Sergio Garcia Match Play Tap-In

[antip]

Here's a rules issue/angle that I don't think has risen in this thread to date. Please note - it is only a rules observation, not a suggestion about what anyone SHOULD have done.

Even after a hole is completed, I'm reading 3.2a(2) as permitting players to agree to tie a hole regardless of the actual score or any penalties incurred. So even after the Sergio brain fade and Kuch had clearly won the hole, there was nothing in the rules that prevented them from agreeing to treat the hole as tied and embedding that result there and then within an agreed match score.

[ivsa71]

> @antip said:

> Here's a rules issue/angle that I don't think has risen in this thread to date. Please note - it is only a rules observation, not a suggestion about what anyone SHOULD have done.

> Even after a hole is completed, I'm reading 3.2a(2) as permitting players to agree to tie a hole regardless of the actual score or any penalties incurred. So even after the Sergio brain fade and Kuch had clearly won the hole, there was nothing in the rules that prevented them from agreeing to treat the hole as tied and embedding that result there and then within an agreed match score.

 

No, They can not mutually agree to breach a rule or change rules before or during a match. 1.3b(1)

 

but 3.2d(4) allows you to protect or ignore what is in your best interest. In this case without conferring with Sergio, Kuchar could have remained silent that Sergio hit the ball without concession and in regards to the referees declaration of what the outcome of the hole was.

 

@fade yes it is perfectly ok to win the hole the way Kuchar did. I think it is a little shady and Kuchar should not try and spin it that he did not want to win the hole the way that he did. Because he did and succeeded in doing so. He should just own it.

 

 

 

[Sawgrass]

> @antip said:

> Here's a rules issue/angle that I don't think has risen in this thread to date. Please note - it is only a rules observation, not a suggestion about what anyone SHOULD have done.

> Even after a hole is completed, I'm reading 3.2a(2) as permitting players to agree to tie a hole regardless of the actual score or any penalties incurred. So even after the Sergio brain fade and Kuch had clearly won the hole, there was nothing in the rules that prevented them from agreeing to treat the hole as tied and embedding that result there and then within an agreed match score.

 

This is a very interesting point. Old 2-4 had nothing to say about the topic in the second bullet in 3.2a(2). And I had glossed over it, presuming that it “meant” before the hole was finished. But it doesn’t say that you must decide before the hole is over.

[antip]

> @ivsa71 said:

> > @antip said:

> > Here's a rules issue/angle that I don't think has risen in this thread to date. Please note - it is only a rules observation, not a suggestion about what anyone SHOULD have done.

> > Even after a hole is completed, I'm reading 3.2a(2) as permitting players to agree to tie a hole regardless of the actual score or any penalties incurred. So even after the Sergio brain fade and Kuch had clearly won the hole, there was nothing in the rules that prevented them from agreeing to treat the hole as tied and embedding that result there and then within an agreed match score.

>

> **No, They can not mutually agree to breach a rule or change rules before or during a match. 1.3b(1)

>**

> but 3.2d(4) allows you to protect or ignore what is in your best interest. In this case without conferring with Sergio, Kuchar could have remained silent that Sergio hit the ball without concession and in regards to the referees declaration of what the outcome of the hole was.

>

>

They would be doing nothing of the sort. They would be acting within the authority of R3.2a(2). Permission trumps prohibition.

[ivsa71]

> @antip said:

> > @ivsa71 said:

> > > @antip said:

> > > Here's a rules issue/angle that I don't think has risen in this thread to date. Please note - it is only a rules observation, not a suggestion about what anyone SHOULD have done.

> > > Even after a hole is completed, I'm reading 3.2a(2) as permitting players to agree to tie a hole regardless of the actual score or any penalties incurred. So even after the Sergio brain fade and Kuch had clearly won the hole, there was nothing in the rules that prevented them from agreeing to treat the hole as tied and embedding that result there and then within an agreed match score.

> >

> > **No, They can not mutually agree to breach a rule or change rules before or during a match. 1.3b(1)

> >**

> > but 3.2d(4) allows you to protect or ignore what is in your best interest. In this case without conferring with Sergio, Kuchar could have remained silent that Sergio hit the ball without concession and in regards to the referees declaration of what the outcome of the hole was.

