Girl Loses U.S. Junior Match After Raking Back Short Putt

[saevel25]

15 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Huh?  Are you questioning my response to the decisions?  Those are both very clear.  No ambiguity at all....

@Hardspoon said this, 

13 hours ago, Hardspoon said:

What if I intend to concede a hole and pick up an opponent's ball?  Is that then a concession?

You said this, 

12 hours ago, David in FL said:

Yes.  Anything you do to concede is ok, if you mean it to be.  

I said I disagree with this. It goes back to the issue at hand. You can't assume that every action you think "Intends" to concede the hole is allowable. Walking off the green does not concede the hole. Picking up the persons ball marker does not concede the hole. Picking up the opponents ball does not concede the hole. 

The title of the decisions are both if picking up the marker or picking up the ball is a concession of the hole or next stroke. 

Heck the 2nd one specifically ask this, "Should the picking up of B's ball-marker be considered a concession of B's next stroke?"

The USGA says it does not, and the player who picked up the maker should take a penalty. 

So again, it does not matter your intent. If you do not say the words, or make gesture that the other player recognizes as a concession you can not make an action like picking up a ball maker or a ball.  You must first indicate the concession of the hole before you do those two actions. 

[jamo]

15 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

I don't disagree, but I would be curious how often putts of inconsequential distance are conceded without officially saying so.  And I say that because it's very noticeable how she turns to walk away and then pauses and her eyes get kinda wide before she turns back and says she didn't concede.  I find it hard to believe that anybody would care if she just continued that turn towards the next tee.  I believe that is the action Dave might be referring to (and also why I gave him a thumbs up)

I could be entirely wrong though. :)

I had a similar thought. I always make sure to either give verbal concession and to make sure I either get concession or ask if my putt's good. Even in high school, roughly the age of this girl, I did that. I tend to be someone who tries not to be overly reliant on shorthand (i.e. picking up my mark or heading to the next tee to indicate a concession). But people make mistakes, and sometimes there are consequences.

I'm conflicted where I come down on this though, because it seems to me like the various Decisions referenced seem to define what a concession is not much more frequently than they define what a concession is. And as far as I can tell they don't require the concession to be verbalized. They even have an allowance for an implied concession.

[David in FL]

4 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

@Hardspoon said this, 

You said this, 

I said I disagree with this. It goes back to the issue at hand. You can't assume that every action you think "Intends" to concede the hole is allowable. Walking off the green does not concede the hole. Picking up the persons ball marker does not concede the hole. Picking up the opponents ball does not concede the hole. 

The title of the decisions are both if picking up the marker or picking up the ball is a concession of the hole or next stroke. 

Heck the 2nd one specifically ask this, "Should the picking up of B's ball-marker be considered a concession of B's next stroke?"

The USGA says it does not, and the player who picked up the maker should take a penalty. 

So again, it does not matter your intent. If you do not say the words, or make gesture that the other player recognizes as a concession you can not make an action like picking up a ball maker or a ball.  You must first indicate the concession of the hole before you do those two actions. 

There is nothing, anywhere in the rules that defines what must happen in order for a player to concede.  

The issue in the decision is that the player was in error as to the score, and he thought the hole was over.  The player whose coin was picked up is questioning if he should be awarded a concession.  The player picking up the coin was not conceding anything, but, since the hole wasn't complete, the penalty is assessed.  Had the player been correct, that the hole was actually complete, there can be no penalty.  Once the hole is complete, it's over.  If you're in with 3, and I'm putting for 4, as soon as your 3 hits the bottom of the cup, the hole is done.  You can't be assessed a penalty for picking up my coin after that....

[saevel25]

35 minutes ago, David in FL said:

If you're in with 3, and I'm putting for 4, as soon as your 3 hits the bottom of the cup, the hole is done.  You can't be assessed a penalty for picking up my coin after that....

I agree with that. That is not the situation in the decision. Also, you can't concede the next shot anyway or the hole because the hole is over. So your example here has no merit on the discussion. That is why you are allowed to retry putts in match play because the hole was finished. You can tell the golfer the putt is good, they can still putt the ball. 

Here is what I don't get about this decision below. Player A holes a putt, lets say for a 6. He thinks his opponent is putting for a 7, but is actually putting for a 5. He picks up his opponents ball conceding their next shot. Which if allowed would give Player B the win with a 5. We can agree to that. 

