Sergio Garcia Match Play Tap-In

[Sawgrass]

For your viewing enjoyment, an insipid video of Matt and Sergio dissembling about the incident resulting in me liking each of them a little bit less:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/golf/sergio-garcia-matt-kuchar-release-joint-video-in-response-to-match-play-fallout/ar-BBVvoWF?li=BBnbfcL

 

[bladehunter]

 

> @Sawgrass said:

> For your viewing enjoyment, an insipid video of Matt and Sergio dissembling about the incident resulting in me liking each of them a little bit less:

>

> https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/golf/sergio-garcia-matt-kuchar-release-joint-video-in-response-to-match-play-fallout/ar-BBVvoWF?li=BBnbfcL

>

 

Absolutely a creepy video. Lol.

[cardoustie]

That video is a joke

As if Sergio told him he won the hole due to his mistake. If that was the case why was he so upset for the next 2-3 holes after that? I need to move to a cabin on the lake in the woods by the golf course and get away from all the media BS and spin

[Ignatius Reilly]

> @"sui generis" said:

> > @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.

 

Thank you for that gratuitous insulting generalization. Do you think the referees on this side don't go through some sort of qualification process on the rules? Especially the ones that get to referee a PGA Tour level tournament?

 

Match play may not be nearly as popular here, but there are still plenty of people who do play and understand it.

Earlier you said something about "Players experienced in high-level competitive match play understand the format".

 

Surely you don't think Kuchar and Garcia are anything but what you described.

 

ColinL has provided a more useful discussion of the actual rules involved. He clarified that 3.2d(4) doesn't apply as Garcia's actions were not a breach. And now someone's introduced a different angle that's causing him to consider it further. We'll see if that goes anywhere.

[sui generis]

> @"Ignatius Reilly" said:

> > @"sui generis" said:

> > > @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.

>

> Thank you for that gratuitous insulting generalization. Do you think the referees on this side don't go through some sort of qualification process on the rules? Especially the ones that get to referee a PGA Tour level tournament?

>

> Match play may not be nearly as popular here, but there are still plenty of people who do play and understand it.

> Earlier you said something about "Players experienced in high-level competitive match play understand the format".

>

> Surely you don't think Kuchar and Garcia are anything but what you described.

>

> ColinL has provided a more useful discussion of the actual rules involved. He clarified that 3.2d(4) doesn't apply as Garcia's actions were not a breach. And now someone's introduced a different angle that's causing him to consider it further. We'll see if that goes anywhere.

 

I stand by my generalization. Do you think that I don't know how referees are trained? Most referees at all levels in the US are relatively inexperienced in match play. I assure you they hit the books in the days and weeks before refereeing match play and often toss and turn a little on the night before match play.

[Shilgy]

> @"sui generis" said:

> > @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.

 

And rightfully so. In the rules they are allowing for all levels of golf. So at the local club level when two players agree to the standing of the match it is final. Whether or not it was actually correct. On the professional level you have too many other folks present that know the proper standing of the match. So two players cannot "agree" the match stands a certain way that is contrary to the correct standing.

[Newby]

What puzzles me is Garcia impetuously flicking the ball with the back of his club. If he had taken time to think, he could have made the important putt or confirmed that it was conceded.

[sui generis]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @"sui generis" said:

> > > @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.

>

> And rightfully so. In the rules they are allowing for all levels of golf. So at the local club level when two players agree to the standing of the match it is final. Whether or not it was actually correct. On the professional level you have too many other folks present that know the proper standing of the match. So two players cannot "agree" the match stands a certain way that is contrary to the correct standing.

 

I recall being the assigned referee at an important AJGA match and on one hole announced a player's score wrong. That player's mother was quick to set me straight! And, I suspect had she not got to me first there would have been half a dozen others who noticed my error and would have spoken up right away.

[Shilgy]

> @"sui generis" said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> > > @"sui generis" said:

> > > > @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.

> >

> > And rightfully so. In the rules they are allowing for all levels of golf. So at the local club level when two players agree to the standing of the match it is final. Whether or not it was actually correct. On the professional level you have too many other folks present that know the proper standing of the match. So two players cannot "agree" the match stands a certain way that is contrary to the correct standing.

>

> I recall being the assigned referee at an important AJGA match and on one hole announced a player's score wrong. That player's mother was quick to set me straight! And, I suspect had she not got to me first there would have been half a dozen others who noticed my error and would have spoken up right away.

 

When I said "local club level" I meant just the players on the course. Not a half dozen bystanders keeping score as well as the referee. Your example is a higher level than that. Just the fact that you were there as a referee for that match shows that.

[Colin L]

I confess to getting the match score wrong on a couple of occasions .... but not for long. The two players in each case spoke but with a single voice and I was duly corrected. A few seconds loss of concentration is all it took and my supposedly meticulous noting of each shot played fell apart.

