Sergio Garcia Match Play Tap-In

[Hardluckster]

> @HitEmTrue said:

> > @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.

 

Or concede the hole once a tee shot had been hit on the next tee area.

[HitEmTrue]

> @Hardluckster said:

> > @HitEmTrue said:

> > > @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.

>

> Or concede the hole once a tee shot had been hit on the next tee area.

 

That is a 2 point swing. Sergio was not going to LOSE that hole, he only could have tied. So for Kuchar to concede an entire hole does not even it up.

 

I’m having a hard time explaining why I feel this way. Concession of a hole at that point removes a chance for Kuch to win a hole.

[HitEmTrue]

If I write down all the possible outcomes, maybe I’d prove myself wrong.

[Colin L]

> @Hardluckster said:

> > @HitEmTrue said:

> > > @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.

>

> Or concede the hole once a tee shot had been hit on the next tee area.

 

Just for the sake of accuracy, you can concede the next hole before it has started.

[Hardluckster]

HitEmTrue, I get what you are saying. I don't disagree with it.

 

Assume I'm one hole up in the match. If I said that I didn't want to win the next hole in that manner but was awarded the hole anyway, then I would be two up. Conceding the next hole would simply set things back to the one up status that existed before the incident.

 

I'm not saying that Kuchar was obligated to do this. Sergio blew up and it cost him the hole. I do think, though, that Kuchar should just own the fact that he took advantage of Sergio's loss of control - and that is completely within the rules.

[Hardluckster]

> @"Colin L" said:

> Just for the sake of accuracy, you can concede the next hole before it has started.

 

Thanks Colin. I'm constantly learning in here.

[Sawgrass]

Regarding the comments that many people "don't want to win that way" I wonder if that attitude extends to other minor errors an opponent might make. Say he accidentally, slightly moves his ball on the collar of the green while preparing to chip. He replaces the ball and the 1SP he gets causes him to lose the hole. Do you folks feel the same obligation to "correct" things by giving away the next hole?

 

I'm sure everyone would prefer to win just by playing well. But that's not always in the cards. Where do you draw the line?

[Hardluckster]

> @Sawgrass said:

> Regarding the comments that many people "don't want to win that way" I wonder if that attitude extends to other minor errors an opponent might make. Say he accidentally, slightly moves his ball on the collar of the green while preparing to chip. He replaces the ball and the 1SP he gets causes him to lose the hole. Do you folks feel the same obligation to "correct" things by giving away the next hole?

>

> I'm sure everyone would prefer to win just by playing well. But that's not always in the cards. Where do you draw the line?

 

In my opinion, it would depend on the individual circumstance. Any infraction that I felt was an attempt to gain an advantage would not garner my sympathy.

 

I have, in match play formats, ignored infractions that were accidental and that were not done (in my estimation) to gain an advantage.

[Sawgrass]

> @Hardluckster said:

> > @Sawgrass said:

> > Regarding the comments that many people "don't want to win that way" I wonder if that attitude extends to other minor errors an opponent might make. Say he accidentally, slightly moves his ball on the collar of the green while preparing to chip. He replaces the ball and the 1SP he gets causes him to lose the hole. Do you folks feel the same obligation to "correct" things by giving away the next hole?

> >

> > I'm sure everyone would prefer to win just by playing well. But that's not always in the cards. Where do you draw the line?

>

> In my opinion, it would depend on the individual circumstance. Any infraction that I felt was an attempt to gain an advantage would not garner my sympathy.

>

> I have, in match play formats, ignored infractions that were accidental and that were not done (in my estimation) to gain an advantage.

 

For the record, if it was me who accidentally moved my ball a touch, I would have announced it to you (as is my obligation) and then we'd both be stuck with having to enforce it. I'd happily await your concession of the next hole (?).

[Hardluckster]

> @Sawgrass said:

> For the record, if it was me who accidentally moved my ball a touch, I would have announced it to you (as is my obligation) and then we'd both be stuck with having to enforce it. I'd happily await your concession of the next hole (?).

