Lexi Thompson ANA

[Mr. Bean]

Representative democracy? To the best of my knowledge the executive committee is primarily made up of volunteers, who also pay their own expenses.

 

I am not 100% sure about LPGA but on the men's side the Committee on PGA and ET Tours is manned by professionals, that is people working in golf organizations, primarily USGA, R&A, EGA, etc. It is also common practice to have a high level professional referee in the Committee, so I would not expect any 'volunteers' be there to decide who gets the 100-1000k$ after each competition.

 

Afa expenses are concerned those people get paid to be in the Committee.

[k4f7]

I noticed that the referee (Dan Maselli) who ruled against Alison Lee regarding an 18-inch putt to the benefit of Suzann Pettersen on the 17th green on September 20th in the 2015 Solheim Cup was the referee who ruled against against Lexi Thompson regarding an 18-inch putt to the benefit of Suzann Petersen on April 2nd in the 2017 ANA Inspiration. I think that Mr. Maselli likes the attention, and I think that he likes Ms. Pettersen. These two rulings were poor rulings. In the 2015 ruling, Mr. Maselli claimed that the word "statement" in Decision 2-4/3 required a verbal statement and did not allow a nonverbal statement, which was incorrect. In the 2017 ruling, Mr. Maselli chose to selectively penalize one player (Ms. Thompson) for a violation (of Rule 20-3a) that every other player likewise committed to one degree or another so that that one player (Ms. Thompson) would be less of an obstacle to a certain other player (Ms. Pettersen, who likewise violated Rule 20-3a, but who was not penalized for it).

[shotmark]

I'm a stickler for the rules but I think to replace the ball to an accuracy of more than 1/8th of an inch is unreasonable.

 

What made this ruling worse was that it was applied the following day. Had this happened in round 4 and come to light on the Monday, surely the result would have stood, they wouldn't have taken a major away the following day.

 

This makes the Dustin Johnson ruling seem almost acceptable!

[nsxguy]

I'm not suggesting waiving the rule. I'm suggesting it is a STUPID rule and should be done away with.

 

Someone breaks a rule and doesn't realize it and they get hit with a penalty.

 

Let us imagine there is no such Rule.

 

Any player can anytime say they did not know the Rule thus did not know they incurred a penalty. So the player who knows least of the Rules wins.

 

Great ! Problem solved!

 

Thank You, nsxguy!

 

So they're going to break the rules and not call themselves on it ?

 

Or even do so intentionally because they know if they're caught they're only going to get the penalty they should have gotten anyway ?

 

So you're suggesting they are LYING then, no ?

 

So they're cheating then, yes ?

 

So why do you watch these dirtbags ?

 

You missed the ENTIRE point (of which I am not surprised as you deliberately try to avoid admitting you are dead wrong...).

 

IF a player does not KNOW the Rule they cannot be penalized for omitting any penalty based on THAT Rule from the score. That is what you are saying and proposing.

 

SO, a player who knows NO Rules at all cannot be penalized. End of story. And end of golf.

 

EDIT: I ask myself why am I talking to these guys??? I answered to myself: not anymore. They can have their opinions as they cannot be changed with any rational argument anyway, so I let it go.

 

I ask myself the same question. Or are you being deliberately obtuse ? Misleading ? Unclear ?

 

"IF a player does not KNOW the Rule they cannot be penalized for omitting any penalty strokes based on THAT Rule from the score after the fact. That is what you are saying and proposing.

 

SO, a player who knows NO Rules at all cannot be penalized over and above the enforced penalty."

 

A "Rules guy" being unclear ? Say it isn't so.

 

IF the words I added in red are what you meant, but omitted, then yes, that is what I believe. If not, clearly I don't understand you. And if it's the latter, please take Mr Bean's advice. TIA

 

If the Committee believes the evidence supports a "cheating" tag, DQ. If they believe it was simply a mistake, hit the player with the 2 shots, correct the score and move on. No additional strokes. 4 strokes for a mistake is over and above.