I love the story from another referee who admitted that he once announced the score at the end of the 16th and then said "On to the next tee, then". The players looked at him askance and one of them said, "Did you not wonder why we were shaking hands?"

[antip]

> @Newby said:

> What puzzles me is Garcia impetuously flicking the ball with the back of his club. If he had taken time to think, he could have made the important putt or confirmed that it was conceded.

 

Exactly. While the incident has excited much commentary it is worth keeping in mind that absolutely no "rules" incident occurred here. One player performed a stupid, impetuous act on the course, prodding at and missing an extremely short putt and so lost the hole. End of.

[JohnnyCashForever]

> @Sawgrass said:

> > @cardoustie said:

> > As I stated numerous times in the other thread, and seemed to be in the minority, Kuchar is a snake

> > Pathetic actions. And pathetic that the PGA tour and the commentators all went out of their way to defend Kuch and throw Serg under the bus

> Think what you will of Kuchar, I have no opinion on him in general. But I must say that I'm astounded that Sergio makes a really stupid, emotional blunder and it somehow becomes Kuchar's fault.

>

> If Kuchar refused to help look for Sergio's ball while Kuchar was standing right there, I'd agree that he wasn't being sportsmanlike. But he owes Sergio no help in getting the ball in the hole.

 

Whenever confronted with a sticky situation, I always ask myself, "What would Dale Earnhardt, Jack Nicklaus, or Arnold Palmer do?"

 

In this particular case, I would like to think it would have been something different from what Kuch did and, as a bonus, something that Sawgrass would completely (and vocally) disagree with.

 

Codes of honor aren't found in rule books.

 

 

 

 

How it could have played out:

 

Referee: "Did you concede his putt before he missed it?"

Kuch: "Yes."

Referee: "I didn't hear or see anything?"

Kuch: "Oh, I winked. Didn't you see that?"

Referee: "Ahh....I dunno..."

Kuch: "Well, I did. Sorry you missed it. I'll make it more noticeable next time. Anyway, I conceded the putt. Let's get to the next hole. Shall we?"

 

Next hole's fairway:

 

Kuch: "Serg, come over here for a second."

Sergio: "Si, mi amigo."

Kuch: "Hey, sorry you didn't win that last hole, but you gotta give me more time to concede the next putt. You almost beat me to the punch. I wouldn't want a sticky rules situation to pop up for no reason."

Sergio: "You right, mi amigo. Gracias!"

 

 

 

 

[Sawgrass]

> @JohnnyCashForever said:

 

>

> Whenever confronted with a sticky situation, I always ask myself, "What would Dale Earnhardt, Jack Nicklaus, or Arnold Palmer do?"

>

> In this particular case, I would like to think it would have been something different from what Kuch did and, as a bonus, something that Sawgrass would completely (and vocally) disagree with.

>

> Codes of honor aren't found in rule books.

>

>

>

>

> How it could have played out:

>

> Referee: "Did you concede his putt before he missed it?"

> Kuch: "Yes."

> Referee: "I didn't hear or see anything?"

> Kuch: "Oh, I winked. Didn't you see that?"

> Referee: "Ahh....I dunno..."

> Kuch: "Well, I did. Sorry you missed it. I'll make it more noticeable next time. Anyway, I conceded the putt. Let's get to the next hole. Shall we?"

>

> Next hole's fairway:

>

> Kuch: "Serg, come over here for a second."

> Sergio: "Si, mi amigo."

> Kuch: "Hey, sorry you didn't win that last hole, but you gotta give me more time to concede the next putt. You almost beat me to the punch. I wouldn't want a sticky rules situation to pop up for no reason."

> Sergio: "You right, mi amigo. Gracias!"

>

>

>

>

Yes, Kuchar could probably have successfully lied his way out of winning the hole. (BTW, I would be disappointed in Jack if he endorsed lying as a strategy.)

 

But most importantly, your comment "Codes of honor aren't found in rulebooks" is wrong. Golf is a game of honor, and demands truthfulness right up front in rule 1.2, a portion of which is here:

 

1.2 Standards of Player Conduct

 

All players are expected to play in the spirit of the game by:

 

Acting with integrity – for example, by following the Rules, applying all penalties, and being honest in all aspects of play.

 

[bladehunter]

Dale Earnhardt ????

 

1000 pts for working in the intimidator!! I’ve seen it all now.

[cxx]

> @JohnnyCashForever said:

> > @Sawgrass said:

> > > @cardoustie said:

> > > As I stated numerous times in the other thread, and seemed to be in the minority, Kuchar is a snake

> > > Pathetic actions. And pathetic that the PGA tour and the commentators all went out of their way to defend Kuch and throw Serg under the bus

> > Think what you will of Kuchar, I have no opinion on him in general. But I must say that I'm astounded that Sergio makes a really stupid, emotional blunder and it somehow becomes Kuchar's fault.

