“We have the ability to see what can be, unburdened by what has been, and then to make the possible actually happen”

In a hard-fought four-ball competition at HCC, all of the players stood on the 6th hole with modest putts for par. Opponent JD had a tricky seven-foot downhill slider. F had a downhill six-footer. His partner, RS, had a curving four-footer, and opponent AN had a straight uphill three-footer. Things weren’t looking good as F’s team was already two down after five holes.

None of the putts were “gimmees” (even in a Men’s Game). F was thinking his team needed to win the hole, and they would at least get a chance to check AN’s nerve as F was fairly confident that JD would miss and that he or RS would make his putt.

At some point, however, F became distracted…yes, it happens. He might have been looking back into the fairway at a twosome with their arms crossed, waiting for the action to conclude on the green. He might have been looking at BG’s nearby deck balcony wondering how it would look with a huge Vandy banner on display for the Texas game.

Nevertheless, what he saw and heard when he mentally returned to the action, was AN reaching down to pick up his own marker, looking directly at his own partner, JD, and asking, “Good, good?”

F couldn’t believe this exchange. Were his opponents trying to concede their putts to each other? RS, his guest and partner, was standing to the side watching politely.

“Hell no”, F said immediately. “Nothing is good. “Putt -em”. The players all gave F a curious look. JD promptly proceeded to knock in his putt for a team par, at which point AN picked up. F yanked his putt left. RS pushed his putt right. Darn, thought F.

“What in the world were you thinking, F?”, asked RS, as the players strode to the 7th tee.

AN chimed in, thusly: “RS, you might want to come back and play HCC sometime when you don’t have F as your partner. It might really be fun.”

“You are three down”, said JD.

“These guys were trying to concede each others’ putts!”, said F. “I couldn’t allow that!”

“No”, said RS. “AN asked me if the putts were ‘Good, good?’, and I said ‘yes’ before you barged in and demanded everyone putt. I was about to pick up my ball.”

It then dawned on F that AN had been attempting a time-saving, and generous and sporting concession to both sides! Perhaps, F owed him an apology as he had completely misunderstood the conversation…

“I didn’t know he had directed the question to you”, said F to RS, “or that you had answered his question in the affirmative. But hmmm, thought a newly-unburdened F….that changes everything! A concession cannot be withdrawn!”

F promptly advised his opponents that the hole was halved as the putts had been conceded. (So, much for the apology). AN and JD grew defensive.

AN acknowledged that he had directed his “Good, good?” offer to RS, and that RS had verbally accepted the offer, but added with some lawyer-speak that he had never “verbally ratified” the agreement thereafter, in light of F’s rude interruption and demand that the players putt out.

“You are three down”, said JD, attempting to end the conversation.

“No, we are two down”, insisted F, who added that he wasn’t about to be bamboozled by “a couple of wily veterans”, at which point JD suggested to AN that F was really just saying “old” when he said “wily”. Sadly, tempers were fraying.

Issues

Was there a concession?

If so, did the subsequent continuation of play by the parties, admittedly at F’s insistence, over-ride such concession?

Ruling

Truly, F finds it a bit awkward that he is in a situation where he must resolve a misunderstanding entirely of his own making, particularly when the ultimate Ruling might fall in his own favor. But such is the case at hand.

The Rule regarding concessions is simple and straightforward: “A concession is final and cannot be withdrawn”. (R3.2b(2)). But was there a concession?

F finds that a “Good, good?” offer, when clearly communicated and clearly accepted is a “mutual” concession and that no further verbal ratification is needed or required by either party. A “good, good?” exchange is common in the game of golf and upon the offer and acceptance recognizes the clear intent of both parties to concede the respective putts.

A player is bound by the actions of his partner in Match Play (R23.5). As such, F was bound by the mutual concession entered into by RS.

The fact that F was unaware of the concession, and that play continued at his insistence, does not and cannot negate the finality of the “mutual concession” between AN and RS. The adjustment in the match scoring was clearly mandated with the revelation of these concessions. It is so rewarding to see the possible actually happen.

As usual, all comments or corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,
F