 

Used to be automatic DQ. Now it's been "modernized" to 2 strokes. Shouldn't be anything UNLESS it's determined to be cheating.

 

 

Only billion dollar sport on the planet I can think of where the player not only has to play but has to keep their own score.

 

Never mind, I know. Just another "beauty" of the sport. GET OFF MY LAWN !!! :rtfm: :rolleyes:

 

/end

[Halebopp]

 

 

 

Only billion dollar sport on the planet I can think of where the player not only has to play but has to keep their own score.

 

Never mind, I know. Just another "beauty" of the sport. GET OFF MY LAWN !!! :rtfm: :rolleyes:

 

/end

 

I don't have the time right now to discuss the other points but I'm curious to know who should be keeping your score when you play a round of golf? Assuming you want to see your score after a round and thus, someone needs to keep it.

 

[LeoLeo99]

 

 

 

Only billion dollar sport on the planet I can think of where the player not only has to play but has to keep their own score.

 

Never mind, I know. Just another "beauty" of the sport. GET OFF MY LAWN !!! :rtfm: :rolleyes:

 

/end

 

I don't have the time right now to discuss the other points but I'm curious to know who should be keeping your score when you play a round of golf? Assuming you want to see your score after a round and thus, someone needs to keep it.

 

One of them there rules officials getting paid to follow me around to assure a proper competition.

[sui generis]

Only billion dollar sport on the planet I can think of where the player not only has to play but has to keep their own score.

 

Never mind, I know. Just another "beauty" of the sport. GET OFF MY LAWN !!! :rtfm: :rolleyes:

 

/end

 

I don't have the time right now to discuss the other points but I'm curious to know who should be keeping your score when you play a round of golf? Assuming you want to see your score after a round and thus, someone needs to keep it.

 

By some estimate there are 60 million golfers on the planet. A decimal followed by many zeros and a one are paid big money to participate in TV reality shows. Why anyone thinks the Rules should be maneuvered around strictly for the benefit of those lucky few is either missing the point entirely or being severely intransigent.

[Hardluckster]

After much thought on this matter, I have somewhat changed my opinion on this topic. It seems that chris975d, dpb5031, nsxguy, and others have indeed 'reached me' on this matter.

 

I now believe that, if I were the USGA and R&A, I may well remove the exception to Rule 6-6d. It brings in the aspect of trying to determine intent, which in my opinion is impossible to do. I do not believe that the committee can be expected to rule on intent and therefore maybe asking that of them is a mistake.

 

So, I now feel that the best possible result, rules-wise, may well have been to DQ Ms. Thompson from last week's ANA tournament.

 

I will add that while Lexi may not have known that she replaced in the wrong position (unintentional), she should have. It was her responsibility to know and correct the error before making her next stroke. So maybe making excuses for her lack of awareness, and in doing so trying to impose a lesser degree of penalty, is the wrong action.

 

Harsh? Maybe. Appropriate? I personally would say that it is.

[chris975d]

Only billion dollar sport on the planet I can think of where the player not only has to play but has to keep their own score.

 

Never mind, I know. Just another "beauty" of the sport. GET OFF MY LAWN !!! :rtfm: :rolleyes:

 

/end

 

I don't have the time right now to discuss the other points but I'm curious to know who should be keeping your score when you play a round of golf? Assuming you want to see your score after a round and thus, someone needs to keep it.

 

By some estimate there are 60 million golfers on the planet. A decimal followed by many zeros and a one are paid big money to participate in TV reality shows. Why anyone thinks the Rules should be maneuvered around strictly for the benefit of those lucky few is either missing the point entirely or being severely intransigent.

 

The fact that you are referring to the professional Tours as "TV reality shows" speaks to that need I believe. That would signify in some way that they are not like the rounds the average golfer plays.

 

And honestly, so many professional leagues (aka reality TV shows as you call them) have different regulations/rules/policies/penalties from the sport that we non professionals can play.

