How many did we win by?

[rulie]

That makes the most sense to me.

See Decision 2-3/2. This is often referred to as the Ladbrokes Decision. It clarifies and standardizes the end result of matches, such that bets made on the actual result (not just the winner) could be paid or not paid.

 

[rulefan]

2-1 says:
The state of the match is expressed by the terms: so many "holes up" or "all square," and so many "to play."
However the match is over so there can be no "state of the match". It is won, lost or halved. No side is winning, losing or drawing.

2-3 says:
A match is won when one side leads by a number of holes greater than the number remaining to be played.

Immediately the hole was won/lost, that statement becomes true but only for an instant. The winning team cannot be leading as the event is complete. They have simply won.

The Rules make no mention of how a score for a completed event is referenced.
If leagues need to have a tally they can describe it how they like but the Rules don't.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Crikey, I wasn't expecting quite so much on this.

In light of the various comments, I'm now thinking 7&6. My partner was in for 4 so oppo had to sink the putt for a 3 to have a chance of winning the hole (with me yet to putt, also for a possible 3). Anything less than a win for them was a lost match. The putt missed and was conceded for 4 (although not sure the concession was necessary as the fact of the miss meant the match was lost). Therefore one assumes match over as soon as the determining putt didn't drop, and my putt becomes irrelevant - neither conceded nor not conceded, just irrelevant and outside the now finished match?

For info, actual result is not of consequence - it was straightforward knock-out so no league points or anything to be had. I was just curious whether or my putt was conceded and whether it affected the "score".

Ta all.

OK - you had a 4 and you conceded opponents putt (which would have been for a 4 and a half) and shook hands. Hole over. Hole halved. 7&6.

 

[Three]

See Decision 2-3/2. This is often referred to as the Ladbrokes Decision. It clarifies and standardizes the end result of matches, such that bets made on the actual result (not just the winner) could be paid or not paid.

That only covers singles.
In the OP, surely the match is finished as soon as the oppo has missed his putt to win the hole. In this case, the author's partner has won the match, the result must be 7&6.

 

[duncan mackie]

That only covers singles.
In the OP, surely the match is finished as soon as the oppo has missed his putt to win the hole. In this case, the author's partner has won the match, the result must be 7&6.

Don't see that I am afraid.

The principle of 2-3/2 couldn't be clearer and the result has to be 8 & 6 in this match.

If the score counts it's up to players to act accordingly - in this instance that would involve requiring he player to hole out for the win on that hole rather than conceding it (as was done with the handshakes)

 

[rulie]

That only covers singles.
In the OP, surely the match is finished as soon as the oppo has missed his putt to win the hole. In this case, the author's partner has won the match, the result must be 7&6.

As the Decision says, the shaking of hands is deemed to represent an agreement to concede the player's next stroke. Therefore, a three is conceded and the result would be 8&6.

 

[Three]

As the Decision says, the shaking of hands is deemed to represent an agreement to concede the player's next stroke. /QUOTE]

The OP's next stroke is totally irrelevant as the match has finished as soon as the opponent misses his putt for a 3.

It's not like in singles where a player has two putts to win and the opponent shakes hands, in this case I agree that the first putt is conceded.

 

[rulie]

As the Decision says, the shaking of hands is deemed to represent an agreement to concede the player's next stroke. /QUOTE]

The OP's next stroke is totally irrelevant as the match has finished as soon as the opponent misses his putt for a 3.

It's not like in singles where a player has two putts to win and the opponent shakes hands, in this case I agree that the first putt is conceded.

Decision 2/2 says the match is over when all of the players in the match have completed the final hole of the match. The last player completed play when the handshake represented a concession of his next stroke.

 

[Three]

Decision 2/2 says the match is over when all of the players in the match have completed the final hole of the match. The last player completed play when the handshake represented a concession of his next stroke.

OK I get that, that new knowledge makes it 8&6 because the OP finishes the hole by virtue of the handshake (concession).

Before the handshake, and after the OP's partner and opponent have holed out, is there anything the op could do to lose the hole?

 

[rulie]

OK I get that, that new knowledge makes it 8&6 because the OP finishes the hole by virtue of the handshake (concession).

Before the handshake, and after the OP's partner and opponent have holed out, is there anything the op could do to lose the hole?

For starters, breach of Rules 4 (clubs) and 6-4 (caddies) by either player would require an adjustment to the state of the match after completion of that hole. If so, the match may not be over.

 

[Three]

For starters, breach of Rules 4 (clubs) and 6-4 (caddies) by either player would require an adjustment to the state of the match after completion of that hole. If so, the match may not be over.

Hence the requirement for the handshake to be a specific concession of the OP's putt, even though it might seem irrelevant at first in a 4 ball??

Great stuff, thanks.

