Conceded putt - conditional/mistake?

[oikos1]

I was always taught when someone says "That's good" for a putt, you pick it up no questions asked.  If they ask a question, such as "What's that for", then you answer appropriately. 

 

Always take a given putt, and always know what your giving when you give a putt.  Couldn't be any simpler, really.

2 hours ago, HatsForBats said:

 

Meh, I have let my opponents know plenty of times that they might want to rethink giving one of my partners a putt because it would tie or win the hole. In the right situation I feel strongly that it is the right thing to do. In my yearly outing with family/friends where some of the players only play a few rounds a year, the 'beer league' I have played in for years where many of the players are not overly familiar with the rules and the idea is to have fun mixed with a little competition, pickup games at my home course where players are more competitive and know the rules better but between all the mostly friendly banter they sometimes forget who is getting strokes where etc.

 

There is a time and a place to follow the letter of the law (rules).

 

 

If someone does that to try to play it off that the putt is not important to the outcome of the hole then from my point of view they are not acting with integrity. In our group we had a player do something similar to another player by asking if they conceded the opponents putt would their putt be good also... ie 'good, good?'. They did it intentionally hoping the opponent would accidentally give them the putt and it worked. It did not go over well with the rest of the group and there is a price to pay for doing something like that within the group.

"Meh, I have let my opponents know plenty of times that they might want to rethink giving one of my partners a putt because it would tie or win the hole."

 

Say what?  I'm not even sure what to say to that.  Selling out your partner and your team?  Wow!

[4x4GGG]

10 hours ago, 2bGood said:

 

I can say it is pretty rare that I have called out my score like that or heard someone call out their score like that, but I typically playing with guys that 100% on top of who strokes were, so there is no need. 

This is a standard phrase in my groups. "Par net Birdie" or "Bogey net par". It's usually announced and if not asked. We rarely ask for putts, too though. Most self concluded putts are for 6's when there's a birdie in the hole already and no math is required to continue. Last month 3 of us picked up at the exact same time as the 4th holed out an Eagle bunker shot. I was in the best position @ 10 feet for a par net birdie. 

[Schulzmc]

The guy who said, "This is for five - I assume it's good?" was known at the club for his "gamesmanship" and playing every angle to try and win at all costs. That's why my partner and I assume he knew darn well he was getting a stroke and a conceded putt would halve the hole. BUT that is all the more reason we should have been on our toes, known he was getting a stroke, and made him putt it out. I think it was poor sportsmanship on his part. If you want to win that way I guess go ahead. But the pro was right - ultimately it was on us.

[davep043]

19 minutes ago, Schulzmc said:

The guy who said, "This is for five - I assume it's good?" was known at the club for his "gamesmanship" and playing every angle to try and win at all costs. That's why my partner and I assume he knew darn well he was getting a stroke and a conceded putt would halve the hole. BUT that is all the more reason we should have been on our toes, known he was getting a stroke, and made him putt it out. I think it was poor sportsmanship on his part. If you want to win that way I guess go ahead. But the pro was right - ultimately it was on us.

I think you've got it right here.  To me, its poor form to ask to be given a putt in any circumstances, and even worse to knowingly try to sneak one past your opponents.  But its on each player to understand where the strokes fall, and to make an informed decision based on that knowledge.  He didn't break any rule, he reported his score correctly, he simply didn't tell the whole story, and he's not required to.   He couldn't have taken advantage of you if you hadn't let him do it.

[nsxguy]

4 hours ago, antip said:

Not an arrow....

 

I think  "if you are lying three, I concede that next putt; but if you are lying more than three I do not concede that next putt" is a clearly communicated statement - but "that's good for a four" is not. Certainly, I would see no case for breaching a player for picking up his ball after the 'that's good for a 4' statement but if the opponent subsequently then says it was not a concession if you were lying more than three, I'm thinking the player has to replace and putt.

 

However, this is an issue with no explicit official guidance. We have nothing that says a clear but conditional statement is an acceptable concession (eg the long version above) or that RBs would rule that 'that's good for a 4' would be considered to be a concession of the next stroke whether or not the maths is up to speed.

 

 

 

Well then we shall have to agree to disagree.

 

I believe "That's good for a 4" is about as clear as it can be as it absolutely communicates your "if you are lying three, I concede that next putt"

 

"but if you are lying more than three I do not concede that next putt" is totally superfluous IMO.