 

As would I, had the roles been reversed.

 

This indeed is a conundrum. We can't agree to ignore the infraction at that point.

 

Addendum: I didn't necessarily intend to say that I would be awaiting your concession, only that I would have announced to you that I moved the ball.

 

Also, had a player realized his error and announced to his opponent that he had indeed lost the hole, then the entire scenario of the incident is changed in my opinion. In that circumstance, it becomes an opponent acknowledging an error and forfeiting the hole. In my view, the entire dynamic is changed.

[Sawgrass]

> @Hardluckster said:

> > @Sawgrass said:

> > For the record, if it was me who accidentally moved my ball a touch, I would have announced it to you (as is my obligation) and then we'd both be stuck with having to enforce it. I'd happily await your concession of the next hole (?).

>

> As would I, had the roles been reversed.

>

> This indeed is a conundrum. We can't agree to ignore the infraction at that point.

>

> Addendum: I didn't necessarily intend to say that I would be awaiting your concession, only that I would have announced to you that I moved the ball.

>

> Also, had a player realized his error and announced to his opponent that he had indeed lost the hole, then the entire scenario of the incident is changed in my opinion. In that circumstance, it becomes an opponent acknowledging an error and forfeiting the hole. In my view, the entire dynamic is changed.

We see this the same way. But I can’t help but think that the easiest thing to do, avoiding all the conundrums, is to just let each player suffer whatever error he makes without judgment as to whether the level of an acknowledged infraction justifies reversal.

 

As you say, the decision to ignore an infraction that has not been discussed is a completely different issue. (Many times I've had opponents illegally me ask what club I just used, and I’ve pretended I didn’t hear the question and walked away. That’s my favorite infraction to ignore.)

 

[shaneyank]

> @HitEmTrue said:

> Concession of a hole at that point removes a chance for Kuch to win a hole.

This. I am with you. I read through this thread hoping to learn I was not alone in thinking that.

 

 

 

> @Hardluckster said:

> In my opinion, it would depend on the individual circumstance. Any infraction that I felt was an attempt to gain an advantage would not garner my sympathy.

>

> I have, in match play formats, ignored infractions that were accidental and that were not done (in my estimation) to gain an advantage.

You're a good person and I'd like to play with you for that reason alone! But in every single sport, there are fouls, penalties and other infractions that must be applied. I would say that 9/10 times, the infraction was accidental and was not intended to gain an advantage. A shot hit out of bounds. A mistimed tackle. Stepping over the byline. A foul is a foul even when it was a genuine accident.

 

Therefore, conceding the next hole or turning a blind eye for the sake of "fairness" is actually "unfair" to yourself and your opponent. I just wish it didn't take me 37 years to figure that out.

 

[shaneyank]

On another note, I'd like to thank Sergio.

 

 

Just last week, in a match play tournament, I left my birdie putt 12 inches short. Disappointed with myself, I was about to swipe it in, but I hadn't heard a concession yet. Before doing so, I actually mumbled to myself, "what would Sergio do?"

 

 

I consciously addressed the putt and calmly rolled it in. In the process, I completely reset and brushed the frustration aside. So, thanks Sergio :smiley:

[nsxguy]

> @LeoLeo99 said:

> > @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.

 

Honorable men lie ???

[Hardluckster]

> @shaneyank said:

 

> You're a good person and I'd like to play with you for that reason alone! But in every single sport, there are fouls, penalties and other infractions that must be applied. I would say that 9/10 times, the infraction was accidental and was not intended to gain an advantage. A shot hit out of bounds. A mistimed tackle. Stepping over the byline. A foul is a foul even when it was a genuine accident.

>

> Therefore, conceding the next hole or turning a blind eye for the sake of "fairness" is actually "unfair" to yourself and your opponent. I just wish it didn't take me 37 years to figure that out.

>

Thanks for the compliment - I'm human, but I try. I'm sure that I'd thoroughly enjoy a round of golf with you also.