NFL has different hash mark widths, different places to kick extra points from, different penalties for infractions

NBA has different distance 3 point lines, etc, baseball has restrictions on equipment (wooden bats).

Professional tennis has cyclops/line judging machines that I don't have access to when I play competitive tennis matches...that call is left up to the competitor closest to the shot in question usually.

 

Lots of sports change things for their professional tours/athletes, aka the big money players. So I don't think that's even a fair defense of any of what's being talked about here really.

[KyGolf]

After much thought on this matter, I have somewhat changed my opinion on this topic. It seems that chris975d, dpb5031, nsxguy, and others have indeed 'reached me' on this matter.

 

I now believe that, if I were the USGA and R&A, I may well remove the exception to Rule 6-6d. It brings in the aspect of trying to determine intent, which in my opinion is impossible to do. I do not believe that the committee cannot be expected to rule on intent and therefore maybe asking that of them is a mistake.

 

So, I now feel that the best possible result, rules-wise, may well have been to DQ Ms. Thompson from last week's ANA tournament.

I will add that while Lexi may not have known that she replaced in the wrong position (unintentional), she should have. It was her responsibility to know and correct the error before making her next stroke. So maybe making excuses for her lack of awareness, and in doing so trying to impose a lesser degree of penalty, is the wrong action.

 

Harsh? Maybe. Appropriate? I personally would say that it is.

 

You are more than likely right, but imagine the outrage that would have followed a DQ. It would make what we have here now look like a mouse fart in a hurricane.

[KyGolf]

I noticed that the referee (Dan Maselli) who ruled against Alison Lee regarding an 18-inch putt to the benefit of Suzann Pettersen on the 17th green on September 20th in the 2015 Solheim Cup was the referee who ruled against against Lexi Thompson regarding an 18-inch putt to the benefit of Suzann Petersen on April 2nd in the 2017 ANA Inspiration. I think that Mr. Maselli likes the attention, and I think that he likes Ms. Pettersen. These two rulings were poor rulings. In the 2015 ruling, Mr. Maselli claimed that the word "statement" in Decision 2-4/3 required a verbal statement and did not allow a nonverbal statement, which was incorrect. In the 2017 ruling, Mr. Maselli chose to selectively penalize one player (Ms. Thompson) for a violation (of Rule 20-3a) that every other player likewise committed to one degree or another so that that one player (Ms. Thompson) would be less of an obstacle to a certain other player (Ms. Pettersen, who likewise violated Rule 20-3a, but who was not penalized for it).

 

 

You are wrong in your interpretation of the rules. Both rulings were correct.. As to Mr. Maselli's motivation neither you or I know. Point out the instance where Suzann breached Rule 20-3a.

[sui generis]

I noticed that the referee (Dan Maselli) who ruled against Alison Lee regarding an 18-inch putt to the benefit of Suzann Pettersen on the 17th green on September 20th in the 2015 Solheim Cup was the referee who ruled against against Lexi Thompson regarding an 18-inch putt to the benefit of Suzann Petersen on April 2nd in the 2017 ANA Inspiration. I think that Mr. Maselli likes the attention, and I think that he likes Ms. Pettersen. These two rulings were poor rulings. In the 2015 ruling, Mr. Maselli claimed that the word "statement" in Decision 2-4/3 required a verbal statement and did not allow a nonverbal statement, which was incorrect. In the 2017 ruling, Mr. Maselli chose to selectively penalize one player (Ms. Thompson) for a violation (of Rule 20-3a) that every other player likewise committed to one degree or another so that that one player (Ms. Thompson) would be less of an obstacle to a certain other player (Ms. Pettersen, who likewise violated Rule 20-3a, but who was not penalized for it).

 

 

You are wrong in your interpretation of the rules. Both rulings were correct.. As to Mr. Maselli's motivation neither you or I know. Point out the instance where Suzann breached Rule 20-3a.