 

It is totally clear to me what "That's good for a 4" means and I would have replied "It's not for a 4, it's for a 5".

 

Agree with the last part. Being SO clear with a "provisional" ball one might expect concessions to be spelled out just as clearly.

 

 

 

Edited September 16, 2020 by nsxguy

[rogolf]

But it was for a 4, albeit a net 4.  ?  They were obviously playing a net game.

[4x4GGG]

One of my partners consistently tells people "You're next put is good", meaning you're going to miss that 3 footer but he concedes the 3rd putt. But, he's a jerk. 

[2bGood]

8 hours ago, Colin L said:

Not quite.  2 is not an option.  The hole is finished when the concession is made.  You can't concede a hole after you have won it.   You could, however, concede the next one.  

Not quite - not quite ?

 

Here is the rule:

 

• Conceding a Hole. This is allowed any time before the hole is completed (see Rule 6.5), including before the players start the hole.

 

Keep in mind the hole is not completed until ALL players have holed out. It is actually pretty common for a hole to be conceded with one player have completed the hole and others have not.

 

I guess the more interesting question is can you conceded the hole to an opponent who can not beat you on the hole???? Ie you completed the hole for 3 and they are putting for the 3? I can't find anything in the ROG preventing it. But I am not sure why the ROG would even contemplate it. 

Edited September 16, 2020 by 2bGood

[2bGood]

20 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

 

3 hours ago, Schulzmc said:

The guy who said, "This is for five - I assume it's good?" was known at the club for his "gamesmanship" and playing every angle to try and win at all costs. That's why my partner and I assume he knew darn well he was getting a stroke and a conceded putt would halve the hole. BUT that is all the more reason we should have been on our toes, known he was getting a stroke, and made him putt it out. I think it was poor sportsmanship on his part. If you want to win that way I guess go ahead. But the pro was right - ultimately it was on us.

 

 

Fool you once, shame on him, fool you twice - shame on you. Every club has guys like that, word travels fast and the reputations sinks even faster. Some guys are willing to trade allot for a few pro-shop credits. ?

Edited September 16, 2020 by 2bGood

[nsxguy]

8 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

Not quite - not quite ?

 

Here is the rule:

 

• Conceding a Hole. This is allowed any time before the hole is completed (see Rule 6.5), including before the players start the hole.

 

Keep in mind the hole is not complete until ALL players have holed out. It is actually pretty common for a hole to be conceded with one player have completed the hole and others have not.

 

Not quite sure where you're going with this but while it sounds correct, I can't find where the Rules say the hole is completed when ALL players have holed out.

 

What I did find in 6.5 is

 

A player has completed a hole:

• In match play, when:

  • The player holes out or the player’s next stroke is conceded, or

  • The result of the hole is decided (such as when the opponent concedes the hole, the opponent’s score for the hole is lower than the player possibly could make or the player or opponent gets the general penalty (loss of hole)).

• In stroke play, when the player holes out under Rule 3.3c.

 

This issue here is match play. I'm not totally sure but when there are 2 separate matches in a group of 4 (A vs. B and C vs. D) such rules such as concessions and holes completed when "ALL players hole out" would apply to the individual match, as opposed to the entire group.

 

So if A concedes to B, C&D not having "completed" the hole has no bearing and Colin would be exactly correct "The hole is finished (for a specific match) when the concession is made". Not so ?

 

The rule says "A player". I expect if it was a 4-ball or 4-somes with 2 players per side it would also mean the same thing for a "Side", no ? I expect there's clarification about that as well, no ?

 

 

[2bGood]

1 hour ago, nsxguy said:

 

Not quite sure where you're going with this but while it sounds correct, I can't find where the Rules say the hole is completed when ALL players have holed out.

 

What I did find in 6.5 is

 

A player has completed a hole:

• In match play, when:

  • The player holes out or the player’s next stroke is conceded, or

  • The result of the hole is decided (such as when the opponent concedes the hole, the opponent’s score for the hole is lower than the player possibly could make or the player or opponent gets the general penalty (loss of hole)).

• In stroke play, when the player holes out under Rule 3.3c.