> >

> > If Kuchar refused to help look for Sergio's ball while Kuchar was standing right there, I'd agree that he wasn't being sportsmanlike. But he owes Sergio no help in getting the ball in the hole.

>

> Whenever confronted with a sticky situation, I always ask myself, "What would Dale Earnhardt, Jack Nicklaus, or Arnold Palmer do?"

>

> In this particular case, I would like to think it would have been something different from what Kuch did and, as a bonus, something that Sawgrass would completely (and vocally) disagree with.

>

> Codes of honor aren't found in rule books.

>

>

>

>

> How it could have played out:

>

> Referee: "Did you concede his putt before he missed it?"

> Kuch: "Yes."

> Referee: "I didn't hear or see anything?"

> Kuch: "Oh, I winked. Didn't you see that?"

> Referee: "Ahh....I dunno..."

> Kuch: "Well, I did. Sorry you missed it. I'll make it more noticeable next time. Anyway, I conceded the putt. Let's get to the next hole. Shall we?"

>

> Next hole's fairway:

>

> Kuch: "Serg, come over here for a second."

> Sergio: "Si, mi amigo."

> Kuch: "Hey, sorry you didn't win that last hole, but you gotta give me more time to concede the next putt. You almost beat me to the punch. I wouldn't want a sticky rules situation to pop up for no reason."

> Sergio: "You right, mi amigo. Gracias!"

>

>

>

>

 

What a strange fantasy. None of those people would do anything but accept Sergio's screw-up.

[Roadking2003]

> @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.

 

It was in no way "some inane technicality".

[Roadking2003]

> @"sui generis" said:

> 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.

 

Who is "cracker golf" and what anecdotes does he talk about?

[bladehunter]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @"sui generis" said:

> > 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.

>

> Who is "cracker golf" and what anecdotes does he talk about?

 

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @"sui generis" said:

> > 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.

>

> Who is "cracker golf" and what anecdotes does he talk about?

 

Shakespeare. It’s on the front page if you search the word cracker for me too. lol. ( npr article).

[ivsa71]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @"sui generis" said:

> > > 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.

> >

> > Who is "cracker golf" and what anecdotes does he talk about?

>

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @"sui generis" said:

> > > 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.

> >

> > Who is "cracker golf" and what anecdotes does he talk about?

>

> Shakespeare. It’s on the front page if you search the word cracker for me too. lol. ( npr article).

 

Cracker can have multiple meanings depending how it is used and where it is used. Not sure how sui generis meant to use the term cracker. Cracker like the term f@g can have different meanings.(In the UK the word f@g is used to instead of cigarets-which i think comes from a bundle sticks) Also in europe and by Shakespeare the term cracker was used to reference someone who was a boisterous, wise cracking, joke cracking blowhard. Later in the US cracker is used in a demeaning fashion to reference poor white people in the south. Not sure if cracker is the most appropriate term to use in the US.

[dpb5031]

> @Roadking2003 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.

>

> It was in no way "some inane technicality".

 

Technically, you're correct, that's why I called it a "technicality".

 

From a practical, common sense, gentlemanly, and sportsmanship perspective I believe it to be inane, and a poor representation of the game, no matter the current letter of the law. No Tour player anywhere doesn't or wouldn't give a 2" putt in match play save for flat out gamesmanship.

 

I understand the general contempt toward Sergio; he deserves it based on his actions both past and present. This was his fault and I'm in no way excusing him.

 

My point is as I stated, I'd just never want to win that way if I'm in Kuchar's Skechers. We all know, including both players involved that the 2" putt would have been conceded had Sergio not acted so impulsively and/or had Kuch been watching what was transpiring so he could say "good".

 

 

[Carl Spackler3]

Garcia is simply a brat, always has been. This is all him

[LeoLeo99]

I'd love to hear Jack's take on this. I regret buying Skecher golf shoes. Not a good year for Kuchar.

 

He lacks honor. Thought he rose above his parents and was a righteous person.

[LeoLeo99]

> @JohnnyCashForever said:

> > @Sawgrass said:

> > > @cardoustie said:

> > > As I stated numerous times in the other thread, and seemed to be in the minority, Kuchar is a snake

> > > Pathetic actions. And pathetic that the PGA tour and the commentators all went out of their way to defend Kuch and throw Serg under the bus

> > Think what you will of Kuchar, I have no opinion on him in general. But I must say that I'm astounded that Sergio makes a really stupid, emotional blunder and it somehow becomes Kuchar's fault.