 

Some here don't see the difference between "mark, lift, clean, and replace" and "mark, lift, clean, and place." :swoon:

[Hardluckster]

You are more than likely right, but imagine the outrage that would have followed a DQ. It would make what we have here now look like a mouse fart in a hurricane.

 

On that, I think that we can all probably agree.

[KyGolf]

Only billion dollar sport on the planet I can think of where the player not only has to play but has to keep their own score.

 

Never mind, I know. Just another "beauty" of the sport. GET OFF MY LAWN !!! :rtfm: :rolleyes:

 

/end

 

I don't have the time right now to discuss the other points but I'm curious to know who should be keeping your score when you play a round of golf? Assuming you want to see your score after a round and thus, someone needs to keep it.

 

By some estimate there are 60 million golfers on the planet. A decimal followed by many zeros and a one are paid big money to participate in TV reality shows. Why anyone thinks the Rules should be maneuvered around strictly for the benefit of those lucky few is either missing the point entirely or being severely intransigent.

 

The fact that you are referring to the professional Tours as "TV reality shows" speaks to that need I believe. That would signify in some way that they are not like the rounds the average golfer plays.

 

And honestly, so many professional leagues (aka reality TV shows as you call them) have different regulations/rules/policies/penalties from the sport that we non professionals can play.

NFL has different hash mark widths, different places to kick extra points from, different penalties for infractions

NBA has different distance 3 point lines, etc, baseball has restrictions on equipment (wooden bats).

Professional tennis has cyclops/line judging machines that I don't have access to when I play competitive tennis matches...that call is left up to the competitor closest to the shot in question usually.

 

Lots of sports change things for their professional tours/athletes, aka the big money players. So I don't think that's even a fair defense of any of what's being talked about here really.

 

 

It is worth noting that nothing is forcing the professional tours to conduct their competitions according to the USGA/R&A rules. They choose to do that.

[chris975d]

Only billion dollar sport on the planet I can think of where the player not only has to play but has to keep their own score.

 

Never mind, I know. Just another "beauty" of the sport. GET OFF MY LAWN !!! :rtfm: :rolleyes:

 

/end

 

I don't have the time right now to discuss the other points but I'm curious to know who should be keeping your score when you play a round of golf? Assuming you want to see your score after a round and thus, someone needs to keep it.

 

By some estimate there are 60 million golfers on the planet. A decimal followed by many zeros and a one are paid big money to participate in TV reality shows. Why anyone thinks the Rules should be maneuvered around strictly for the benefit of those lucky few is either missing the point entirely or being severely intransigent.

 

The fact that you are referring to the professional Tours as "TV reality shows" speaks to that need I believe. That would signify in some way that they are not like the rounds the average golfer plays.

 

And honestly, so many professional leagues (aka reality TV shows as you call them) have different regulations/rules/policies/penalties from the sport that we non professionals can play.

NFL has different hash mark widths, different places to kick extra points from, different penalties for infractions

NBA has different distance 3 point lines, etc, baseball has restrictions on equipment (wooden bats).

Professional tennis has cyclops/line judging machines that I don't have access to when I play competitive tennis matches...that call is left up to the competitor closest to the shot in question usually.

 

Lots of sports change things for their professional tours/athletes, aka the big money players. So I don't think that's even a fair defense of any of what's being talked about here really.

 

 

It is worth noting that nothing is forcing the professional tours to conduct their competitions according to the USGA/R&A rules. They choose to do that.

 

That was kind of where I was going with that. They could choose not to as well. And probably should look into that.

[chris975d]

Only billion dollar sport on the planet I can think of where the player not only has to play but has to keep their own score.

 

Never mind, I know. Just another "beauty" of the sport. GET OFF MY LAWN !!! :rtfm: :rolleyes:

 

/end

 

I don't have the time right now to discuss the other points but I'm curious to know who should be keeping your score when you play a round of golf? Assuming you want to see your score after a round and thus, someone needs to keep it.

 

By some estimate there are 60 million golfers on the planet. A decimal followed by many zeros and a one are paid big money to participate in TV reality shows. Why anyone thinks the Rules should be maneuvered around strictly for the benefit of those lucky few is either missing the point entirely or being severely intransigent.