 

This issue here is match play. I'm not totally sure but when there are 2 separate matches in a group of 4 (A vs. B and C vs. D) such rules such as concessions and holes completed when "ALL players hole out" would apply to the individual match, as opposed to the entire group.

 

So if A concedes to B, C&D not having "completed" the hole has no bearing and Colin would be exactly correct "The hole is finished (for a specific match) when the concession is made". Not so ?

 

The rule says "A player". I expect if it was a 4-ball or 4-somes with 2 players per side it would also mean the same thing for a "Side", no ? I expect there's clarification about that as well, no ?

 

 

 

Yes I am not sure where I am going with this either. I started off trying to be funny, and now I am defending a ridiculous premise (that you can concede a hole you have no chance of losing). ?

 

Despite the premise being silly, I do think the rules support it. 

Edited September 16, 2020 by 2bGood

[davep043]

46 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

I guess the more interesting question is can you conceded the hole to an opponent who can not beat you on the hole???? Ie you completed the hole for 3 and they are putting for the 3? I can't find anything in the ROG preventing it. But I am not sure why the ROG would even contemplate it. 

I think @2bGoodnailed it, per 6.5, a player has completed a hole when his opponent has finished with a score that the player cannot tie or beat.

[sui generis]

7 hours ago, HatsForBats said:

Meh

 

Guy wanders into the Rules folder and asks a Rules question . . . gets a Rules of Golf answer. 

[nsxguy]

16 minutes ago, davep043 said:

I think @2bGoodnailed it, per 6.5, a player has completed a hole when his opponent has finished with a score that the player cannot tie or beat.

 

Except that he's not making that point. His example is an opponent who CAN still tie the hole.

 

But the more ridiculous important(?) point is, if a Player is IN for a score that the opponent CAN'T tie or beat, CAN the player who's IN concede the hole ANYWAY ? Or is the hole "complete" even though the 2nd player's ball is not yet holed.

 

2b also said the hole's not complete until ALL balls are holed. The part I quoted out of the Rules says the PLAYER has completed the hole when he's holed out or when his stroke's been conceded. I didn't see any reference to when the HOLE is completed. 2b didn't back that statement up but added that last part, that you quoted, to his post.

[rogolf]

17 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Except that he's not making that point. His example is an opponent who CAN still tie the hole.

 

But the more ridiculous important(?) point is, if a Player is IN for a score that the opponent CAN'T tie or beat, CAN the player who's IN concede the hole ANYWAY ? Or is the hole "complete" even though the 2nd player's ball is not yet holed.

 

2b also said the hole's not complete until ALL balls are holed. The part I quoted out of the Rules says the PLAYER has completed the hole when he's holed out or when his stroke's been conceded. I didn't see any reference to when the HOLE is completed. 2b didn't back that statement up but added that last part, that you quoted, to his post.

This part of Rule 6.5 applies to players in a match.

"A player has completed a hole:

In match play, when:

- the result of the hole is decided."

[nsxguy]

4 minutes ago, rogolf said:

This part of Rule 6.5 applies to players in a match.

"A player has completed a hole:

In match play, when:

- the result of the hole is decided."

 

, the very Rule I pasted myself. Hoisted on my own petard !!! That 2b guy gets me so confused. ?

 

To think I almost wanted to try to leave the sand on my sand wedge yesterday in preparation for the next time I wanted to use it.

 

Edited September 16, 2020 by nsxguy

[Long_Left]

14 hours ago, 2bGood said:

 

Even with guys I play with for fun - we have a rule. If you ask for a putt - you don't get it. ?

 

Like I said I don't think the guy did a good thing (if he did it intentionally), but he did not break the rules. In my mind it would be the same as letting you opponent play out of turn (not saying anything) and if he hits a good shot making him replay it. but....

 

Come to think I have done that... but I had warned him earlier in the match not to do it after he did it twice. On the third time a called him on it. 

Same here, if you have to ask you're not getting it. I think it was Hogan... "I play matches with friends, but we don't play friendly matches."

[2bGood]

Just sit back and enjoy the sillyness.

 

I do think the rules support being able to conceded a hole that you can't lose. Not sure why/when this would ever come up though unless you felt guilty over something you did that was within the rules on the hole and felt you did not deserve the win like the OP's opponents situation. 

