Concessions

[farmer]

In a matchplay tournament, a player wants to concede a putt. If he swats it back to his opponent, using his putter, is this a rules violation?

[Mr. Bean]

Only if his intention is to test the surface of the putting green.

[rcb1586]

I'd say it's fine.

3.2.b.1 states:

"The player may concede the opponent’s next stroke by deflecting or stopping the

opponent’s ball in motion only if that is done specifically to concede the next

stroke and only when there is no reasonable chance the ball can be holed"

 

3.2.b.2 states:

"This can be done either verbally or by an action that clearly shows the player’s intent

to concede the stroke"

 

To Mr. Bean's point, I can definitely see it being a violation if he intentionally hits it back to the opponent on a similar line to his upcoming putt.

[Mr. Bean]

rcb, see Rule 13.1e. There used to be a Decision on the subject and that principle is still very valid.

[antip]

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

> rcb, see Rule 13.1e. There used to be a Decision on the subject and that principle is still very valid.

 

Yes. 13.1e/1 affirms that hitting it back along the same line is a violation IF the intent was to learn something about the putting green that the player will then use, but not if such intent did not exist. That old decision is embodied in this interpretation.

[Mr. Bean]

I have always considered any line to be a breach if the intent is to test the green.

[Newby]

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

> I have always considered any line to be a breach if the intent is to test the green.

**13.1e No Deliberate Testing of Greens**

During a round and while play is stopped under Rule 5.7a, a player must not deliberately take either of these actions to test the putting green or a wrong green:

Rub the surface, or

**Roll a ball.**

 

 

_Although I think they mean 'or'._

[Sawgrass]

> @Newby said:

> > @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > I have always considered any line to be a breach if the intent is to test the green.

> **13.1e No Deliberate Testing of Greens**

> During a round and while play is stopped under Rule 5.7a, a player must not deliberately take either of these actions to test the putting green or a wrong green:

> Rub the surface, or

> **Roll a ball.**

>

>

> _Although I think they mean 'or'._

 

I understand that you're confirming Bean's point of view, but I don't understand your comment about "or." They say "or," yet you point out that they mean "or"? Oar are you saying something else? :)

[Newby]

_During a round_ **and** _while play is stopped under Rule 5.7a,_

 

Literally this means that testing is prohibited when **both** situations exist at the same time.

 

 

_During a round **or** while play is stopped under Rule 5.7a_

 

means that testing is prohibited when **either** situation exists.

 

 

 

[Roadking2003]

> @rcb1586 said:

> I'd say it's fine.

> 3.2.b.1 states:

> "The player may concede the opponent’s next stroke by deflecting or stopping the

> opponent’s ball in motion only if that is done specifically to concede the next

> stroke and only when there is no reasonable chance the ball can be holed"

>

Is this a recent rule change? Didn't Spieth get stung in a recent Ryder or Presidents cup ruling when he hit his opponent's ball back to him before the ball stopped even though it was 20 feet past the cup?

 

[Mr. Bean]

> @Newby said:

> _During a round_ **and** _while play is stopped under Rule 5.7a,_

>

> Literally this means that testing is prohibited when **both** situations exist at the same time.

>

>

> _During a round **or** while play is stopped under Rule 5.7a_

>

> means that testing is prohibited when **either** situation exists.

>

>

>

 

But isn't 'during round' mean when a round has been started and it has not yet been finished and the play is not stopped? That is, there is no round going on when play is stopped, is there?

[Mr. Bean]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @rcb1586 said:

> > I'd say it's fine.

> > 3.2.b.1 states:

> > "The player may concede the opponent’s next stroke by deflecting or stopping the

> > opponent’s ball in motion only if that is done specifically to concede the next

> > stroke and only when there is no reasonable chance the ball can be holed"

> >

> Is this a recent rule change? Didn't Spieth get stung in a recent Ryder or Presidents cup ruling when he hit his opponent's ball back to him before the ball stopped even though it was 20 feet past the cup?