 

The fact that you are referring to the professional Tours as "TV reality shows" speaks to that need I believe. That would signify in some way that they are not like the rounds the average golfer plays.

 

And honestly, so many professional leagues (aka reality TV shows as you call them) have different regulations/rules/policies/penalties from the sport that we non professionals can play.

NFL has different hash mark widths, different places to kick extra points from, different penalties for infractions

NBA has different distance 3 point lines, etc, baseball has restrictions on equipment (wooden bats).

Professional tennis has cyclops/line judging machines that I don't have access to when I play competitive tennis matches...that call is left up to the competitor closest to the shot in question usually.

 

Lots of sports change things for their professional tours/athletes, aka the big money players. So I don't think that's even a fair defense of any of what's being talked about here really.

 

 

It is worth noting that nothing is forcing the professional tours to conduct their competitions according to the USGA/R&A rules. They choose to do that.

 

Something I don't think I've seen yet...to those defending the current setup and insinuating it's the best there is...you, sui generis, sawgrass, etc...

 

What do you guys say to Jack, who's regarded as the best player we've ever had in this game, saying that rounds should be over when the card is signed and that's that? Have any of you addressed that and torn him apart as much as you have those of us here in the forum for saying something similar?

[Hardluckster]

Something I don't think I've seen yet...to those defending the current setup and insinuating it's the best there is...you, sui generis, sawgrass, etc...

 

What do you guys say to Jack, who's regarded as the best player we've ever had in this game, saying that rounds should be over when the card is signed and that's that? Have any of you addressed that and torn him apart as much as you have those of us here in the forum for saying something similar?

 

I haven't personally read where Jack said that, but I'll take your word for it being correct.

 

Personally, I'd have to disagree with the GOAT on that. My opinion and his would differ.

 

If a change had to be made, I'd be much more in favor of leaving all cards unsigned until the final round is complete than the option of signing after each round and having that action formally finalize the early round scores.

 

Not that I see anything really wrong with the system that we have in place now........

[chris975d]

Something I don't think I've seen yet...to those defending the current setup and insinuating it's the best there is...you, sui generis, sawgrass, etc...

 

What do you guys say to Jack, who's regarded as the best player we've ever had in this game, saying that rounds should be over when the card is signed and that's that? Have any of you addressed that and torn him apart as much as you have those of us here in the forum for saying something similar?

 

I haven't personally read where Jack said that, but I'll take your word for it being correct.

 

Personally, I'd have to disagree with the GOAT on that. My opinion and his would differ.

 

If a change had to be made, I'd be much more in favor of leaving all cards unsigned until the final round is complete than the option of signing after each round and having that action formally finalize the early round scores.

 

Not that I see anything really wrong with the system that we have in place now........

 

I'll quote Jack for you:

 

"Now, my opinion on that kind of stuff is that once the round is over, and the scorecard is signed, the day is over."

 

The reason I ask that is that I can almost guarantee you that most of those people defending this current stupid setup would be parroting Jack left and right if he had defended it... "the GOAT has spoken, end of discussion" or something to that effect. But since he disagrees with it, none of the defenders even acknowledge it.

[HitEmTrue]

I'd bet a cooked goose and a bag of donuts, that if asked what should happen if a player turns in a card with a 4 on a hole where he really made a 5, Jack would say the player should be DQ.

 

So we would be right back where we started.

 

Then I would let the subject to something more interesting than rules of golf with Jack Nicklaus.

 

[HitEmTrue]

I'll quote Jack for you:

 

"Now, my opinion on that kind of stuff is that once the round is over, and the scorecard is signed, the day is over."

 

Key words: "that kind of stuff." Probably talking about call-ins and cameras.

[chris975d]

I'd bet a cooked goose and a bag of donuts, that if asked what should happen if a player turns in a card with a 4 on a hole where he really made a 5, Jack would say the player should be DQ.

