Might need to rule on a match play mess

It is our Spring Match Play tournament and a couple of players have gotten themselves in a mess. I'll describe the facts as they have been "informally" related to me, because I suspect somewhere along the line I may need to make a ruling.  Because one of the issue is what constitutes a claim.

So A and B are playing a tournament match and they are joined by three other members who are just playing along.

The come to a green and A sets up to putt and addresses his ball.  It is very windy and his ball moves.  There is discussion as to whether he did anything to make the ball move and it is generally agreed that he didn't.  Hence under Decision 18-2b/11 the player is not penalized and the ball is played from its new location.  That is what should have happened.

What actually happened, as I understand it, was there was a bit of an acrimonious discussion about whether there was a penalty for the ball moving.  They didn't know this decision and since the ball moved, regardless of whether the player was the cause of the movement, they said there should be a 1 stroke penalty.  The player replaced the ball.  I should add that all four were telling him he had to replace theball - his opponent and the three others playing along.Then he stood besides the ball and grounded his club a couple of feet behind the ball but before he stroked the ball moved again (it was a very windy day).    This led the player to again say that this shows that he hadn't moved the ball.  Again he replaces the ball, as he is being told be all four of the others) and putts out.  He wins the hole by 1 stroke even with the penalty stroke added to his score.  During the discussion B is asked what he wants to do and all he says is that he wants to do what is right under the rules.

The first question is whether saying that constitutes a claim.  It seems to me that in the absence of a claim the hole was concluded, B wins the hole and, as it turns out, wins the match 1-up.  Claims on a hole (other than 18, and this was not 18) must be made prior to teeing off on then next hole.  If B's statement is a claim then it seems pretty clear that A played a ball from a wrong spot, if not the first time then certainly the second time, and there for lost the hole under 20-7b.  B wins the hole, the match is now all square and they have to go back and play extra holes.

But I am not comfortable with the notion that just saying you want the rules followed constitutes a claim.  It seems a very weak way of making a claim.  And if no claim was made then the hole result has to stand, I think.  In which case A did win the hole and therefore the match.  Even though the rules were completely botched.

Thoughts?

Were player A and B informed of a possible error before the end of the match?

Seriously, I have no idea.  If player B finds out later that he should have won, I would think he would be upset.

No clue ... just subscribing here because I'm also curious to know the answer.

Did B make any reference to how he wanted to know what was right by the rules?

However 2-5/8.5 may be the answer. It would seem that B was party to the wrong interpretation of the rule.

http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-02/#2-5/8.5

A valid claim was not made, B did not give any specifics as to what procedure he was disputing. The hole stands as played.

And besides, what claim would B make?  If I understand this, B told A to put the ball back with a 1 stroke penalty....A did so.  A, buy doing this has reached an agreement with B.  The fact that it was incorrect procedure is irrelevant.   B can not then claim that A played from a wrong place.

You make a claim when your opponent does something that you think is not correct and your opponent does it anyway.

A did not do something that B disagreed with.  A followed B's advice and did something wrong even though he thought it was wrong.  A has no claim either.

What should have happened is A should have done what HE thought he should have done under the rules.  If B disagreed he could then make a claim based on those facts.  Once players agree to a procedure, begrudgingly or otherwise, no claim can be made.

The decision Rulesman referenced explains this.

Dormie is probably right with his first statement but I think we would need to know more about what he actually said.

But the decision rules a claim out anyway.

That makes a lot of sense and is basically what I was thinking.

Thanks.  To everyone.