"Call it a half" ?

[Leftie]

Opponent and I hit the par 3 green. Both putted and ended up about 12" apart on the same side of the hole about 2' 6" away.

"Call it halved in 3 and walk on" I suggested. OK says he, and so we did.

Both teed off on next hole and when scoring the previous hole on the card I realised that he had a shot on me there. Obviously, I advised him of my error and conceded the hole. OK, it was an inter club friendly and in the scheme of life in general it didn't really matter, but if this had happened in an important match, what should the outcome have been?

 

[rulie]

A half. Once both of you agreed on the result of the hole and teed off the next, it's done.

 

[Imurg]

Would it have made a difference if the words had Benn "both good?"
Then you are just conceding putts, making no comment as to who has won the hole....
The fact that one player has a shot on that hole is a matter of fact and the result will be a win for that player even if tee shots are hit at the next hole..
That's the way I see it anyway....

 

[robinthehood]

You would still have needed to have decided what the result of the hole was though if have thought.

 

[Imurg]

Maybe....but isn't the "result" of the hole decided even if it's not "known" by the players..?

I don't know, it's Matchplay and I hate Matchplay...

 

[robinthehood]

I see what your saying as in only agreeing to give the putts as opposed to sharing the hole. I just wonder as it's pretty much always followed up.with confirmation of the score.
I guess it always best to know where you get or give shots 😉

 

[backwoodsman]

A query arising from Rulie's answer: Is it actually correct that an agreement for a hole to be halved can't be reversed (eg perhaps in circumstances like those outlined by OP)?

Rationale for query. Concessions are dealt with under rule 3.2b - and that concessions are final and can't be withdrawn is stated in 3.2b(2). However, agreement to halve a hole is done under 3.2a(2) - but 3.2a(2) doesn't have a similar prescription of finality? So what is it that prevents the reversal of the agreement if it happens to have been made in error?

Appreciate your thoughts?

 

[Colin L]

It's as Rulie says. See Rule 3.2a(2) second bullet point and 3.2c(2)

 

[backwoodsman]

It's as Rulie says. See Rule 3.2a(2) second bullet point and 3.2c(2)

Ok, ta. (But, having now followed through 3.2c(2) - I'd now be so bold as to say it was 3.2d(3) that is the prohibition to reversing the agreement?) And therefore Leftie was acting honorably in conceding the hole they were now playing (if I interpret his post correctly, that is)

Had they not teed off on the next hole then they presumably could have changed the agreement as to the match score?

 

[rulefan]

Had they not teed off on the next hole then they presumably could have changed the agreement as to the match score?

The match score was correct. There is nothing to correct.
The concession was made and accepted regardless of the no of strokes. 3.2b(2) A concession is final and cannot be declined or withdrawn.

3.2d(1)
Wrong Number of Strokes Given After Hole Completed. The player must give the right number of strokes taken:
Before either player makes a stroke to begin another hole or takes a similar action (such as conceding the next hole or the match) or,

 

[backwoodsman]

The match score was correct. There is nothing to correct.
The concession was made and accepted regardless of the no of strokes. 3.2b(2) A concession is final and cannot be declined or withdrawn.

3.2d(1)
Wrong Number of Strokes Given After Hole Completed. The player must give the right number of strokes taken:
Before either player makes a stroke to begin another hole or takes a similar action (such as conceding the next hole or the match) or,

But that brings me back to my original query? Was not the hole agreed as halved - as allowable under 3.2a(2) - rather than anyone conceding under 3.2c . The former has no prescription of finality, whereas the latter does?

 

[rulefan]

But that brings me back to my original query? Was not the hole agreed as halved - as allowable under 3.2a(2) - rather than anyone conceding under 3.2c . The former has no prescription of finality, whereas the latter does?

Yes, you have a good point. Rereading the OP, 3.2a(2) is the appropriate rule but can they agree to waive a rule they have just applied?

Edit:
After further thought it seems to me that an agreement to halve is just a special case of a concession by both players.
A. If I concede your stroke will you concede mine?
B. Yes
A. I concede your stroke
B. I concede your stroke.

 

[backwoodsman]

Yes, you have a good point. Rereading the OP, 3.2a(2) is the appropriate rule but can they agree to waive a rule they have just applied?

I'd suggest yes in this case. Because nowhere (??) does it say the agreement can't be withdrawn? Unlike a concession.

They agreed a half only because of a misunderstanding, and on that basis they mistakingly agreed an incorrect match score. And an agreed match score can be corrected - provided they do it before they play strokes from the next tee.

But happy to stand corrected ...

 

[rulefan]

See my edit

 

[Orikoru]

Would it have made a difference if the words had Benn "both good?"
Then you are just conceding putts, making no comment as to who has won the hole....
The fact that one player has a shot on that hole is a matter of fact and the result will be a win for that player even if tee shots are hit at the next hole..
That's the way I see it anyway....

This makes sense to me. If you say 'call it a half?' and he agrees that it's a half. If you'd have said 'both good' and he agreed, he'd have won the hole since he had the shot.

 

[backwoodsman]

Yes, you have a good point. Rereading the OP, 3.2a(2) is the appropriate rule but can they agree to waive a rule they have just applied?

Edit:
After further thought it seems to me that an agreement to halve is just a special case of a concession by both players.
A. If I concede your stroke will you concede mine?
B. Yes
A. I concede your stroke
B. I concede your stroke.

Been out; just got back from my 1 day a month at work

But that's not really the same is it? If both players concede a stroke, then they are just accepting that one has taken X strokes, and the other has taken Y. I 'd have thought that's not the same as determining the outcome of the hole - the outcome surely has to take account of strokes given/received? If one player, or indeed both, momentarily forget about a given stroke, can that not be corrected according to 3.3c2 and 3.2d3 ?

 

[Slime]

The match score was correct. There is nothing to correct.
The concession was made and accepted regardless of the no of strokes. 3.2b(2) A concession is final and cannot be declined or withdrawn.

3.2d(1)
Wrong Number of Strokes Given After Hole Completed. The player must give the right number of strokes taken:
Before either player makes a stroke to begin another hole or takes a similar action (such as conceding the next hole or the match) or,

To take it to it's extreme, can two players in matchplay agree to a ''good, good'' on the tee and both walk off with a hole-in-one!

 

[jim8flog]

To take it to it's extreme, can two players in matchplay agree to a ''good, good'' on the tee and both walk off with a hole-in-one!

To concede a hole on a tee one player must concede the hole to another player

Conceding a Hole. This is allowed any time before the hole is completed (see Rule 6.5), including before the players start the hole

and it should be remembered

Players Must Not Concede Holes to Deliberately Shorten a Match
Although a player is allowed to concede a hole to his or her opponent at any time before that hole is completed, a player and opponent are not allowed to agree to concede holes to each other to deliberately shorten the match.

 

[Colin L]

After further thought it seems to me that an agreement to halve is just a special case of a concession by both players.
A. If I concede your stroke will you concede mine?
B. Yes
A. I concede your stroke
B. I concede your stroke.

That's how I see it and come to think of it, the two concession are implied in the common epxression "Good, Good".

 

[rulie]

That's how I see it and come to think of it, the two concession are implied in the common epxression "Good, Good".

I don't see it that way. They have agreed that the result of the hole is a half and have not corrected it before anyone plays from the next tee. The result is a half. Imo, it's not the same as "good, good".