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

[Hardspoon]

7 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

That is sportsmanship and honor.

From that tweet, it looked like he conceded a missable 3-foot putt so the match would be won on a "good shot"?!?

You think that is sportmanship? I say it's f--king idiocy. It's a competition. 

That is NOT something that should be lauded at any level of competition beyond pre-school.

[iacas]

16 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

Moon screwed up, I definitely agree with that.

My opinion is that you are supposed to win with honor in golf, and winning a match over a putt you would have conceded is not winning with honor.

So you think Shepherd won dishonorably?

Cuz I don't. Moon is the player who goofed. Not Shepherd.

16 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

https://twitter.com/KylePorterCBS/status/891394885542174723

Uihlein had a chance to concede the putt. Shepherd did not. Different situation.

Look, you either see it the way I'm describing it, or you think Shepherd won "dishonorably" (at best).

16 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

I want to win by playing my best, not because my opponent violated the rules.

We all want that, but the opponent broke the rules.

The games we all agree to play have them for reasons. No NFL team that I've ever seen declines penalties just to be "honorable." Jack Nicklaus conceded a putt to Jacklin, but he damn well knew the U.S. would retain the Ryder Cup. Had that been for the UK to win, I think Jack would have stood there with his arms folded.

16 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

The fact that the match would have continued without him speaking up just rubs me the wrong way.

Neither Shepherd nor the coach did anything dishonorable, IMO.

And what if you were the Moon girl? Would you accept the match continuing on when you goofed? What if you later beat Shepherd and then afterward wondered if you had actually broken the rules and should have lost? What then? Is that playing the game with honor?

10 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Touch S***, the rules of golf can not be waived.

They can't be "waived" by agreement, Matt, but you can overlook a breach of the Rules in match play.

8 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

Ignoring Moon picking up her ball like this matters to literally no one else.

So lying is honorable, then, and what she did was dishonorable?

Nah, I don't buy it, or see it that way. Moon broke the rules. It was stupid. Shepherd didn't want to win that way. But, she did, and Moon would probably insist on it, as well.

4 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

You think that is sportmanship? I say it's f--king idiocy. It's a competition.

Yeah.

Again, what should the person who had Natalie's scorecard written down for her score in those cases, and should Natalie have accepted the two-strokes-lower score? No.

Had Natalie been playing match play and tapped in against the flagstick when a ball was overhanging the lip, I'd expect her score for that hole to have been two strokes higher. She ****ed up. She breached the rules. Her opponent played under the Rules, and it's misguided, bullshit, PC-gone-haywire to say that an opponent is dishonorable unless they overlook a breach of the Rules.

I too get where others are coming from, but again two things still stand out to me:

• Shepherd didn't have the chance to concede the putt before Moon breached the rules.
• To say that she should have overlooked it says (it goes beyond implying) that she was dishonorable in NOT overlooking it.

[Hardspoon]

16 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

And yes, the sporting thing to do is to ignore it and win the match by playing better than your opponent.

I disagree...but at least I can see where you're coming from. Unlike the ridiculousness above (the Uihlein thing). 

To me, sportsmanship is an effort or gesture by a competitor to "right a wrong", allowing them to compete against their opponent and win or lose based on actual skill, rather than a bad break.  It doesn't include letting them off the hook for their own mistakes.

Edited July 31, 2017 by Hardspoon
Edited for clarity

[saevel25]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

They can't be "waived" by agreement, Matt, but you can overlook a breach of the Rules in match play.

That seems to not jive with this decision. 

Quote

1-3/6

Marker Attests Wrong Score Knowingly and Competitor Aware Score Wrong

Q.In stroke play, B failed to hole out at a hole. A few holes later he realized he had erred. A, B's marker and fellow-competitor, was aware both that B had infringed the Rules and that B knew this, but nevertheless he signed B's card. B was disqualified under Rule 3-2 (Failure to Hole Out). Should A, who knowingly overlooked the breach, be penalized?

A.A should have been disqualified for a breach of Rule 1-3.

Player B knew he made an error and didn't willingly waive the rule or agreed with Player A. Yet the decision is still to disqualify Player A under rule 1-3. It seems like you do not need to agree to waive the rules to be in violation of 1-3.  

I could be wrong, but that is how I read this situation. 

[Hardspoon]

3 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

That seems to not jive with this decision. 

Player B knew he made an error and didn't willingly waive the rule or agreed with Player A. Yet the decision is still to disqualify Player A under rule 1-3. It seems like you do not need to agree to waive the rules to be in violation of 1-3.  

