Matchplay - Can I give a half after winning the hole

Steven Rules

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 18, 2022
Messages
566
Visit site
???

3.2c(2) does apply. The player can concede a hole at any time. They (normally) just factor in their current situation as regards gross or nett strokes taken so far, and make a decision. They don't need 'a score' in order to concede.
What was the opponent's score for the hole and how did you arrive at that number?
 

Slab

Occasional Tour Caddy
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
10,845
Location
Port Louis
Visit site
My (uneducated) take is it hinges on the “your hole” comment. SILH says it was spoken by opponent in opening post but then says not sure it was said in post #11

If it was said did the opponent mean he was conceding or had miscounted the nett position so thought he could no longer half it or both, does it even matter? He still awarded the hole to SILH which can’t be rescinded

What SILH does/should do on the next hole to counter the oppos error is up for moral debate
 

backwoodsman

Tour Winner
Joined
Mar 3, 2008
Messages
6,789
Location
sarf Lunnon
Visit site
What was the opponent's score for the hole and how did you arrive at that number?
I'm still unclear on the point? Can't the player just say 'your hole' or 'I concede the hole' (or whatever) without any reference to a score or number of shots taken? They perhaps have taken fewer strokes, or more stroke than their opponent, but its irrelevant isnt it?. The hole is still conceded.
 

RichA

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
3,182
Location
UK
Visit site
He made a mistake. You didn't.
Him suggesting that you give it to him retrospectively, after he's already conceded the hole is plain daft, in my mind.
The psychology around gimmes comes back to the gamesmanship discussed in the other thread. If you're relying on them then you aren't really playing competitive golf.
 

backwoodsman

Tour Winner
Joined
Mar 3, 2008
Messages
6,789
Location
sarf Lunnon
Visit site
Going off at a tangent really, but isn't conceding strokes and holes one of the fundamental tenets of matchplay. And so, isn't the principle of 'a concession can't be withdrawn' also fundamental and should be (and is supposed to be) absolute. If there's flexibility around the principle, and concessions could be withdrawn, then wouldn’t there be all sorts of doubt & nonsense which would arise as a result.
 

BiMGuy

LIV Bot, (But Not As Big As Mel) ?
Joined
Oct 9, 2020
Messages
6,443
Visit site
If the opponent conceded the hole then that’s on him.

If you are playing in a competitive match it is your responsibility to know how you stand at any point, including whether you or your opponent has a shot or not.

If I had made that mistake I would suck it up.

It does though, amaze me how some players seem to be involved in no end of tricky situations like this.
 

WGCRider

Newbie
Joined
May 31, 2018
Messages
290
Visit site
I've had this situation in reverse. We had both played 3 shots he as about 50cm away and I was about 30cm away but had a shot. He said "those are both good right?.......it's a half". During his pause I said yes and picked up my ball. Before but then started to correct him and said no, I'd won the hole. His view was nope I agreed the half by picking up the ball. I said why would I possibly agree a half when I had a shot. He told me that wasn't his problem I picked up the ball when he offered a half.
I got him back on the very next hole. My ball was on just on the apron about 5cm short of the green, maybe 20m from the pin. He was up against the face of the bunker maybe 19.9m away and played a miracle shot to within mm of the hole. I told him he had played out of turn and would need to play that again after I had played. He spent maybe 10min measuring the distance again and again before duffing his replayed bunker shot.
 

SwingsitlikeHogan

Major Champion
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
32,301
Visit site
If the opponent conceded the hole then that’s on him.

If you are playing in a competitive match it is your responsibility to know how you stand at any point, including whether you or your opponent has a shot or not.

If I had made that mistake I would suck it up.

It does though, amaze me how some players seem to be involved in no end of tricky situations like this.
I’ve been playing competitive matches for nearly 40yrs and what happened yesterday was a new one…🙄
 

Orikoru

Tour Winner
Joined
Nov 1, 2016
Messages
25,366
Location
Watford
Visit site
Seems a bit of a moot point. I thought in matchplay you can effectively do whatever you want. If you can't 'legally' grant the half after he picks the marker up, then why not just say 'oh I already gave you that actually, you just didn't hear me' or something. If you're that desperate to give him charity. :LOL:
 

SwingsitlikeHogan

Major Champion
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
32,301
Visit site
Seems a bit of a moot point. I thought in matchplay you can effectively do whatever you want. If you can't 'legally' grant the half after he picks the marker up, then why not just say 'oh I already gave you that actually, you just didn't hear me' or something. If you're that desperate to give him charity. :LOL:
I can see why there should be a rule to prevent a player from doing what I did. For instance, if the outcome of a matchplay roundrobin league could be decided on aggregated ‘holes up’ (like goal difference in football) it could matter that I won 6&5 when the score should have been 7&5 - my opponent losing 5dwn when it should have been 6dwn. There is no way the rules for matchplay could sensibly cover all such competitive matchplay scenarios/formats and so the rule applies generally.
 