>

 

I do not have the old books available right now but I do believe this has been in the Decisions already in 2016.

[Roadking2003]

https://golfweek.com/2017/09/30/jordan-spieth-penalized-loses-hole-after-stopping-louis-oosthuizens-ball/

[Roadking2003]

From the above link:

 

Even though the ball was well past the hole and the Internationals were already in with birdie, Spieth is not allowed to touch an opponent’s golf ball still in motion here.

 

Such an action is deemed as a violation of Rule 1-2.

 

That rule says a player “must not take an action with the intent to influence the movement of a ball in play.” If a player does breach the rule, he is seen as illicitly “exerting influence” on the ball. In match play, the penalty for this is loss of hole.

 

As Spieth was deemed to have breached Rule 1-2 in this manner, he was thus disqualified from playing the rest of the hole.

 

Spieth still had a 12-footer that could’ve halved No. 12, but he was not allowed to putt it as he was disqualified from the hole.

[Newby]

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > @Newby said:

> > _During a round_ **and** _while play is stopped under Rule 5.7a,_

> >

> > Literally this means that testing is prohibited when **both** situations exist at the same time.

> >

> >

> > _During a round **or** while play is stopped under Rule 5.7a_

> >

> > means that testing is prohibited when **either** situation exists.

> >

> >

> >

>

> But isn't 'during round' mean when a round has been started and it has not yet been finished and the play is not stopped? That is, there is no round going on when play is stopped, is there?

 

Exactly, 'during a round' and 'while play is stopped' cannot have an **and** relationship

[Sawgrass]

> @Newby said:

> _During a round_ **and** _while play is stopped under Rule 5.7a,_

>

> Literally this means that testing is prohibited when **both** situations exist at the same time.

>

>

> _During a round **or** while play is stopped under Rule 5.7a_

>

> means that testing is prohibited when **either** situation exists.

>

>

>

 

Thanks, I see what you mean now. IMO the way it is written is ambiguous, the "and" not necessarily meaning both conditions must be achieved but rather that either takes you to the following prohibition. But whether I'm right on that or not, "or" would certainly be better in that it is unmistakably clear.

[antip]

This "and" vs "or" theme is prevalent in multiple locations through the rules. Sometimes "and" is just listing things, sometimes it is formally tying two conditions together. Clearly, "during a round and while play is stopped.." is just listing. But I also think that clarity of the rules would be improved if or were to replace and wherever it works.

[Newby]

Sloppy grammar.

If A, B or C apply ...... (listing) (individual)

If A, B and C apply ..... (bringing together) (all)

They do not mean the same thing.

 

 

[Roadking2003]

3.2.b.1 appears to contradict the Spieth ruling. Comments?

[DavePelz4]

Because Sergio was closer to the hole, couldn't Kuchar have said Sergio played out of order and asked for the stroke to be cancelled, make him replay the shot but then concede the putt?

[KevCarter]

> @DavePelz4 said:

> Because Sergio was closer to the hole, couldn't Kuchar have said Sergio played out of order and asked for the stroke to be cancelled, make him replay the shot but then concede the putt?

 

Wasn't Kuchar already in? I'm not sure...

 

In any case, I love your thinking, and in my opinion makes complete sense. However, who would have thought of that at the time?

 

Cheers!

[DavePelz4]

Honestly, I didn't see it live so not sure if Kuch was in already. If he was, obviously the wacky thought wouldn't apply which is probably the case.

[Mr. Bean]

> @DavePelz4 said:

> Because Sergio was closer to the hole, couldn't Kuchar have said Sergio played out of order and asked for the stroke to be cancelled, make him replay the shot but then concede the putt?

 

No, Cuchar had already finished the hole.

 

But this raises an interesting question. After Garcia had missed his tap-in he picked his ball up, i.e. moved his ball in play worth 1PS. If in such a case Cuchar had been in a position to recall Garcia's last stroke would that have also canceled the penalty?