 

I don't disagree with your view of the concession, or lack thereof. I do not fault Kuchar at all for taking the win on the hole. It is, by rule, the appropriate outcome. He was completely within his rights to claim the hole. It was completely Sergio's fault that he lost the hole - he has no argument for any other outcome. Additionally, in my opinion Garcia should not have petitioned Kuchar to concede him the next hole - at least I would never have done so.

 

I do, however, question Kuchar's "I didn't want to win the hole that way" comment. As I understand it, he had the opportunity (most likely two opportunities) to ensure that the hole end up halved. (1) He could have said nothing once the halve was announced - instead of notifying the official of the lack of a concession. (2) He had the opportunity to concede a hole to Sergio to rectify the hole that he "didn't want to win in that manner".

 

I do not pretend to know what was in Matt's heart and mind at that point. We all, though, equate things to the way that we would have handled them. I wonder why he chose to include that disclaimer in his response.

 

I'm not really comfortable comparing other sports to golf. I coached basketball at the high school level for over 20 years. In that time, I saw many things that really saddened me - from coaches, players and officials. I've seen coaches that I for knowingly 'get away with things' for the sake of winning. I always expressed my displeasure and asked them afterwards, "What are we teaching our players?"

 

Golf is the only sport that I know that 'getting away with it' is frowned upon. We are required by the rules to be honest and upstanding in our play and our behavior. For me, it is one of the best things about this wonderful game.

 

Have a great evening.

[6Aces]

I have not read all 5 pages of responses so please forgive me if this idea has been previously mentioned.

Rule 11.1b Exception 2 states that if a ball in motion accidentally hits any person, animal or movable obstruction ON the PUTTING GREEN, the stroke does NOT count and the original ball or another ball must be replaced on the original spot. After Sergio's missed putt lipped out, the ball hit his foot. Therefore, he could have replayed the short putt and tied the hole. Correct??

[Sawgrass]

> @6Aces said:

> I have not read all 5 pages of responses so please forgive me if this idea has been previously mentioned.

> Rule 11.1b Exception 2 states that if a ball in motion accidentally hits any person, animal or movable obstruction ON the PUTTING GREEN, the stroke does NOT count and the original ball or another ball must be replaced on the original spot. After Sergio's missed putt lipped out, the ball hit his foot. Therefore, he could have replayed the short putt and tied the hole. Correct??

 

I had not noticed that. But I just looked at a video, and you’re right. It seems evident that the ball hitting Sergio’s foot accidentally hit it (he only had that one foot on the ground so he couldn’t have easily avoided the contact.)

 

Nice call! And surprising that this wasn’t noticed in all the hubbub.

[Sawgrass]

Edit: Sergio seemed to deliberately pick up his ball only after it accidentally struck his toe.

[HitEmTrue]

> @6Aces said:

> I have not read all 5 pages of responses so please forgive me if this idea has been previously mentioned.

> Rule 11.1b Exception 2 states that if a ball in motion accidentally hits any person, animal or movable obstruction ON the PUTTING GREEN, the stroke does NOT count and the original ball or another ball must be replaced on the original spot. After Sergio's missed putt lipped out, the ball hit his foot. Therefore, he could have replayed the short putt and tied the hole. Correct??

 

Now that is interesting, for sure.

 

[Augster]

Uh oh. How come no one brought that up?

 

There was no way that ball was ever going in after the miss, but under 11.1, it was a ball in motion on the putting green hitting a person.

 

I smell a clarification on the rule. Much like picking up an opponent’s ball in motion that tried to “make sure he didn’t leave it short” to tie the hole. It has already passed the hole and has zero chance of going in. (Though I can’t find it in the rules currently)

 

Sergio’s ball had already missed and wasn’t going in, but it clearly, accidentally hit his foot. Unless, I suppose, he probably COULD have gotten out of the way of it. It wasn’t moving very fast, and I’m sure 11.1 isn’t supposed to cover this situation, exactly.