 

So we would be right back where we started.

 

Then I would let the subject to something more interesting than rules of golf with Jack Nicklaus.

 

So what the best player to ever play the game says about the current setup isn't interesting, because it doesn't fit your agenda? That's interesting in and of itself. But I can almost guarantee you that you and others would be spouting his comments if he had defended it. But the fact is that the vast, vast majority of pros who have been asked about this Lexi situation, and others, have almost unanimously said something needs to be fixed.

[HitEmTrue]

Exploring different rule scenarios would be interesting. But with the greatest player of all time? Lots of stuff more interesting than that.

 

I don't have an agenda.

[chris975d]

Exploring different rule scenarios would be interesting. But with the greatest player of all time? Lots of stuff more interesting than that.

 

I don't have an agenda.

 

Then who better to discuss different rule scenarios and possible changes with than the person who has arguably accomplished more in golf than anyone else? But, that's your choice I guess. But again, I have a very good feeling you'd be saying differently if he had said the current system is great and he agrees with it 100%.

[sui generis]

I'd bet a cooked goose and a bag of donuts, that if asked what should happen if a player turns in a card with a 4 on a hole where he really made a 5, Jack would say the player should be DQ.

 

So we would be right back where we started.

 

Then I would let the subject to something more interesting than rules of golf with Jack Nicklaus.

 

So what the best player to ever play the game says about the current setup isn't interesting, because it doesn't fit your agenda? That's interesting in and of itself. But I can almost guarantee you that you and others would be spouting his comments if he had defended it. But the fact is that the vast, vast majority of pros who have been asked about this Lexi situation, and others, have almost unanimously said something needs to be fixed.

 

Every Rule you attack because you don't like it is tied in to a dozen others and situations you (and I) might not even contemplate. I admire Jack for his ability to hit a golf ball and sire children but he's never demonstrated any extraordinary proficiency with the Rules.

[nsxguy]

I'd bet a cooked goose and a bag of donuts, that if asked what should happen if a player turns in a card with a 4 on a hole where he really made a 5, Jack would say the player should be DQ.

 

I'd bet even more that he would.

 

So we would be right back where we started.

 

Not exactly as that specific situation hasn't been argued against by ANYBODY.

[KyGolf]

Exploring different rule scenarios would be interesting. But with the greatest player of all time? Lots of stuff more interesting than that.

 

I don't have an agenda.

 

Then who better to discuss different rule scenarios and possible changes with than the person who has arguably accomplished more in golf than anyone else? But, that's your choice I guess. But again, I have a very good feeling you'd be saying differently if he had said the current system is great and he agrees with it 100%.

 

 

As would you if he didn't support your position.

 

In the end he is one man with one opinion. And he is entitled to that opinion, as are you. But it still doesn't make it right.

[Hardluckster]

Every Rule you attack because you don't like it is tied in to a dozen others and situations you (and I) might not even contemplate. I admire Jack for his ability to hit a golf ball and sire children but he's never demonstrated any extraordinary proficiency with the Rules.

 

Being one of the greatest golfers of all times definitely gives Jack some clout in the golfing world, but you are correct about good players not necessarily being rules gurus.

 

I was discussing the Lexi situation with a guy the other day who used to be part owner in the golf course where I regularly play. The guy has been playing golf for 40+ years and is a good player. While discussing the ruling, we began to discuss oddities of the rules and in two of his 'stories' he told me of instances where he had made the wrong rulings.

 

Without going too deeply into specifics:

 

Number 1: He told about years ago having ruled another player's ball not in the hazard because it wasn't in the water, even though it was clearly in the area below where the hazard dropped off (no stakes or markings on the hazard). He still thought the ball had to be in the water if the margins weren't marked. When I told him that that I didn't think that is how the rule was written, he disagreed.

 

Number 2: He told of another player's ball rolling away from the cup after being replaced on the green - after the coin had been picked up. He stated that if the player had left the coin in place and the ball had rolled, the player would have had to replace the ball to the spot behind the coin. Again, he disagreed when I told him that I didn't think that was what the RoG said.