 

BTY after all the bruh ha ha about sandy wedges, I tried playing a round cleaning my clubs after shots. Shot my low score of the year. It was coincidental as I had no shots that called for a sandy face, but being mildly superstitious I am now washing clubs after shots. ? Yes I can be a head case. 

 

[Sawgrass]

21 hours ago, deaddog said:

In match play, A believes B is sitting 3.  A says “that’s good for a 4”.  B quickly pockets his ball and says “Thanks but actually that was for 5”.  Had A known B was sitting 4 he would not have conceded.  

I've read a lot of posts in this thread, but I'm still trying to figure out why someone might give me a putt for a four, but wouldn't want to give it to me for a five.  I can see why someone on occasion would give me a five, but if they're willing to give me a four, why should they care if it's anything higher?

 

Any help?

[fawley]

24 minutes ago, Sawgrass said:

I've read a lot of posts in this thread, but I'm still trying to figure out why someone might give me a putt for a four, but wouldn't want to give it to me for a five.  I can see why someone on occasion would give me a five, but if they're willing to give me a four, why should they care if it's anything higher?

 

Any help?

I don’t know the OP’s situation, but one that immediately comes to mind is:

 

I’m in for 6. Opponent has a 3 foot putt.
 

If it’s for a 4, I might figure there is no way he is 3 putting from 3 feet and just give him the putt.

 

If it’s for a 5, there’s some chance he misses from 3 feet, and if he does miss (and presumably taps in his next putt) the hole will be halved, so I want to see him putt it. 

Edited September 16, 2020 by fawley

[raynorfan1]

On the "this is for five, I assume it's good", the question itself belies the motivation of the player. If the other player is in for 4, and the opponent is putting for 5...good etiquette would dictate that they pick up the ball and move to the next hole unless they can win the hole. If you're out of the hole, you move on. 

 

If I guy is standing over a putt...he's not out of the hole.

[oikos1]

4 minutes ago, raynorfan1 said:

On the "this is for five, I assume it's good", the question itself belies the motivation of the player. If the other player is in for 4, and the opponent is putting for 5...good etiquette would dictate that they pick up the ball and move to the next hole unless they can win the hole. If you're out of the hole, you move on. 

 

If I guy is standing over a putt...he's not out of the hole.

Exactly. The hole is over.  Pick up and move on.

 

I'm intrigued how this has gone as far as trying to complicate something quite simple.  If you're still in the hole, only your opponent can concede the putt.  You can concede a hole, or the entire match, at anytime.

[antip]

9 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

Well then we shall have to agree to disagree.

 

I believe "That's good for a 4" is about as clear as it can be as it absolutely communicates your "if you are lying three, I concede that next putt"

 

"but if you are lying more than three I do not concede that next putt" is totally superfluous IMO.

 

It is totally clear to me what "That's good for a 4" means and I would have replied "It's not for a 4, it's for a 5".

 

Agree with the last part. Being SO clear with a "provisional" ball one might expect concessions to be spelled out just as clearly.

 

 

 

@nsxguyCultural issues/normal local behaviours may be an element of the  different perspectives we are bringing here. Absolutely no-one uses language like that here. Someone says 'that's good for a 4' here, when you are already lying 4, the logical interpretation is they have just screwed up your score count for the hole but that is a side issue, they have conceded the putt. Hence my view that statement is not a clear piece of communication. I've participated in and witnessed a very large number of single match play games and have never come across anyone using this approach. Perhaps, lol, it's the company you keep.......

This  emphasises the significant challenges the USGA/R&A have in writing the Rules in a way that means the same to everyone on the planet.

[SNIPERBBB]

I can see this scenario in our league where we have this odd format where you get a point for each hole you win, half for ties, and you can win three points for winning total strokes for 9.  You might of lost the hole but your still in decent shape for total. opponents can concede your score for the holes but if you pick up on a hole without a concession you forfeit total.

[goaliedad30]

11 hours ago, Schulzmc said:

The guy who said, "This is for five - I assume it's good?" was known at the club for his "gamesmanship" and playing every angle to try and win at all costs. 

A guy who has to use these kind of tactics to win some club-level match is rather sad to me. It shows no confidence in his own ability to play golf and win through skill. At our club, such a player would very quickly find  themselves without a game.