 

Interesting for sure.

[nsxguy]

Something strange here. I'm trying to find the video to verify whether or not it hit his foot. I found it once before and saw that it did but now I can't find it for the life of me.

 

Everything I see (on youtube) is a "video" of someone describing what happened; not the actually event and it appears as though ESPN deleted it. Can't find it anywhere else.

 

Conspiracy theory anyone ?

[Sawgrass]

> @nsxguy said:

> Something strange here. I'm trying to find the video to verify whether or not it hit his foot. I found it once before and saw that it did but now I can't find it for the life of me.

>

> Everything I see (on youtube) is a "video" of someone describing what happened; not the actually event and it appears as though ESPN deleted it. Can't find it anywhere else.

>

> Conspiracy theory anyone ?

 

I'll pass on the conspiracy, but the video is here:

 

https://twitter.com/search?q=sergio%20kuchar%20putt&src=typd

[nsxguy]

> @Sawgrass said:

> > @nsxguy said:

> > Something strange here. I'm trying to find the video to verify whether or not it hit his foot. I found it once before and saw that it did but now I can't find it for the life of me.

> >

> > Everything I see (on youtube) is a "video" of someone describing what happened; not the actually event and it appears as though ESPN deleted it. Can't find it anywhere else.

> >

> > Conspiracy theory anyone ?

>

> I'll pass on the conspiracy, but the video is here:

>

> https://twitter.com/search?q=sergio%20kuchar%20putt&src=typd

 

Wonder why it didn't come up on google ?

 

Anyway, it clearly hit his toe just before he grabbed it.

 

Thanks

[Mr. Bean]

> @Sawgrass said:

> > @6Aces said:

> > I have not read all 5 pages of responses so please forgive me if this idea has been previously mentioned.

> > Rule 11.1b Exception 2 states that if a ball in motion accidentally hits any person, animal or movable obstruction ON the PUTTING GREEN, the stroke does NOT count and the original ball or another ball must be replaced on the original spot. After Sergio's missed putt lipped out, the ball hit his foot. Therefore, he could have replayed the short putt and tied the hole. Correct??

>

> I had not noticed that. But I just looked at a video, and you’re right. It seems evident that the ball hitting Sergio’s foot accidentally hit it (he only had that one foot on the ground so he couldn’t have easily avoided the contact.)

>

> Nice call! And surprising that this wasn’t noticed in all the hubbub.

 

It seems that the referee in question has yet some learning to do about Rules... or needs (better) spectacles. After all, HE should have stepped up and correct the situation.

[antip]

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > @Sawgrass said:

> > > @6Aces said:

> > > I have not read all 5 pages of responses so please forgive me if this idea has been previously mentioned.

> > > Rule 11.1b Exception 2 states that if a ball in motion accidentally hits any person, animal or movable obstruction ON the PUTTING GREEN, the stroke does NOT count and the original ball or another ball must be replaced on the original spot. After Sergio's missed putt lipped out, the ball hit his foot. Therefore, he could have replayed the short putt and tied the hole. Correct??

> >

> > I had not noticed that. But I just looked at a video, and you’re right. It seems evident that the ball hitting Sergio’s foot accidentally hit it (he only had that one foot on the ground so he couldn’t have easily avoided the contact.)

> >

> > Nice call! And surprising that this wasn’t noticed in all the hubbub.

>

> It seems that the referee in question has yet some learning to do about Rules... or needs (better) spectacles. After all, HE should have stepped up and correct the situation.

 

I don't think that is a fair call. I suggest what we are picking up in a video some weeks down the track is detail that no-one was aware of at the time. Even if you asked Garcia now "did that ball hit your shoe before you intervened in its movement with your hand" he may not know the answer. I don't think the referee has anything to answer for on this issue.

 

And while it is an interesting technical discussion relating to the minutiae of the new rule 11.1b Ex 2 - which can most definitely produce some very odd outcomes - Garcia simply missed a 3-4 inch putt with a knee-jerk loss of emotional control. IMO, it would be a travesty to give him a "do-over".