Quote

2-4/4

 Whether Picking Up Opponent's Ball Is Concession of Next Stroke

Q.In match play, A holes a putt and, thinking he has won the match, picks up B's ball. B then advises A that he (B) had a putt to win the hole. Did A concede B's next stroke when he picked up B's ball?

A.No. A incurred a penalty stroke under Rule 18-3b; B must replace his ball and now has two putts to win the hole.

As by rule 2-4 (see below) the concession of a match, hole or next stroke can happen at any time. A golfer can think they have the hole won and concede the next putt only to realize they conceded the putt that gave their opponent the win. If they said the words, "I concede that putt", Player B has to walk off the green with the win. It doesn't what the score is. 

Quote

2-4. Concession of Match, Hole or Next Stroke 

A player may concede a match at any time prior to the start or conclusion of that match. 

A player may concede a hole at any time prior to the start or conclusion of that hole. 

A player may concede his opponent's next stroke at any time, provided the opponent's ball is at rest. The opponent is considered to have holed out with his next stroke, and the ball may be removed by either side. 

A concession may not be declined or withdrawn.

Why then does the USGA say "No" in that decision. If picking up the opponents ball is an allowable action to concede the next shot then it doesn't matter because Rule 2-4 allows you to concede the match, hole or next shot at ANY TIME. Yet, they USGA says "No". They require the golfer to replace the ball and for Player B to play out.  

Either the USGA got it wrong, or you can't pick up someones ball as a method of conceding the next shot. 

[David in FL]

6 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I agree with that. That is not the situation in the decision. Also, you can't concede the next shot anyway or the hole because the hole is over. So your example here has no merit on the discussion. That is why you are allowed to retry putts in match play because the hole was finished. You can tell the golfer the putt is good, they can still putt the ball. 

Here is what I don't get about this decision below. Player A holes a putt, lets say for a 6. He thinks his opponent is putting for a 7, but is actually putting for a 5. He picks up his opponents ball conceding their next shot. Which if allowed would give Player B the win with a 5. We can agree to that. 

As by rule 2-4 (see below) the concession of a match, hole or next stroke can happen at any time. A golfer can think they have the hole won and concede the next putt only to realize they conceded the putt that gave their opponent the win. If they said the words, "I concede that putt", Player B has to walk off the green with the win. It doesn't what the score is. 

Why then does the USGA say "No" in that decision. If picking up the opponents ball is an allowable action to concede the next shot then it doesn't matter because Rule 2-4 allows you to concede the match, hole or next shot at ANY TIME. Yet, they USGA says "No". They require the golfer to replace the ball and for Player B to play out.  

Either the USGA got it wrong, or you can't pick up someones ball as a method of conceding the next shot. 

Because he wasn't doing it to concede.  He was just doing it to be helpful.  The USGA didn't say that you can't pick up the ball to concede if that's how you want to concede.  They said that the guy whose ball got picked up in error can't call it a concession when it wasn't the other players intent to actually concede.

[DaveP043]

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

I never ask if it was good or not, unless I really think I hear them say "That's good". 

If I hear something that might be a concession, maybe not stated clearly, or not said audibly, I have no problem at all saying "Did you mean that this is good?"   I'm not begging for a gimme, I'm just making sure we're all on the same page.  

[saevel25]

7 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Because he wasn't doing it to concede.  He was just doing it to be helpful.  The USGA didn't say that you can't pick up the ball to concede if that's how you want to concede.  They said that the guy whose ball got picked up in error can't call it a concession when it wasn't the other players intent to actually concede.

OK, that does make sense. 

I will still argue that just picking up a ball or picking up a marker is a stupid way to concede the hole if you wanted to. I could easily see someone arguing that they have no clue what your intent was and that you violated the rules. Then it will become a big hassle in a match. It is probably advisable to actually verbalize the concession of a stroke or hole. 

 

[David in FL]

10 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

OK, that does make sense. 

I will still argue that just picking up a ball or picking up a marker is a stupid way to concede the hole if you wanted to. I could easily see someone arguing that they have no clue what your intent was and that you violated the rules. Then it will become a big hassle in a match. It is probably advisable to actually verbalize the concession of a stroke or hole. 

 

No argument at all!  

