Concessions R3.2b; Order of Play R6.4 a and b; A Player’s Responsibility R3.2d

Golf fans around the world had to enjoy the little rules flap that overshadowed the Kuchar -Garcia quarter-final match on Saturday! If you missed it, Sergio missed a seven-footer for a win, and then missed a back-handed, raked, four-incher for the tie before Kuchar could concede the putt. Sergio thought nothing of the rake and walked to the next hole thinking he had tied the hole.

Kuchar called a referee and stated the facts, adding that he certainly would have conceded the rake had Sergio not acted so precipitously. The referee, citing R3.2b, ruled that a concession must be before the stroke, and that since none was timely made, Sergio’s missed stroke counted and Kuchar had won the hole

(Foremost may have to disagree here: certainly, a concession must be “clearly communicated” under the Rule, although F finds it odd that in light of Kuchar’s silence and the tap-in distance, the Referee didn’t at least consider the “reasonable misunderstanding” exception to the “clear communication” rule, and with Kuchar’s consent, allow Sergio to replace his ball for his tap-in. Kuchar could have said, “ of course that was good; no one has had to putt a 4-inch putt in this entire tournament; this was not my intention ( which he did say as a matter of fact). Isn’t that a “misunderstanding”? Of course, this line would have had to come from Kuchar, or admittedly, it would open a huge can of worms. In such case, F would have allowed Sergio to replace his ball under the “reasonable misunderstanding” exception, at which point Kuchar could have quickly conceded and moved on. But hindsight is wonderful).

Anyway, Sergio took this about as well as our Commander-in-Chief takes a Russian collusion question. In fact, the atmosphere grew somewhat heated as some said Sergio suggested Kuchar should perhaps concede a hole to make things right. Kuchar said he didn’t really want to do that. Sergio wildly swung his putter after a missed putt on the ensuing hole. The jawing continued.

Foremost, ever the peacemaker, was on the edge of his seat. Commentator Paul Azinger told viewers to relax… that golfers never really get into fights…really?

In fact, this proposition that was tested the very next day, away from the prying eyes of a world tv audience, on the cold and windy terrain of BMCC.

Facts

The stakes were high in individual match play competition. F faced a 16- foot putt for birdie from the left fringe on the treacherous par 3 hole #6. Opponent TD faced a 24-footer for birdie from the opposite fringe.

TD was out and putted first. The putt ran out of gas climbing the ridge before the hole stopping about 8 feet short. Instead of marking, TD stated that he would just “finish out.”

F was quietly processing this declaration. He mentally considered R6.4a(2) which states that if a player plays out of turn, there is no penalty, but the opponent may cancel the shot. F then considered the mental and strategic aspects of match play… it was his turn….and he considered that if he was able to lag his own putt up close for a gimmee, TD’s remaining 8-foot putt might suddenly seem longer and command a greater degree of difficulty.

Still processing as TD stepped over his putt, F wondered if he was obligated to verbally deny TD’s request to putt out of turn. Was silence in the face of TD’s declaration an implicit agreement to allow him to putt out of turn? It didn’t matter anyway, F reasoned, as there was no way TD was going to make a curving 8-footer with a 12-inch break! F’s hesitation to speak out was a mistake. As F pondered his options, TD drained the 8-footer.

F congratulated TD on his fine putt, but suggested to him that he would have to make it again when it was his turn to play, as he had played out of turn.

TD gripped his putter tightly and replied with a cold stare. Both ‘Tommy Fleetwood-look-alike’ caddies turned white. Player DS stepped between the players to prevent any further escalation of tensions.

Issue

May players agree to play out of turn in match play? Was F’s silence effective acquiescence to TD’s suggestion, thus constituting a waiver of his right to demand that TD replay his shot?

Ruling

For the record, F isn’t buying Kuchar’s explanation that he didn’t have time to concede the putt. Unless one is RM, it just doesn’t take that long to say, “Good.”

Likewise, F had plenty of time to deny TD’s request. The problem, of course, is that we all like to be gentlemen on the golf course, and it may seem somewhat impolite to deny a simple request to”finish out. “ Yet, this circumstance in match play warranted just such a response, as it clearly might have been advantageous from a competitive standpoint to offer TD an opportunity to stew over his putt.

In fact, a request to “finish out” is handled differently under the Rules depending upon the form of play. In match play, players might agree to play out of turn “to save time.” (See Exception, R6.4a(2)). Stroke play actually encourages “ready golf” and offers as an example a player who”wishes to hole out” after his ball has “come to rest a very short distance from the hole”. (R6.4b(2). Hmmm…8 feet…”very short?”

Nevertheless, this was match play. F finds that he waived his right to demand that the shot be replayed- that his silence was a consent as loud as the spoken word. The putt counted. F recalls a line he read in recent book about a golfer’s responsibilities under the New Rules of Golf: “Golfers, you should protect your own rights and interests!” *

Why does it seem that F is always ruling against himself?

As usual, all comments or corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,
F

*”Don’t Be A Club Short”, now available on Amazon.com, citing R3.2d