 

I'd add that after it happened ONCE to me, were I playing him in a match, he's holing everything. "2 inches -- little work left there, go ahead and finish". I'd also be all over precision on nearest point of relief from obstructions, point of entry into a penalty area, and other areas that often get left to "good faith".

Edited September 17, 2020 by goaliedad30

[SNIPERBBB]

2 minutes ago, goaliedad30 said:

A guy who has to use these kind of tactics to win some club-level match is rather sad to me. It shows no confidence in his own ability to play golf and win through skill. At our club, such a player would very quickly find  themselves without a game.

You should almost never give those concessions anytime someone asks anyways. Odds are they'll get huffy and miss it. Which might give you a few holes worth of mental issues they have to resolve.

[nsxguy]

42 minutes ago, antip said:

@nsxguyCultural issues/normal local behaviours may be an element of the  different perspectives we are bringing here. Absolutely no-one uses language like that here. Someone says 'that's good for a 4' here, when you are already lying 4, the logical interpretation is they have just screwed up your score count for the hole but that is a side issue, they have conceded the putt. Hence my view that statement is not a clear piece of communication. I've participated in and witnessed a very large number of single match play games and have never come across anyone using this approach. Perhaps, lol, it's the company you keep.......

This  emphasises the significant challenges the USGA/R&A have in writing the Rules in a way that means the same to everyone on the planet.

 

Guess it just goes to show you different things are said differently in different places. Over here, a basketball player will exclaim, "Man, that cat's got a baaaaaad shot",,,,,,,,,,,,, which means that guy's got a great shot.

 

Just to be clear, I wasn't the OP so no, not exactly the company I keep. The OP is the one that told us what was said. I don't play in that many matches but I can't recall that particular verbiage being used before in my presence. And I would be more careful anyway.

 

That said, the meaning of "that's good for a 4" is crystal clear to me. You are correct. The logical assumption is the speaker didn't know what the guy lay. A further very logical assumption, based on what was said is "It's good IF you lie 4". <---- Is THAT a concession" ?

 

Said in a slightly different way is "If you're lying 3, that's good". <---- Is THAT a concession ?

 

Personally, MY answer to that "concession" would've been. "Nope, I lie 3" and we'd have continued on from there.

 

As I said earlier we shall have to agree to disagree. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[rogolf]

When I'm refereeing match play, one of the things that I tell the players on the first tee is to make their concessions clear - so that the opponent and the referee both hear them and understand them.  As a referee, "that's good for a 4" is a clear concession of the next stroke regardless of what it's for - there are no "conditional" or "provisional" concessions.

Edited September 17, 2020 by rogolf

[antip]

8 hours ago, rogolf said:

This part of Rule 6.5 applies to players in a match.

"A player has completed a hole:

In match play, when:

- the result of the hole is decided."

IMO, once a player has holed out, that player has finished the hole regardless of whether the opponent has finished the hole. But the result of the hole in match play is still open if the opponent has not also finished, and the player can concede the hole before the opponent has also finished the hole. Whether the opponent can better the player's score is irrelevant. There is a curious misfit between the 'conceding a hole' wording in 3.2b that sends you to 6.5 and 6.5 wording that only defines when a player has completed play of a hole    - it does not define when a hole is completed for the purposes of a match (a tango that requires results from each side).

And even after the player has finished the hole, the player can be penalised for actions taken after finishing the hole when the opponent is still playing.

[rogolf]

41 minutes ago, antip said:

IMO, once a player has holed out, that player has finished the hole regardless of whether the opponent has finished the hole. But the result of the hole in match play is still open if the opponent has not also finished, and the player can concede the hole before the opponent has also finished the hole. Whether the opponent can better the player's score is irrelevant. There is a curious misfit between the 'conceding a hole' wording in 3.2b that sends you to 6.5 and 6.5 wording that only defines when a player has completed play of a hole    - it does not define when a hole is completed for the purposes of a match (a tango that requires results from each side).

And even after the player has finished the hole, the player can be penalised for actions taken after finishing the hole when the opponent is still playing.

As you know, I didn't include the whole wording of 6.5, which is

- "The result of the hole is decided (such as when the opponent concedes the hole, the opponent's score for the hole is lower than the player possibly could make or the player or opponent gets the general penalty (loss of hole)."

And that says, because of the highligthed "or", that we are both correct.