> >

> >

> They would be doing nothing of the sort. They would be acting within the authority of R3.2a(2). Permission trumps prohibition.

 

Ah, yes, I see where your going now. Yes, yet another way it seems Kuchar could have tied the hole if he wanted.

 

[dpb5031]

Sergio again let his emotions and impulsivity get the better of him. No denying that and he's got to own it, which he has.

 

Still, I would NEVER want to win like that, whether playing a $2 Nassau, a club championship, or a WGC event. In fact, an opponent in an inter-club team match once raked back a 6 inch putt after missing a 4 footer. He immediately looked at me after the fact and I said, "no worries, it was good...no blood." Seriously, do you want to beat your opponent by playing better, or on some inane technicality? There was no field needing protecting here folks.

[Sawgrass]

I don’t consider putting the ball in the hole “some inane technicality.”

[HitEmTrue]

> @antip said:

> Here's a rules issue/angle that I don't think has risen in this thread to date. Please note - it is only a rules observation, not a suggestion about what anyone SHOULD have done.

> Even after a hole is completed, I'm reading 3.2a(2) as permitting players to agree to tie a hole regardless of the actual score or any penalties incurred. So even after the Sergio brain fade and Kuch had clearly won the hole, there was nothing in the rules that prevented them from agreeing to treat the hole as tied and embedding that result there and then within an agreed match score.

 

3.2b(1)/1 says, "Although a player is allowed to concede a hole to his or her opponent at any time **before that hole is completed**," even though Rule 3 does not say so. I'd expect the same thing to hold true for agreeing to a tie.

 

[tatertot]

If Kuchar had looked at the official and said "it was good", all this would have been avoided.

[antip]

> @HitEmTrue said:

> > @antip said:

> > Here's a rules issue/angle that I don't think has risen in this thread to date. Please note - it is only a rules observation, not a suggestion about what anyone SHOULD have done.

> > Even after a hole is completed, I'm reading 3.2a(2) as permitting players to agree to tie a hole regardless of the actual score or any penalties incurred. So even after the Sergio brain fade and Kuch had clearly won the hole, there was nothing in the rules that prevented them from agreeing to treat the hole as tied and embedding that result there and then within an agreed match score.

>

> 3.2b(1)/1 says, "Although a player is allowed to concede a hole to his or her opponent at any time **before that hole is completed**," even though Rule 3 does not say so. I'd expect the same thing to hold true for agreeing to a tie.

>

 

I hear what you are saying, but concessions are a very special case with their own rules treatment, so I start very reluctant to generalize from concessions to other situations.

[dpb5031]

> @Sawgrass said:

> I don’t consider putting the ball in the hole “some inane technicality.”

 

Context

[bladehunter]

> @dpb5031 said:

> Sergio again let his emotions and impulsivity get the better of him. No denying that and he's got to own it, which he has.

>

> Still, I would NEVER want to win like that, whether playing a $2 Nassau, a club championship, or a WGC event. In fact, an opponent in an inter-club team match once raked back a 6 inch putt after missing a 4 footer. He immediately looked at me after the fact and I said, "no worries, it was good...no blood." Seriously, do you want to beat your opponent by playing better, or on some inane technicality? There was no field needing protecting here folks.

 

Agree with this post completely. It’s absolutely a case of one guy losing control of his emotions and another taking advantage of that. Is it legal to do so ? Sure. Is it something I would do ? Not a chance. I want to beat you not win on a cheap technicality. The length of the raked putt is the dividing line in my mind. If it’s 2-3 ft. Sure. 2-3 inches ? Nope. That’s pretty much understood as good in any Players mind automatically. In all the match play I’ve played you aren’t hearing “ that’s good “ for every 2 inch putt. And you sure aren’t calling a guy out if he rakes it back and you didn’t say “ good”. If you need to see that putted. Grow some hair and say so out loud. Don’t walk off , not watch. Then call foul when it isn’t putted.

[sui generis]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @dpb5031 said:

> > Sergio again let his emotions and impulsivity get the better of him. No denying that and he's got to own it, which he has.