I could be wrong, but that is how I read this situation. 

That's a stroke-play decision...I think that's why.  There's a responsibility to protect the field.

Although I see your point about the application of 1-3...hmm.

Edited July 31, 2017 by Hardspoon

[saevel25]

1 minute ago, Hardspoon said:

That's a stroke-play decision...I think that's why.  There's a responsibility to protect the field.

Actually it's not. It's in section 1 - The Game, not Section 3 - Stroke Play

[DeadMan]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

So you think Shepherd won dishonorably?

Cuz I don't. Moon is the player who goofed. Not Shepherd.

Yes, I think she did win dishonorably. I tell people in my rules seminar that the rules are not there to be a gotcha and you should not use them that way. Her caddie did that. From what I've read, I don't think Shepherd acted dishonorably or did anything wrong herself. She feels that way too, apparently, because you don't cry for a long time after your match

6 minutes ago, iacas said:

And what if you were the Moon girl? Would you accept the match continuing on when you goofed? What if you later beat Shepherd and then afterward wondered if you had actually broken the rules and should have lost? What then? Is that playing the game with honor?

If I were Moon, I would have probably disqualified myself. Assuming I had realized that I broke the rules. 

9 minutes ago, iacas said:

So lying is honorable, then, and what she did was dishonorable?

Yes, lying is often the right and honorable thing to do. You can be always be honest, but there's a reason they call people like that brutally honest. Or do you always tell your significant other that she looks fat in that dress? 

9 minutes ago, iacas said:

Again, what should the person who had Natalie's scorecard written down for her score in those cases, and should Natalie have accepted the two-strokes-lower score? No.

Had Natalie been playing match play and tapped in against the flagstick when a ball was overhanging the lip, I'd expect her score for that hole to have been two strokes higher. She ****ed up. She breached the rules. Her opponent played under the Rules, and it's misguided, bullshit, PC-gone-haywire to say that an opponent is dishonorable unless they overlook a breach of the Rules.

First, assuming Natalie was playing stroke play, that is completely different because you have to protect the field. 

The PC-gone-haywire is a bit over the top, but I'll say that I read this:

Golf is played, for the most part, without the supervision of a referee or umpire. The game relies on the integrity of the individual to show consideration for other players and to abide by the Rules. All players should conduct themselves in a disciplined manner, demonstrating courtesy and sportsmanship at all times, irrespective of how competitive they may be. This is the spirit of the game of golf.

to mean that winning is not the be all and end all of playing golf. For me, the great thing about golf is that you aren't really playing against other people. In my view, you're playing against yourself (in handicapped play) or playing againstthe course. You don't need to have someone else fail to win yourself. As an ultra-competitive person who occasionally in my youth let that get too far, I really do enjoy that about golf. It's why I didn't play it as a teenager, and why I do play it now. This situation goes against that, which is why I'm not happy about it. 

Given that I'm ultra-competitive, I do see where you and others are coming from. Part of this could be because I get enough of ultra-competitive people who will do anything to win in my day job (lawyer). I prefer my golf to be free of that if possible.

[Hardspoon]

4 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

For me, the great thing about golf is that you aren't really playing against other people. 

Ummm...this was match play...?

This has nothing to do with being competitive or trying to "win at all costs".  It comes down to what you consider part of the game, and what you let your opponent off the hook for.

 

[DeadMan]

4 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

Ummm...this was match play...?

This has nothing to do with being competitive or trying to "win at all costs".  It comes down to what you consider part of the game, and what you let your opponent off the hook for.

Yeah, it is a definitely little different for match play. But I still view it as playing against the course more than the other player. But that's just me, and I'm a little weird.

And, yes, I would let my opponent off the hook for a putt that I would have conceded. My real problem here is that Shepherd would have, and wanted to, do the same, but couldn't because of the actions of her caddy.

29 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

That seems to not jive with this decision. 

Player B knew he made an error and didn't willingly waive the rule or agreed with Player A. Yet the decision is still to disqualify Player A under rule 1-3. It seems like you do not need to agree to waive the rules to be in violation of 1-3.  

I could be wrong, but that is how I read this situation. 

He's not waiving the rules in this situation - he's ignoring a breach of the rules of another player when he knew about it. In stroke play. It's not the same thing.

Edited July 31, 2017 by DeadMan

[spider]

Poor sportsmanship by Shepherd.

[14ledo81]

52 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

From that tweet, it looked like he conceded a missable 3-foot putt so the match would be won on a "good shot"?!?

You think that is sportmanship? I say it's f--king idiocy. It's a competition. 