[Vinsk]

Wouldn't it make conceding much clearer if the rule simply states there must be verbal consent? Like in court when someone nods they always say they need a verbal...or when flight attendants ask if you're willing to help when you sit in an exit row?

[saevel25]

2 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Wouldn't it make conceding much clearer if the rule simply states there must be verbal consent? Like in court when someone nods they always say they need a verbal...or when flight attendants ask if you're willing to help when you sit in an exit row?

What if someone is a mute or deaf? 

[David in FL]

41 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Wouldn't it make conceding much clearer if the rule simply states there must be verbal consent? Like in court when someone nods they always say they need a verbal...or when flight attendants ask if you're willing to help when you sit in an exit row?

Honestly, having played a lot of match play, I haven't ever encountered a disagreement or difficulty in understanding a concession.  Even in this OP, no one argues that Moon isn't at fault.  When in doubt, clarify/confirm.

We often talk about the honor and integrity of the game.  I'd like to think that something this simple wouldn't call that into question.

[mvmac]

Erica Shepherd is getting some criticism online for "bad sportsmanship" but I strongly disagree. Am I missing something?

2:00 mark

http://www.foxsports.com/golf/video/1012464707707

Moon raked the putt away so fast Shepherd didn't have much time to concede the putt. Moon is completely at fault here, nothing Shepherd could do and she even tried to concede the putt afterward. Yes Shepherd did point out that she didn't concede the putt but to me that was just a natural "in the moment" reaction. Also the rules official was right there, they know the putt wasn't conceded.

Let's say Moon misses the putt and Shepherd doesn't say anything, somehow it gets by the rules official and they move on to the next hole. Moon would know she wasn't given the putt and "got away with it". I don't think Moon would want to win that way, she screwed up by giving herself the putt.

[saevel25]

2 minutes ago, mvmac said:

Erica Shepherd is getting some criticism online for "bad sportsmanship" but I strongly disagree. Am I missing something?

No, but the internet is full of people who don't have common sense enough to realize that Moon is not a victim of anything. 

[drmevo]

If non-verbal actions can be used to concede putts, can decision 2-4/3 be used to argue that the ball can be replaced if an action is misinterpreted as a concession?

 

Quote

2-4/3

 

Player Lifts Ball in Mistaken Belief That Next Stroke Conceded

Q.In a match between A and B, B made a statement which A interpreted to mean that his (A's) next stroke was conceded. Accordingly, A lifted his ball. B then said that he had not conceded A's next stroke. What is the ruling?

A.If B's statement could reasonably have led A to think his next stroke had been conceded, in equity (Rule 1-4), A should replace his ball as near as possible to where it lay, without penalty.

Otherwise, A would incur a penalty stroke for lifting his ball without marking its position - Rule 20-1 - and he must replace his ball as near as possible to where it lay.

 

[Hardspoon]

Just now, drmevo said:

If non-verbal actions can be used to concede putts, can decision 2-4/3 be used to argue that the ball can be replaced if an action is misinterpreted as a concession?

Only if it could "reasonably lead" you to misinterpret it that way. So, turning away wouldn't be enough, but I could see some circumstance where this might come into play.

[drmevo]

3 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

Only if it could "reasonably lead" you to misinterpret it that way. So, turning away wouldn't be enough, but I could see some circumstance where this might come into play.

How do we define what is and isn't reasonable when there aren't any definitions or requirements for concessions?

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Vinsk said:

Wouldn't it make conceding much clearer if the rule simply states there must be verbal consent? Like in court when someone nods they always say they need a verbal...or when flight attendants ask if you're willing to help when you sit in an exit row?

I liked @saevel25's response to this.

2 minutes ago, drmevo said:

How do we define what is and isn't reasonable when there aren't any definitions or requirements for concessions?

You use the standard of what's reasonable. It's going to be slightly different for everyone. I don't even think the girl could have made such a claim since she never even looked over.

Years ago David Toms, I think, and maybe Davis Love III picked up a putt in the Ryder Cup because the other team had said "that's a good shot" or something, and they heard it as "that's good." It was reasonable to mis-hear that, so they replaced the ball without penalty.

[nevets88]

Good to see she put it behind her and concentrated on the business at hand. 

http://golfweek.com/2017/07/29/erica-shepherd-overcomes-concession-controversy-to-win-us-girls-junior/