> >

> > Still, I would NEVER want to win like that, whether playing a $2 Nassau, a club championship, or a WGC event. In fact, an opponent in an inter-club team match once raked back a 6 inch putt after missing a 4 footer. He immediately looked at me after the fact and I said, "no worries, it was good...no blood." Seriously, do you want to beat your opponent by playing better, or on some inane technicality? There was no field needing protecting here folks.

>

> Agree with this post completely. It’s absolutely a case of one guy losing control of his emotions and another taking advantage of that. Is it legal to do so ? Sure. Is it something I would do ? Not a chance. I want to beat you not win on a cheap technicality. The length of the raked putt is the dividing line in my mind. If it’s 2-3 ft. Sure. 2-3 inches ? Nope. That’s pretty much understood as good in any Players mind automatically. In all the match play I’ve played you aren’t hearing “ that’s good “ for every 2 inch putt. And you sure aren’t calling a guy out if he rakes it back and you didn’t say “ good”. If you need to see that putted. Grow some hair and say so out loud. Don’t walk off , not watch. Then call foul when it isn’t putted.

 

Players experienced in high-level competitive match play understand the format.

 

They don't play "Aw, shucks, match play, " or "Good ol' boy match play."

 

Concessions are clearly made and graciously accepted. The absence of a concession is just that.

[bladehunter]

> @"sui generis" said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @dpb5031 said:

> > > Sergio again let his emotions and impulsivity get the better of him. No denying that and he's got to own it, which he has.

> > >

> > > Still, I would NEVER want to win like that, whether playing a $2 Nassau, a club championship, or a WGC event. In fact, an opponent in an inter-club team match once raked back a 6 inch putt after missing a 4 footer. He immediately looked at me after the fact and I said, "no worries, it was good...no blood." Seriously, do you want to beat your opponent by playing better, or on some inane technicality? There was no field needing protecting here folks.

> >

> > Agree with this post completely. It’s absolutely a case of one guy losing control of his emotions and another taking advantage of that. Is it legal to do so ? Sure. Is it something I would do ? Not a chance. I want to beat you not win on a cheap technicality. The length of the raked putt is the dividing line in my mind. If it’s 2-3 ft. Sure. 2-3 inches ? Nope. That’s pretty much understood as good in any Players mind automatically. In all the match play I’ve played you aren’t hearing “ that’s good “ for every 2 inch putt. And you sure aren’t calling a guy out if he rakes it back and you didn’t say “ good”. If you need to see that putted. Grow some hair and say so out loud. Don’t walk off , not watch. Then call foul when it isn’t putted.

>

> Players experienced in high-level competitive match play understand the format.

>

> They don't play "Aw, shucks, match play, " or "Good ol' boy match play."

>

> Concessions are clearly made and graciously accepted. The absence of a concession is just that.

 

All evidence in this case is to the contrary of that statement. Kuchar walks off and says nothing. Sergio rakes it across the hole. How much higher competition is there ?

[Sawgrass]

> @dpb5031 said:

> > @Sawgrass said:

> > I don’t consider putting the ball in the hole “some inane technicality.”

>

> Context

 

For me, the main context was Sergio acting like a child because he missed a putt. I’m not going to get teary-eyed for him that his opponent didn’t make it all better.

[Sawgrass]

> @HitEmTrue said:

> > @antip said:

> > Here's a rules issue/angle that I don't think has risen in this thread to date. Please note - it is only a rules observation, not a suggestion about what anyone SHOULD have done.

> > Even after a hole is completed, I'm reading 3.2a(2) as permitting players to agree to tie a hole regardless of the actual score or any penalties incurred. So even after the Sergio brain fade and Kuch had clearly won the hole, there was nothing in the rules that prevented them from agreeing to treat the hole as tied and embedding that result there and then within an agreed match score.

>

> 3.2b(1)/1 says, "Although a player is allowed to concede a hole to his or her opponent at any time **before that hole is completed**," even though Rule 3 does not say so. I'd expect the same thing to hold true for agreeing to a tie.

>

 

Do I smell a clarification in the wind?

[bladehunter]

> @Sawgrass said:

> > @dpb5031 said:

> > > @Sawgrass said:

> > > I don’t consider putting the ball in the hole “some inane technicality.”