 

Now, this guy is no Jack Nicklaus. I'm just saying that being a top notch golfer doesn't necessarily make you efficient in the rules of golf.

[Sawgrass]

Something I don't think I've seen yet...to those defending the current setup and insinuating it's the best there is...you, sui generis, sawgrass, etc...

 

What do you guys say to Jack, who's regarded as the best player we've ever had in this game, saying that rounds should be over when the card is signed and that's that? Have any of you addressed that and torn him apart as much as you have those of us here in the forum for saying something similar?

 

I haven't personally read where Jack said that, but I'll take your word for it being correct.

 

Personally, I'd have to disagree with the GOAT on that. My opinion and his would differ.

 

If a change had to be made, I'd be much more in favor of leaving all cards unsigned until the final round is complete than the option of signing after each round and having that action formally finalize the early round scores.

 

Not that I see anything really wrong with the system that we have in place now........

 

I'll quote Jack for you:

 

"Now, my opinion on that kind of stuff is that once the round is over, and the scorecard is signed, the day is over."

 

The reason I ask that is that I can almost guarantee you that most of those people defending this current stupid setup would be parroting Jack left and right if he had defended it... "the GOAT has spoken, end of discussion" or something to that effect. But since he disagrees with it, none of the defenders even acknowledge it.

 

What a load of crap. YOU bring up Jack because you presume he supports your position. Then you say that others would do as you have done.

 

As far as I recall, no one here who supports the current Rule has said, "You should like the Rule because Mike Davis has endorsed it."

 

And Mike Davis has significantly more credibility when it comes to Rules issues than Jack does. Knowing Jack, he wouldn't even say that people should agree with him because it's he who says so.

[k4f7]

It was mentioned somewhere in this thread that ignorance of a rule does not excuse a player from being penalized for violating the rule.

 

According to Decision 2-4/3.5, it does.

 

Rule 2-4 says that a player may concede this or that or the other thing, and that a player may not either refuse or withdraw a concession. That's all it says.

 

​That means that only a player, not a caddie, may concede.

 

It also means that the conceding player can communicate the concession in whatever manner he or she wishes, either verbally (in any language) or nonverbally (through any action).

 

That is what I see on tour. The concession is expressed verbally in various languages, or the concession is expressed nonverbally through various actions. No one seems to have any trouble understanding what is what.

 

However, Decision 2-4/3.5 says that if a player lifts his ball without marking it because he believes that a caddie has conceded his next putt, even though Rule 2-4, on which Decision 2-4/3.5 is based, does not allow a caddie to concede, then the player is not subject to the penalty for lifting his ball without marking it, because he thought that the caddie had conceded his next putt, and because he was ignorant of the fact that Rule 2-4, on which Decision 2-4/3.5 is based, does not allow a caddie to concede.

 

That sure looks to me like ignorance of a rule being an accepted excuse from being penalized.

[Sawgrass]

 

That sure looks to me like ignorance of a rule being an accepted excuse from being penalized.

 

No, not really. 6-6d says:

 

6-1. Rules

 

The player and his caddie are responsible for knowing the Rules. During a stipulated round, for any breach of a Rule by his caddie, the player incurs the applicable penalty.

Rule 2 which you refer to is exclusively about Match Play, not Stroke Play like Lexi was involved in. The Note at the end of 2-5 says:

 

Note 1: A player may disregard a breach of the Rules by his opponent provided there is no agreement by the sides to waive a Rule (Rule 1-3).

 

Your comment in your post above challenging the concept that "ignorance of a rule does not excuse a player from being penalized for violating the rule" is off base. Players are responsible for knowing and following the Rules, and being ignorant of the Rules and their obligations does not excuse a player from anything. But, a friendly opponent (match play term only), can silently "excuse" a player from being penalized.

 

To summarize, ignorance doesn't free you, but a match play opponent might.