionate media response and IMO nothing to apologize for.  It took its toll on her and was unfair.

 

Right under the rules of golf, and if Lee erred . . . . . . . Pettersen had nothing to apologize for.

 

Again, IMO, but hard to call Suzann "nasty".

I disagree.  She shot an angle and it worked.  You have to accept the consequences when you do that. Right under the rules doesn't mean it's good sportsmanship or ethical.  

[antip]

20 minutes ago, LeoLeo99 said:

I disagree.  She shot an angle and it worked.  You have to accept the consequences when you do that. Right under the rules doesn't mean it's good sportsmanship or ethical.  

My view also. I could not bring myself to hang an opponent out to dry in that set of circumstances, given the dynamic of the actions of the Pettersen team that effectively encouraged the pick up. I'll stick with my previously stated view and add selfish and inconsiderate. Audience of 000s there for the quality professional sport played at the highest levels and that is the best you can do? Time for some personal reflection, and that is what I think is the explanation of the apology. Media pressure? I don't know, but even the media can get it right sometimes.

 

Of course, our friend Hawkeye is equally entitled to his own view. I don't claim any special understanding of the behavioural sciences, this is just an opinion.

[sui generis]

Players who play stroke play 103 weeks in a row can behave unpredictably on the one week every two years that they are compelled to shift to match play.

[SNIPERBBB]

I had a similar issues years ago...

 

League play and it was starting to rain. Left a out about 3ft short of the hole. Bent down to mark the the ball and heard my opponent say "pick it up" as I was still down. Picked up the ball and moved off to the side. After I did so he asked what I was doing. He said he meant the flag. ?

 

 

Edited September 5, 2020 by SNIPERBBB

[2bGood]

On 9/4/2020 at 1:28 AM, antip said:

IMO, reasonable understanding doesn't include concessions by the crowd. It was an unfortunate error by the player, but the interpretations don't get you out of the consequences.

 

I think it could/does. If female fan says "its good" and it was believed you competitor said it, than I believe this qualifies as a misunderstanding. 

[Hawkeye77]

 

51 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

 

I think it could/does. If female fan says "its good" and it was believed you competitor said it, than I believe this qualifies as a misunderstanding. 

 

Kind of opens up a Pandora's box, IMO, which is why ROG wouldn't contemplate that would give you an out.

[Hawkeye77]

59 minutes ago, SNIPERBBB said:

I had a similar issues years ago...

 

League play and it was starting to rain. Left a out about 3ft short of the hole. Bent down to mark the the ball and heard my opponent say "pick it up" as I was still down. Picked up the ball and moved off to the side. After I did so he asked what I was doing. He said he meant the flag. ?

 

 

 

That would be a misunderstanding, lol, at the least and IMO that language concedes the putt. Yikes.

[2bGood]

7 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

 

Kind of opens up a Pandora's box, IMO, which is why ROG wouldn't contemplate that would give you an out.

 

I am not sure it does cause much of a problem. If there is a misunderstanding you replace the ball and still have to make the putt. What advantage was gained? 

Edited September 5, 2020 by 2bGood

[Hawkeye77]

11 hours ago, antip said:

My view also. I could not bring myself to hang an opponent out to dry in that set of circumstances, given the dynamic of the actions of the Pettersen team that effectively encouraged the pick up. I'll stick with my previously stated view and add selfish and inconsiderate. Audience of 000s there for the quality professional sport played at the highest levels and that is the best you can do? Time for some personal reflection, and that is what I think is the explanation of the apology. Media pressure? I don't know, but even the media can get it right sometimes.

 

Of course, our friend Hawkeye is equally entitled to his own view. I don't claim any special understanding of the behavioural sciences, this is just an opinion.

 

Except, doesn't bringing all the fans and those intangibles into it go way beyond the ROG to support a convenient result because someone goofed and started crying her eyes out?  

 

Just a thought but we all argued about it plenty at the time, I'll stop reliving it, lol. 

[LeoLeo99]

1 hour ago, SNIPERBBB said:

I had a similar issues years ago...