> >

> > Context

>

> For me, the main context was Sergio acting like a child because he missed a putt. I’m not going to get teary-eyed for him that his opponent didn’t make it all better.

 

I agree with that too. Sergio doesn’t deserve to win.

 

I just am not sure Kuchar deserves the umbrella of “ I had no choice “ .... it’s a case of two less than stellar reputations meeting.

[Sawgrass]

> @HitEmTrue said:

> > @antip said:

> > Here's a rules issue/angle that I don't think has risen in this thread to date. Please note - it is only a rules observation, not a suggestion about what anyone SHOULD have done.

> > Even after a hole is completed, I'm reading 3.2a(2) as permitting players to agree to tie a hole regardless of the actual score or any penalties incurred. So even after the Sergio brain fade and Kuch had clearly won the hole, there was nothing in the rules that prevented them from agreeing to treat the hole as tied and embedding that result there and then within an agreed match score.

>

> 3.2b(1)/1 says, "Although a player is allowed to concede a hole to his or her opponent at any time **before that hole is completed**," even though Rule 3 does not say so. I'd expect the same thing to hold true for agreeing to a tie.

>

 

Do I smell a clarification in the wind?> @bladehunter said:

> > @Sawgrass said:

> > > @dpb5031 said:

> > > > @Sawgrass said:

> > > > I don’t consider putting the ball in the hole “some inane technicality.”

> > >

> > > Context

> >

> > For me, the main context was Sergio acting like a child because he missed a putt. I’m not going to get teary-eyed for him that his opponent didn’t make it all better.

>

> I agree with that too. Sergio doesn’t deserve to win.

>

> I just am not sure Kuchar deserves the umbrella of “ I had no choice “ .... it’s a case of two less than stellar reputations meeting.

 

A stellar analysis, I’m voting for you!

[HitEmTrue]

> @Sawgrass said:

> > @HitEmTrue said:

> > > @antip said:

> > > Here's a rules issue/angle that I don't think has risen in this thread to date. Please note - it is only a rules observation, not a suggestion about what anyone SHOULD have done.

> > > Even after a hole is completed, I'm reading 3.2a(2) as permitting players to agree to tie a hole regardless of the actual score or any penalties incurred. So even after the Sergio brain fade and Kuch had clearly won the hole, there was nothing in the rules that prevented them from agreeing to treat the hole as tied and embedding that result there and then within an agreed match score.

> >

> > 3.2b(1)/1 says, "Although a player is allowed to concede a hole to his or her opponent at any time **before that hole is completed**," even though Rule 3 does not say so. I'd expect the same thing to hold true for agreeing to a tie.

> >

>

> Do I smell a clarification in the wind?> @bladehunter said:

> > > @Sawgrass said:

> > > > @dpb5031 said:

> > > > > @Sawgrass said:

> > > > > I don’t consider putting the ball in the hole “some inane technicality.”

> > > >

> > > > Context

> > >

> > > For me, the main context was Sergio acting like a child because he missed a putt. I’m not going to get teary-eyed for him that his opponent didn’t make it all better.

> >

> > I agree with that too. Sergio doesn’t deserve to win.

> >

> > I just am not sure Kuchar deserves the umbrella of “ I had no choice “ .... it’s a case of two less than stellar reputations meeting.

>

> A stellar analysis, I’m voting for you!

 

The autosave-forced-draft strikes again!

 

[sui generis]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @"sui generis" said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @dpb5031 said:

> > > > Sergio again let his emotions and impulsivity get the better of him. No denying that and he's got to own it, which he has.

> > > >

> > > > Still, I would NEVER want to win like that, whether playing a $2 Nassau, a club championship, or a WGC event. In fact, an opponent in an inter-club team match once raked back a 6 inch putt after missing a 4 footer. He immediately looked at me after the fact and I said, "no worries, it was good...no blood." Seriously, do you want to beat your opponent by playing better, or on some inane technicality? There was no field needing protecting here folks.