> >

> > If Kuchar refused to help look for Sergio's ball while Kuchar was standing right there, I'd agree that he wasn't being sportsmanlike. But he owes Sergio no help in getting the ball in the hole.

>

> Whenever confronted with a sticky situation, I always ask myself, "What would Dale Earnhardt, Jack Nicklaus, or Arnold Palmer do?"

>

> In this particular case, I would like to think it would have been something different from what Kuch did and, as a bonus, something that Sawgrass would completely (and vocally) disagree with.

>

> Codes of honor aren't found in rule books.

>

>

>

>

> How it could have played out:

>

> Referee: "Did you concede his putt before he missed it?"

> Kuch: "Yes."

> Referee: "I didn't hear or see anything?"

> Kuch: "Oh, I winked. Didn't you see that?"

> Referee: "Ahh....I dunno..."

> Kuch: "Well, I did. Sorry you missed it. I'll make it more noticeable next time. Anyway, I conceded the putt. Let's get to the next hole. Shall we?"

>

> Next hole's fairway:

>

> Kuch: "Serg, come over here for a second."

> Sergio: "Si, mi amigo."

> Kuch: "Hey, sorry you didn't win that last hole, but you gotta give me more time to concede the next putt. You almost beat me to the punch. I wouldn't want a sticky rules situation to pop up for no reason."

> Sergio: "You right, mi amigo. Gracias!"

>

>

>

>

 

100% that is the way honorable men behave.

[Augster]

You folks are loco for thinking Kuchar should have lied. That is the opposite of golf. It is also the only way this ends up differently.

 

A player shouldn’t have to lie to a ref to bail out the stupid actions of their opponent. A player shouldn’t have to lie while playing golf. Period.

[antip]

> @"Colin L" said:

> 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!

>

>

 

Returning to this issue after sleeping on it. I observed that 3.2a(2) places no EXPLICIT time limit on a player and opponent agreeing to tie a hole (once a hole has commenced). Thank you to Colin and Hit'Em for contributing further analytical input and I agree with the arguments put. In effect, it is IMPLICIT in R3.2 more broadly that players cannot agree to a hole being tied after it is completed when the facts of the completed hole indicate otherwise. So it certainly has no relevance to the latest GarciaGate incident, which raised no rules issues anyway.

IMO, clarity would be served by 3.2a(2) including wording along the lines of "before the result of the hole is decided".

 

[HitEmTrue]

> @Augster said:

> You folks are loco for thinking Kuchar should have lied. That is the opposite of golf. It is also the only way this ends up differently.

>

> A player shouldn’t have to lie to a ref to bail out the stupid actions of their opponent. A player shouldn’t have to lie while playing golf. Period.

 

I agree completely. Furthermore, on a televised event, the person would be easily caught in the lie. In this scenario the announcers were immediately saying things like “was that putt conceded?”

 

My point isn’t that it’s ok to lie when you can’t get caught. But that if he *had* lied and got caught, it would have caused an even larger kerfuffle.

[cxx]

I think Sergio was overcome by emotion, turning his brain off and causing him to carelessly miss the putt before it was conceded. Bummer for him. He's not going to change. That's who he is and has been from the beginning. No one should have to save him from himself.

[Dpavs]

Only three take-aways for me on this.

1. Kuchar shouldn't have said anything to Garcia afterwards... sometimes you just need to keep silent Matt. He still has not learned this lesson apparently.

2. Sergio made a mistake and yeah that is completely on him.

3. You do stupid stuff, you get stupid results!

[Hardluckster]

This has been hashed and re-hashed. Sergio messed up. The fact that he lost the hole was 100% on him. He has nobody to blame but himself.

 

Having said that, I would be ashamed of myself if I was Matt Kuchar. (1) I would never have approached the official to report the failure to concede the putt. I would have let the result stand unless the official approached me. *I would feel ashamed because I would never want to win an event in this manner, not because there was a rule broken. (2) Once I had reported the failure to concede the putt, I would not have claimed that I really didn't want to win the hole in that manner (unless I was prepared to make it right by conceding the next hole to Sergio in order to set things back to the way they were before the incident).

 

I should add that technically Kuchar did nothing wrong by reporting the incident to the official. So, if he's ok with it, I guess that's all that matters. He probably should have left off the part about not really wanting to win that way, however, because that doesn't make him look good at all in my opinion.

[HitEmTrue]

> @Hardluckster said:

> (unless I was prepared to make it right by conceding the next hole to Sergio in order to set things back to the way they were before the incident).

>

 

Unless you are about to putt for a tie and then make the concession instead, it would not set the match back to where it was.

 

If you have a chance to win the hole and concede, it’s a two point swing.

 

You could just agree to a tie if you felt like it.