(Hope that makes sense, I knew what I meant lol)

 

[Three]

But then if there was a penalty, eg the OP had 15 clubs, couldn't the opponent then make a claim that he wouldn't have conceded the OP's putt for a 3 if he didn't think the match was over?

 

[rulie]

But then if there was a penalty, eg the OP had 15 clubs, couldn't the opponent then make a claim that he wouldn't have conceded the OP's putt for a 3 if he didn't think the match was over?

Maybe the 15 clubs weren't discovered until after the handshake but before they left the green?
The opponent doesn't have a "claim" per se.

 

[Three]

Maybe the 15 clubs weren't discovered until after the handshake but before they left the green?
The opponent doesn't have a "claim" per se.

EH?

If they shook hands and then discovered that the OP had 15 clubs, this would affect the score and the opponent wouldn't have lost the match by halving with the OP's partner, hence he wouldn't have shaken hands to say congratulations,and he wouldn't have conceded the OP's putt (which he actually didn't do initially).

Bear in mind that the "concession" is not actually a concession by the opponent, it is merely a by-product of his already losing the match and nobody bothering to continue.

He therefore has a case that the OP's 3 is not conceded surely.

 

[rosecott]

I go back to my original opinion of 7&6. The OP conceded the opponent's putt for a 4 which meant that the match was over and the handshakes merely cemented the fact that the match was over. The remaining putt by the OP had no relevance as the match was over.

If the OP was keen for it to be 8&6, why didn't he ask the opponent if he conceded his putt for a 3 and a win?

 

[rulie]

EH?

If they shook hands and then discovered that the OP had 15 clubs, this would affect the score and the opponent wouldn't have lost the match by halving with the OP's partner, hence he wouldn't have shaken hands to say congratulations,and he wouldn't have conceded the OP's putt (which he actually didn't do initially).

Bear in mind that the "concession" is not actually a concession by the opponent, it is merely a by-product of his already losing the match and nobody bothering to continue.

He therefore has a case that the OP's 3 is not conceded surely.

The "concession" was a concession, a la Decision 2-4/6 (and that Decision applies to more than singles matches). As per Decision 2/2, the match is not over until all players have completed play of the last hole. If it is discovered that one of the players on the team that was dormie had 15 clubs in his bag, and the opponents make a claim before all the players leave that putting green (Rule 2-5), their claim will be upheld and the state of the match will be adjusted by two holes, ie, by deducting two from the number that side is ahead, instead of 8 up they will go to 6 up and the match will continue.
I'm not sure that the "deemed" concession by shaking hands can be rescinded.

 

[backwoodsman]

Interesting discussion ...

The various pointers in the thread to things like rule 2-3 and decisions 2-2 and 2-3/2 have now convinced me that the handshake was indeed a concession of my third shot so a win of the final hole. 8&6.

Liverpoolphil must be sitting with a wry smile after his concise reply at post #2

 

[Three]

The "concession" was a concession, a la Decision 2-4/6 (and that Decision applies to more than singles matches). As per Decision 2/2, the match is not over until all players have completed play of the last hole. If it is discovered that one of the players on the team that was dormie had 15 clubs in his bag, and the opponents make a claim before all the players leave that putting green (Rule 2-5), their claim will be upheld and the state of the match will be adjusted by two holes, ie, by deducting two from the number that side is ahead, instead of 8 up they will go to 6 up and the match will continue.
I'm not sure that the "deemed" concession by shaking hands can be rescinded.

There is no way the "technically conceded" 3 can stand in equity, surely, if the oppo found out that the OP had 15 clubs.
The opponent did not concede the putt, he merely shook hands and congratulated his opponents on winning when he failed to win the hole. Had he known that he was only 5 down on the tee, not 7 down, he obviously wouldn't have shaken hands and wouldn't have conceded the OP's putt for a 3.

 

[rulie]

[/B]
There is no way the "technically conceded" 3 can stand in equity, surely, if the oppo found out that the OP had 15 clubs.
The opponent did not concede the putt, he merely shook hands and congratulated his opponents on winning when he failed to win the hole. Had he known that he was only 5 down on the tee, not 7 down, he obviously wouldn't have shaken hands and wouldn't have conceded the OP's putt for a 3.

On further thought, I think that concession, applied by a Rule of golf, must stand.

Also see Decision 2-5/5.5

 

[Three]

On further thought, I think that concession, applied by a Rule of golf, must stand.

Also see Decision 2-5/5.5

I absolutely disagree.
I do not see any way that the oppo can be deemed to have deliberately conceded the putt when the putt for a 3 was totally irrelevant.
It seems 100% obvious to me that if it was discovered that the OP had 15 clubs, there is no way that the oppo would be deemed by any reasonable and equitable decision to have conceded the putt for a 3.
Decision 2-5/5.5 doesn't specifically address this.