> > >

> > > Agree with this post completely. It’s absolutely a case of one guy losing control of his emotions and another taking advantage of that. Is it legal to do so ? Sure. Is it something I would do ? Not a chance. I want to beat you not win on a cheap technicality. The length of the raked putt is the dividing line in my mind. If it’s 2-3 ft. Sure. 2-3 inches ? Nope. That’s pretty much understood as good in any Players mind automatically. In all the match play I’ve played you aren’t hearing “ that’s good “ for every 2 inch putt. And you sure aren’t calling a guy out if he rakes it back and you didn’t say “ good”. If you need to see that putted. Grow some hair and say so out loud. Don’t walk off , not watch. Then call foul when it isn’t putted.

> >

> > Players experienced in high-level competitive match play understand the format.

> >

> > They don't play "Aw, shucks, match play, " or "Good ol' boy match play."

> >

> > Concessions are clearly made and graciously accepted. The absence of a concession is just that.

>

> All evidence in this case is to the contrary of that statement. Kuchar walks off and says nothing. Sergio rakes it across the hole. How much higher competition is there ?

 

I have no interest in participating in a psychoanalysis of TV golfers. Nor am I interested in anecdotes from cracker golf. The Rules on match play can be tricky for those who play and referee the format.

[bladehunter]

> @"sui generis" said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @"sui generis" said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > @dpb5031 said:

> > > > > Sergio again let his emotions and impulsivity get the better of him. No denying that and he's got to own it, which he has.

> > > > >

> > > > > Still, I would NEVER want to win like that, whether playing a $2 Nassau, a club championship, or a WGC event. In fact, an opponent in an inter-club team match once raked back a 6 inch putt after missing a 4 footer. He immediately looked at me after the fact and I said, "no worries, it was good...no blood." Seriously, do you want to beat your opponent by playing better, or on some inane technicality? There was no field needing protecting here folks.

> > > >

> > > > Agree with this post completely. It’s absolutely a case of one guy losing control of his emotions and another taking advantage of that. Is it legal to do so ? Sure. Is it something I would do ? Not a chance. I want to beat you not win on a cheap technicality. The length of the raked putt is the dividing line in my mind. If it’s 2-3 ft. Sure. 2-3 inches ? Nope. That’s pretty much understood as good in any Players mind automatically. In all the match play I’ve played you aren’t hearing “ that’s good “ for every 2 inch putt. And you sure aren’t calling a guy out if he rakes it back and you didn’t say “ good”. If you need to see that putted. Grow some hair and say so out loud. Don’t walk off , not watch. Then call foul when it isn’t putted.

> > >

> > > Players experienced in high-level competitive match play understand the format.

> > >

> > > They don't play "Aw, shucks, match play, " or "Good ol' boy match play."

> > >

> > > Concessions are clearly made and graciously accepted. The absence of a concession is just that.

> >

> > All evidence in this case is to the contrary of that statement. Kuchar walks off and says nothing. Sergio rakes it across the hole. How much higher competition is there ?

>

> I have no interest in participating in a psychoanalysis of TV golfers. Nor am I interested in anecdotes from cracker golf. The Rules on match play can be tricky for those who play and referee the format.

 

Lol. “ cracker golf”. If I didn’t know you were also in cracker land I’d be offended.

 

Funny how we pick and chose which rules we stick closely to and which we negotiate on the first tee.

 

Nobody has called out or besmirched your referee skills. In fact the opposite is true. I’m simply saying that if a guy walks away from a player with a 3 inch putt it generally means “ that’s good “. You don’t see it otherwise unless your name is Suzanne. Anyone besides her would watch the putt if it was indeed needing to be putted.

[Hawkeye77]

Where is this Kuchar walked away coming from? Not read or heard that. Thought he just said it happened fast, which it did.

[Shilgy]

> @"sui generis" said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @dpb5031 said:

> > > Sergio again let his emotions and impulsivity get the better of him. No denying that and he's got to own it, which he has.

> > >

> > > Still, I would NEVER want to win like that, whether playing a $2 Nassau, a club championship, or a WGC event. In fact, an opponent in an inter-club team match once raked back a 6 inch putt after missing a 4 footer. He immediately looked at me after the fact and I said, "no worries, it was good...no blood." Seriously, do you want to beat your opponent by playing better, or on some inane technicality? There was no field needing protecting here folks.