 

We've not heard the end of 11.1b Ex 2.

[Augster]

I agree we haven’t heard the last of it.

 

In their next quarterly “redo”, I’d like to see this addressed. Simple language disallowing a replay if the putt accidentally hits the player who putted the ball. That’d be simple enough I think. Or simply put the penalty back in play that if your own ball accidentally hits you on the putting green it’s a 1 stroke penalty.

 

Kind of sad this was missed. It would have given Kuchar a legal “out” to not have to lie to the ref as so many people seem to think he should have done.

 

Just pros not knowing the rules. Again.

[nsxguy]

> @Augster said:

> I agree we haven’t heard the last of it.

>

> In their next quarterly “redo”, I’d like to see this addressed. Simple language disallowing a replay if the putt accidentally hits the player who putted the ball. That’d be simple enough I think. Or simply put the penalty back in play that if your own ball accidentally hits you on the putting green it’s a 1 stroke penalty.

>

> Kind of sad this was missed. It would have given Kuchar a legal “out” to not have to lie to the ref as so many people seem to think he should have done.

>

> Just pros not knowing the rules. Again.

 

To be fair, NOBODY knew this rule except @6Aces

[antip]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @Augster said:

> > I agree we haven’t heard the last of it.

> >

> > In their next quarterly “redo”, I’d like to see this addressed. Simple language disallowing a replay if the putt accidentally hits the player who putted the ball. That’d be simple enough I think. Or simply put the penalty back in play that if your own ball accidentally hits you on the putting green it’s a 1 stroke penalty.

> >

> > Kind of sad this was missed. It would have given Kuchar a legal “out” to not have to lie to the ref as so many people seem to think he should have done.

> >

> > Just pros not knowing the rules. Again.

>

> To be fair, NOBODY knew this rule except @6Aces

 

Plenty of folk knew this rule. I have discussed it directly with a USGA Workshop presenter and they are very aware of the possible (albeit unlikely) strange outcomes that 11.1b Ex2 can deliver. But @6Aces was the person with the sharp eyes that watched the jerked putt hit the shoe. And that view was not available on some of the footage and stills of the incident.

[Mr. Bean]

> @antip said:

> > @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > > @Sawgrass said:

> > > > @6Aces said:

> > > > I have not read all 5 pages of responses so please forgive me if this idea has been previously mentioned.

> > > > Rule 11.1b Exception 2 states that if a ball in motion accidentally hits any person, animal or movable obstruction ON the PUTTING GREEN, the stroke does NOT count and the original ball or another ball must be replaced on the original spot. After Sergio's missed putt lipped out, the ball hit his foot. Therefore, he could have replayed the short putt and tied the hole. Correct??

> > >

> > > I had not noticed that. But I just looked at a video, and you’re right. It seems evident that the ball hitting Sergio’s foot accidentally hit it (he only had that one foot on the ground so he couldn’t have easily avoided the contact.)

> > >

> > > Nice call! And surprising that this wasn’t noticed in all the hubbub.

> >

> > It seems that the referee in question has yet some learning to do about Rules... or needs (better) spectacles. After all, HE should have stepped up and correct the situation.

>

> I don't think that is a fair call. I suggest what we are picking up in a video some weeks down the track is detail that no-one was aware of at the time. Even if you asked Garcia now "did that ball hit your shoe before you intervened in its movement with your hand" he may not know the answer. I don't think the referee has anything to answer for on this issue.

>

Fair or not, it was his job to watch what happens. I bet he was simply stupified by Sergio missing his putt and missed the ball hitting Sergio's foot.

 

I certainly agree that it would have been odd to let Sergio to cancel his careless stroke but as we lie today that is the Rule.

 

 

[6Aces]

 

> @nsxguy said:

> To be fair, NOBODY knew this rule except @6Aces

Credit actually goes to the instructor of our Golf Canada L3 seminar from last week. I merely passed on the good news.