 

League play and it was starting to rain. Left a out about 3ft short of the hole. Bent down to mark the the ball and heard my opponent say "pick it up" as I was still down. Picked up the ball and moved off to the side. After I did so he asked what I was doing. He said he meant the flag. ?

 

 

 

I would say the putt was conceded.  It's also incumbent on the players, IMO, to use unambiguous language in regards to concessions.  

[Hawkeye77]

1 minute ago, 2bGood said:

 

I am not sure it does cause much of a problem. If there is a misunderstanding you replace he ball and still have to make the putt. What advantage was gained? 

 

Advantage gained isn't the standard, and the legitimate misunderstanding didn't flow from the opponent.  She didn't concede the putt, and neither she or anyone with the authority to concede the putt said it was good to allegedly cause any misunderstanding that qualified as such under the rules, IMO.  

 

Still believe had Lee simply taken her medicine as she should have and not created and furthered all sorts of drama from the American side the "incident" wouldn't have been much of an incident.  "I messed up and the right result was obtained under the rules and the integrity of the game means more than my personal wishes."  End of story.

 

NOW . . .  had Pettersen just kept mum, allowed the match to proceed from the tee onto the next hole, would that have been a problem? Not at all.  Allowed under the rules. But, mentioning she didn't concede the putt was just as "right" a thing to do and understandable and at that point the result was pretty much driven by the circumstances.  Maybe the later apology @Antip refers to had an element of wishful thinking in it, because that would have been so much easier all the way around, or maybe it was legitimate hindsight and reflection, but the same pressures and heat of the moment causing someone to realize a putt wasn't conceded and to think that needed to be mentioned seems pretty normal to me vs. nasty.

 

We could go round and round and have before and for me at least, it's a more interesting issue than five more threads about behind behind a slow group, lol.

 

 

[2bGood]

19 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

 

Advantage gained isn't the standard, and the legitimate misunderstanding didn't flow from the opponent.  She didn't concede the putt, and neither she or anyone with the authority to concede the putt said it was good to allegedly cause any misunderstanding that qualified as such under the rules, IMO.  

 

Still believe had Lee simply taken her medicine as she should have and not created and furthered all sorts of drama from the American side the "incident" wouldn't have been much of an incident.  "I messed up and the right result was obtained under the rules and the integrity of the game means more than my personal wishes."  End of story.

 

NOW . . .  had Pettersen just kept mum, allowed the match to proceed from the tee onto the next hole, would that have been a problem? Not at all.  Allowed under the rules. But, mentioning she didn't concede the putt was just as "right" a thing to do and understandable and at that point the result was pretty much driven by the circumstances.  Maybe the later apology @Antip refers to had an element of wishful thinking in it, because that would have been so much easier all the way around, or maybe it was legitimate hindsight and reflection, but the same pressures and heat of the moment causing someone to realize a putt wasn't conceded and to think that needed to be mentioned seems pretty normal to me vs. nasty.

 

We could go round and round and have before and for me at least, it's a more interesting issue than five more threads about behind behind a slow group, lol.

 

 

I am not really debating the Lee/ Petterson incident (even though this is a three about that). It was what it was. I was talking about the rule in overall.

 

You are correct however, I went back and read the rule and it is pretty clear the opponent has to say something or take action that causes the misunderstanding. Outside sources are irrelevant. sorry. 

 

 

Edited September 5, 2020 by 2bGood

[nsxguy]

2 hours ago, SNIPERBBB said:

I had a similar issues years ago...

 

League play and it was starting to rain. Left a out about 3ft short of the hole. Bent down to mark the the ball and heard my opponent say "pick it up" as I was still down. Picked up the ball and moved off to the side. After I did so he asked what I was doing. He said he meant the flag. ?

 

 

 

1 hour ago, LeoLeo99 said:

 

I would say the putt was conceded.  It's also incumbent on the players, IMO, to use unambiguous language in regards to concessions.  

 

Agreed.

 

WHY, at that point, would he be telling you to pick the FLAG up ANYWAY ? You're getting ready to putt. Telling you to pick up the flag makes zero sense.

 

"Pick it up" isn't ambiguous at all. Putt was conceded.