[nsxguy]

> @Newby said:

> _During a round_ **and** _while play is stopped under Rule 5.7a,_

>

> Literally this means that testing is prohibited when **both** situations exist at the same time.

>

>

> _During a round **or** while play is stopped under Rule 5.7a_

>

> means that testing is prohibited when **either** situation exists.

>

>

>

 

> @Newby said:

> Sloppy grammar.

> If A, B or C apply ...... (listing) (individual)

> If A, B and C apply ..... (bringing together) (all)

> They do not mean the same thing.

>

>

Not sure if it's "sloppy" grammar but neither and nor or is necessary.

 

The Rule cannot possibly apply when a round is not being played. So both sentences mean the same thing.

[Mr. Bean]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @Newby said:

> > _During a round_ **and** _while play is stopped under Rule 5.7a,_

> >

> > Literally this means that testing is prohibited when **both** situations exist at the same time.

> >

> >

> > _During a round **or** while play is stopped under Rule 5.7a_

> >

> > means that testing is prohibited when **either** situation exists.

> >

> >

> >

>

> > @Newby said:

> > Sloppy grammar.

> > If A, B or C apply ...... (listing) (individual)

> > If A, B and C apply ..... (bringing together) (all)

> > They do not mean the same thing.

> >

> >

> Not sure if it's "sloppy" grammar but neither and nor or is necessary.

>

> The Rule cannot possibly apply when a round is not being played. So both sentences mean the same thing.

 

You mean it could read 'During a round while play is stopped under Rule 5.7a..', is that it?

 

Besides, Rule 13.1e or to be precise Rule alimiting testing the surface of a putting green does apply when a round is not being played and even before the round (R5.2).

[Sawgrass]

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > @DavePelz4 said:

> > Because Sergio was closer to the hole, couldn't Kuchar have said Sergio played out of order and asked for the stroke to be cancelled, make him replay the shot but then concede the putt?

>

> No, Cuchar had already finished the hole.

>

> But this raises an interesting question. **After Garcia had missed his tap-in he picked his ball up, i.e. moved his ball in play worth 1PS. If in such a case Cuchar had been in a position to recall Garcia's last stroke would that have also canceled the penalty?**

 

Since 6.4a (2) only discusses canceling the stroke (with no mention at all of any following/associated penalty) IMO the penalty, in this unusual situation where the penalty action might be committed before a "prompt" cancellation might be uttered, should stand.

 

Supporting my opinion is that in contrast, on other occasions in which a penalty might be avoided such as in 8.1c, the acceptability of canceling the penalty is expressly stated.

 

******Quote from 6.4a (2):******

(2) Opponent May Cancel Player’s Stroke Made Out of Turn. If the player plays when it was the opponent’s turn to play, there is no penalty but the opponent may cancel the stroke:

 

This must be done promptly and before either player makes another stroke. When the opponent cancels the stroke, he or she cannot withdraw the cancellation.

 

If the opponent cancels the stroke, the player must, when it is his or her turn to play, play a ball from where that stroke was made (see Rule 14.6).

 

If the opponent does not cancel the stroke, the stroke counts and the ball is in play and must be played as it lies.

 

[BermBuster]

Dang, I thought this was going to be about getting a hot dog out on the course.

[Hanlpa01]

> @BermBuster said:

> Dang, I thought this was going to be about getting a hot dog out on the course.

 

Haha this crosses my mind as well when I clicked on the thread.

[6Aces]

> @DavePelz4 said:

> Because Sergio was closer to the hole, couldn't Kuchar have said Sergio played out of order and asked for the stroke to be cancelled, make him replay the shot but then concede the putt?

 

Or, as I pointed out in another thread, because the ball ACCIDENTALLY hit Sergio’s foot, the stroke is cancelled and replayed. Exception 2 of 11.1b. Then it could have been conceded.

[lchang]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> 3.2.b.1 appears to contradict the Spieth ruling. Comments?

 

What's the answer to this one?