> >

> > Agree with this post completely. It’s absolutely a case of one guy losing control of his emotions and another taking advantage of that. Is it legal to do so ? Sure. Is it something I would do ? Not a chance. I want to beat you not win on a cheap technicality. The length of the raked putt is the dividing line in my mind. If it’s 2-3 ft. Sure. 2-3 inches ? Nope. That’s pretty much understood as good in any Players mind automatically. In all the match play I’ve played you aren’t hearing “ that’s good “ for every 2 inch putt. And you sure aren’t calling a guy out if he rakes it back and you didn’t say “ good”. If you need to see that putted. Grow some hair and say so out loud. Don’t walk off , not watch. Then call foul when it isn’t putted.

>

> Players experienced in high-level competitive match play understand the format.

>

> They don't play "Aw, shucks, match play, " or "Good ol' boy match play."

>

> Concessions are clearly made and graciously accepted. The absence of a concession is just that.

 

 

About three hours before this post you stated that if both players agree to the wrong standing of the match it is, in essence, correct. In that case they could have agreed this hole in question was, essentially, tied and have the match score reflect that.

[Colin L]

I can't claim that thought has crossed my mind, but now you mention it, I'm not comfortable with it. Agreed, the wording of 3.2a(2) does not explicitly say that an agreeing to a half has to happen before the hole is won or lost , but 3.2a(1) has already stated that the hole is won by virtue of one player holing out in fewer strokes. To agree to a tie after the hole has been won could be seen as an agreement to waive that rule. Agreeing a half before you have finished is one thing and common enough when both players have short putts for a half, but what you are suggesting is that players may change the result of a hole as defined in a rule. Players can change their understanding of the result of hole before starting the next one when they realise, for example, that one had miscounted his score, but that is different. That is realising what the result actually was, not changing it.

 

I'm not convinced, but not adamant!

 

 

[Halebopp]

Why is the talk about Kuchar correcting the rules official and not about Garcia, the loser of the hole, not correcting the RO? I struggle to see an issue with the former unlike with the latter.

[sui generis]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @"sui generis" said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @dpb5031 said:

> > > > Sergio again let his emotions and impulsivity get the better of him. No denying that and he's got to own it, which he has.

> > > >

> > > > Still, I would NEVER want to win like that, whether playing a $2 Nassau, a club championship, or a WGC event. In fact, an opponent in an inter-club team match once raked back a 6 inch putt after missing a 4 footer. He immediately looked at me after the fact and I said, "no worries, it was good...no blood." Seriously, do you want to beat your opponent by playing better, or on some inane technicality? There was no field needing protecting here folks.

> > >

> > > Agree with this post completely. It’s absolutely a case of one guy losing control of his emotions and another taking advantage of that. Is it legal to do so ? Sure. Is it something I would do ? Not a chance. I want to beat you not win on a cheap technicality. The length of the raked putt is the dividing line in my mind. If it’s 2-3 ft. Sure. 2-3 inches ? Nope. That’s pretty much understood as good in any Players mind automatically. In all the match play I’ve played you aren’t hearing “ that’s good “ for every 2 inch putt. And you sure aren’t calling a guy out if he rakes it back and you didn’t say “ good”. If you need to see that putted. Grow some hair and say so out loud. Don’t walk off , not watch. Then call foul when it isn’t putted.

> >

> > Players experienced in high-level competitive match play understand the format.

> >

> > They don't play "Aw, shucks, match play, " or "Good ol' boy match play."

> >

> > Concessions are clearly made and graciously accepted. The absence of a concession is just that.

>

>

> About three hours before this post you stated that if both players agree to the wrong standing of the match it is, in essence, correct. In that case they could have agreed this hole in question was, essentially, tied and have the match score reflect that.

 

I do think that the players could have done so, but the uproar would have been similarly loud. American players and referees (and TV golf watchers) are fish out of water when it comes to match play.

[sui generis]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @"sui generis" said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @"sui generis" said:

> > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > @dpb5031 said:

> > > > > > Sergio again let his emotions and impulsivity get the better of him. No denying that and he's got to own it, which he has.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Still, I would NEVER want to win like that, whether playing a $2 Nassau, a club championship, or a WGC event. In fact, an opponent in an inter-club team match once raked back a 6 inch putt after missing a 4 footer. He immediately looked at me after the fact and I said, "no worries, it was good...no blood." Seriously, do you want to beat your opponent by playing better, or on some inane technicality? There was no field needing protecting here folks.