That is NOT something that should be lauded at any level of competition beyond pre-school.

Idiocy??

Remember this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/unbelievable-act-of-sportsmanship

Would you call that idiocy as well?  

To me, some things are more important than winning.

[Hardspoon]

3 minutes ago, 14ledo81 said:

Idiocy??

Remember this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/unbelievable-act-of-sportsmanship

Would you call that idiocy as well?  

You actually think those two are the even remotely comparable?!?  Are you kidding me?

Did you read this:

55 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

To me, sportsmanship is an effort or gesture by a competitor to "right a wrong", allowing them to compete against their opponent and win or lose based on actual skill, rather than a bad break.  It doesn't include letting them off the hook for their own mistakes.

That was a great act of sportsmanship, because she hit the homer.  She earned it, and her opponents negated a really shitty break against her by helping her out.

If that homer was a foot short of the top of the fence, should they have let it sit there and helped around the bases, since it was "close enough"?

Idiocy.

6 minutes ago, 14ledo81 said:

To me, some things are more important than winning.

Agreed - and owning up to your own stupid mistakes, even if they cause you to lose, is one of them.

[iacas]

33 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Actually it's not. It's in section 1 - The Game, not Section 3 - Stroke Play

Matt…

Quote

Q.In stroke play,

It's a stroke play Decision. There are no "markers" in match play, either.

22 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

Yes, I think she did win dishonorably. I tell people in my rules seminar that the rules are not there to be a gotcha and you should not use them that way.

She didn't use them as a gotcha.

The hole was over when Moon raked the putt back. She violated the rules before Shepherd could concede.

22 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

If I were Moon, I would have probably disqualified myself. Assuming I had realized that I broke the rules. 

You can't have it both ways.

You think Shepherd was dishonorable, but then you'd put it on Moon as being the dishonorable one if she didn't DQ herself?

Moon broke the rules of golf before Shepherd could stop her or intervene or do anything.

22 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

Yes, lying is often the right and honorable thing to do. You can be always be honest, but there's a reason they call people like that brutally honest. Or do you always tell your significant other that she looks fat in that dress? 

Telling your wife she doesn't look fat is not a competition. Your wife hasn't broken any rules.

22 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

First, assuming Natalie was playing stroke play, that is completely different because you have to protect the field.

What if it was match play? Clearly she would have made the putt. But she broke the rules.

And then where do you draw the line? What if she had tapped in and hit the flagstick on an 8" putt? 18"? 24"? 32"?

It's pointless to go down that road. Moon broke the rules before Shepherd could react, to either a) stop her, or b) concede the hole.

22 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

For me, the great thing about golf is that you aren't really playing against other people.

You are in match play.

22 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

This situation goes against that, which is why I'm not happy about it.

I don't think it does.

So you think, then, that the Jaguars should have given the Steelers back the ball where Plaxico stupidly spiked it, eh?

Cuz I don't.

22 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

Given that I'm ultra-competitive, I do see where you and others are coming from. Part of this could be because I get enough of ultra-competitive people who will do anything to win in my day job (lawyer). I prefer my golf to be free of that if possible.

It's got nothing to do with ultra-competitiveness.

You're posing it as "honor vs. competitiveness." But you're also trying to have it both ways: there's no way in your mind, seemingly, for both Shepherd and Moon to do the honorable thing.

Suppose Shepherd did what you wanted her to do and lied and said she'd conceded it. Then suppose Moon did what you said she should do and DQed herself. Where would we be? Right exactly where we are.

8 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

But I still view it as playing against the course more than the other player.

It's not. You don't even necessarily finish most holes. You might get a 2 or a 12 on a hole sometimes… but if you don't hole out after your opponent aces a par three, you'll never find out, because the hole's over, and you move on.

8 minutes ago, spider said:

Poor sportsmanship by Shepherd.

I disagree.

7 minutes ago, 14ledo81 said:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/unbelievable-act-of-sportsmanship

Would you call that idiocy as well?  

Completely different. The home run had already been hit, and all they did there was save her from having to crawl or hop around the bases or something.

She didn't toss a live ball into the stands thinking there were 3 outs when there were only two, and the other team said "no, it's okay, we don't want the extra bases including the tying and winning runs… we'll leave our runners on second and third."

Totally different type of thing there @14ledo81.

---

Moon did something stupid, and lost.

Funny how so many of the people arguing that Shepherd did something "dishonorable" here are also the same people who despise "everyone gets a trophy."

Sports are sports. They're competitions. Golf isn't "win at all costs," but that's not what this is, either.