> > > > >

> > > > > Agree with this post completely. It’s absolutely a case of one guy losing control of his emotions and another taking advantage of that. Is it legal to do so ? Sure. Is it something I would do ? Not a chance. I want to beat you not win on a cheap technicality. The length of the raked putt is the dividing line in my mind. If it’s 2-3 ft. Sure. 2-3 inches ? Nope. That’s pretty much understood as good in any Players mind automatically. In all the match play I’ve played you aren’t hearing “ that’s good “ for every 2 inch putt. And you sure aren’t calling a guy out if he rakes it back and you didn’t say “ good”. If you need to see that putted. Grow some hair and say so out loud. Don’t walk off , not watch. Then call foul when it isn’t putted.

> > > >

> > > > Players experienced in high-level competitive match play understand the format.

> > > >

> > > > They don't play "Aw, shucks, match play, " or "Good ol' boy match play."

> > > >

> > > > Concessions are clearly made and graciously accepted. The absence of a concession is just that.

> > >

> > > All evidence in this case is to the contrary of that statement. Kuchar walks off and says nothing. Sergio rakes it across the hole. How much higher competition is there ?

> >

> > I have no interest in participating in a psychoanalysis of TV golfers. Nor am I interested in anecdotes from cracker golf. The Rules on match play can be tricky for those who play and referee the format.

>

> Lol. “ cracker golf”. If I didn’t know you were also in cracker land I’d be offended.

>

> Funny how we pick and chose which rules we stick closely to and which we negotiate on the first tee.

>

> Nobody has called out or besmirched your referee skills. In fact the opposite is true. I’m simply saying that if a guy walks away from a player with a 3 inch putt it generally means “ that’s good “. You don’t see it otherwise unless your name is Suzanne. Anyone besides her would watch the putt if it was indeed needing to be putted.

 

Cracker is from Shakespeare. :smiley:

[dpb5031]

> @Sawgrass said:

> > @dpb5031 said:

> > > @Sawgrass said:

> > > I don’t consider putting the ball in the hole “some inane technicality.”

> >

> > Context

>

> For me, the main context was Sergio acting like a child because he missed a putt. I’m not going to get teary-eyed for him that his opponent didn’t make it all better.

 

...and like most we dont have a lot of sympathy for Sergio...and for good reason based on his history. Still, no one on Tour is NOT conceding a 3" putt and it'sa cheap-azz way to win a hole.

 

Would be interesting to see how the masses would react had it been someone beloved like Steve Stricker instead of Sergio?

[Sawgrass]

> @"sui generis" said:

 

> > > Players experienced in high-level competitive match play understand the format.

> > >

> > > They don't play "Aw, shucks, match play, " or "Good ol' boy match play."

> > >

> > > Concessions are clearly made and graciously accepted. The absence of a concession is just that.

> >

> >

> > About three hours before this post you stated that if both players agree to the wrong standing of the match it is, in essence, correct. In that case they could have agreed this hole in question was, essentially, tied and have the match score reflect that.

>

> I do think that the players could have done so, but the uproar would have been similarly loud. American players and referees (and TV golf watchers) are fish out of water when it comes to match play.

 

The general idea of lone competitors making a mistake and agreeing to an incorrect score is easy to imagine. Having that happen while an assigned ref is present with a scorer yelling out the result is less easy to imagine.

[HatsForBats]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @HatsForBats said:

> > What has occurred to me is the thing that would have allowed the match to continue as both players intended was for the rules official to ask Matt "would you have conceded the putt", Kuchar saying "of course" and the hole then being declared a tie. The option to concede a later hole changes the match from an 18-hole match to a 17-hole match. I can't blame Kuchar for not going for that when he wasn't the one that made the bone-headed mistake.

>

> How often does it have to be said that a stroke cannot be conceded after it has been made? The referee simply could not have done that. He has to apply the rules as they are, not make them up as he goes along.

>

 

I could have written that a little more clearly...

 

What has occurred to me is the thing that would have allowed the match to continue as both players intended was **if the rules dictated that the official should** ask Matt "would you have conceded the putt"