[DeadMan]

@iacas - I'm not interested in responding to all of that, but I wanted to correct you one on thing. I would have DQed myself in Moon's situation, but I don't think she would have been dishonorable or unsporting in continuing to play. But I don't think you understand what my definition is - not that I've explained it well.

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

@iacas - I'm not interested in responding to all of that, but I wanted to correct you one on thing. I would have DQed myself in Moon's situation, but I don't think she would have been dishonorable or unsporting in continuing to play. But I don't think you understand what my definition is - not that I've explained it well.

That's not correcting me, it's highlighting a flaw in your reasoning. Moon is the only one who broke the Rules of Golf. A player's honor is not called into question when they fail to overlook the breaches of another player. The other player was not stealing bread to feed a starving child, they were playing a competitive sport.

Moon broke the Rules. She lost the hole the instant she raked her putt back.

So if you were the Jaguars, you'd have handed the ball back to the Steelers and said "no, no, your ball. Honest mistake. Sorry." Hell no.

[DeadMan]

12 minutes ago, iacas said:

That's not correcting me, it's highlighting a flaw in your reasoning. Moon is the only one who broke the Rules of Golf. A player's honor is not called into question when they fail to overlook the breaches of another player. The other player was not stealing bread to feed a starving child, they were playing a competitive sport.

Moon broke the Rules. She lost the hole the instant she raked her putt back.

So if you were the Jaguars, you'd have handed the ball back to the Steelers and said "no, no, your ball. Honest mistake. Sorry." Hell no.

To be 100% clear, I'm not questioning Shepherd's honor, and you need to stop insinuating that. I don't have an interest in calling a 16 year old girl dishonorable, and I would have never replied to the thread if that's what I thought. I don't think she knew how to do what she wanted to do - which from my understanding is to concede and keep playing. The problem I have is with her caddy.

[14ledo81]

16 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

You actually think those two are the even remotely comparable?!?  Are you kidding me?

Did you read this:

That was a great act of sportsmanship, because she hit the homer.  She earned it, and her opponents negated a really shitty break against her by helping her out.

If that homer was a foot short of the top of the fence, should they have let it sit there and helped around the bases, since it was "close enough"?

Idiocy.

Agreed - and owning up to your own stupid mistakes, even if they cause you to lose, is one of them.

Yes, she had already hit the homer, but had not made it around the bases which is required. If it was all about the competition, the other team would not have helped her.  They did the honorable thing.  One could say it was her own "mistake" that caused the knee injury and she should have owned up to it.

If it was me, and I have the option (in the golf situation) to overlook my opponents breach, that is the option I would choose. Imagine the girl asking the rules official if there was anything that could be done. The official says "well, it is match play, so you do have the option of ignoring the breach." She chooses that option, and this thread is then about the great sportsmanship instead.

I also think the "other" sports analogies don't really compare all that well. In most "other" sports the players are actively trying to get away with whatever they can. It's part of the game. Not so in golf.

[iacas]

18 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

To be 100% clear, I'm not questioning Shepherd's honor, and you need to stop insinuating that.

Really?

1 hour ago, DeadMan said:

My opinion is that you are supposed to win with honor in golf, and winning a match over a putt you would have conceded is not winning with honor.

That says otherwise.

18 minutes ago, 14ledo81 said:

Yes, she had already hit the homer, but had not made it around the bases which is required.

It's a different situation entirely.

18 minutes ago, 14ledo81 said:

One could say it was her own "mistake" that caused the knee injury and she should have owned up to it.

No. They're different things. There was no breach of the rules involved in the home run thing. She could have crawled or hopped around the bases.

18 minutes ago, 14ledo81 said:

Imagine the girl asking the rules official if there was anything that could be done. The official says "well, it is match play, so you do have the option of ignoring the breach." She chooses that option, and this thread is then about the great sportsmanship instead.

If they're talking about it, it's not ignored. And as I typed earlier, then what… she puts the ball back… and then Shepherd concedes it then? Weird. Moon likely wouldn't accept that, and if she did, then everyone would be all over Moon for accepting the gift after breaching the rules.

18 minutes ago, 14ledo81 said:

I also think the "other" sports analogies don't really compare all that well.

You're the one who brought up the home run thing, no?

18 minutes ago, 14ledo81 said:

In most "other" sports the players are actively trying to get away with whatever they can. It's part of the game. Not so in golf.

But… Plaxico wasn't trying to "get away with" anything. He was just being dumb, like Moon, after making a catch, and spiking the ball out of confusion or a belief that he had been touched.

So you and @DeadMan both would have given the Steelers back the ball?