Orikoru

Tour Winner
Joined
Nov 1, 2016
Messages
25,366
Location
Watford
Visit site
I can see why there should be a rule to prevent a player from doing what I did. For instance, if the outcome of a matchplay roundrobin league could be decided on aggregated ‘holes up’ (like goal difference in football) it could matter that I won 6&5 when the score should have been 7&5. There is no way the rules for matchplay could sensibly cover all such competitive matchplay scenarios/formats.
I'm saying the rule doesn't particularly matter, if you're desperate to help out your opponent in this way and he agrees, then who is going to know? It cant be considered cheating if both parties in a one-on-one match agree to it as nobody is being cheated.
 

salfordlad

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2020
Messages
874
Visit site
Why wouldn't the words in red apply?
It doesn't apply because that is not what happened. First one player lifted their ball in play (why is not relevant, no rule allowed it) then the same player conceded the hole (according to the OP). But the other player, incorrectly under the rules, offered to alter the hole result, and the players (unaware the rules did not permit this) agreed a different result for the hole. Ultimately, Rule 20.1b(1) guides here, the agreed hole result based on a misapplication of the rules remains the hole result. Hopefully, some useful lessons learned here.
 

Steven Rules

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 18, 2022
Messages
566
Visit site
I'm still unclear on the point?
I am afraid that I am obviously unclear about your point.

Can't the player just say 'your hole' or 'I concede the hole' (or whatever) without any reference to a score or number of shots taken? They perhaps have taken fewer strokes, or more stroke than their opponent, but its irrelevant isnt it?. The hole is still conceded.
Yes. This is absolutely correct. Edit. And that is exactly what SIL Hogan's opponent did here.
3.2c(2) does apply.
It is this element of your case that confuses me. 3.2c(2) is about appliaction of handicaps. It is not about concessions or circumstances leading to concessions. Hence I have opined at #8, #13, #20 that 3.2c(2) is not relevant to SIL Hogan's scenario.
 
Last edited:

backwoodsman

Tour Winner
Joined
Mar 3, 2008
Messages
6,789
Location
sarf Lunnon
Visit site
I am afraid that I am obviously unclear about your point.


Yes. This is absolutely correct.

It is this element of your case that confuses me. 3.2c(2) is about appliaction of handicaps. It is not about concessions or circumstances leading to concessions. Hence I have opined at #8, #13, #20 that 3.2c(2) is not relevant to SIL Hogan's scenario.
I am afraid that I am obviously unclear about your point.


Yes. This is absolutely correct. Edit. And that is exactly what SIL Hogan's opponent did here.

It is this element of your case that confuses me. 3.2c(2) is about appliaction of handicaps. It is not about concessions or circumstances leading to concessions. Hence I have opined at #8, #13, #20 that 3.2c(2) is not relevant to SIL Hogan's scenario.
I fear I have probably been arguing two ends of the same stick (if indeed, that phrase itself is not confusing). I was thinking that 3.2c(2) applies as for as the oppo's nett score was concerned. (He thought it was 5 but was in fact nett 4 and would have had a putt for half). However, as he conceded, as you say, that rule had no relevance.

(Just for clarity, not seeking to doubt your explanation - fully accepted).(ps - not quite sure how I managed to get you quoted twice - & no idea how to lose one of them ...)
 

Neilds

Assistant Pro
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
3,613
Location
Wiltshire
Visit site
I'm a bit confused (as probably are others) as we seem to have gone off on a tangent (as can happen on the rules section).
The way I see it from reading the responses is:
1. Can the OP agree to a half on the hole that was just completed? No
2. Can the players tee off on the next hole and then the OP can concede the hole in play, effectively cancelling out the win on the previous hole? Yes

Is this correct?
 

backwoodsman

Tour Winner
Joined
Mar 3, 2008
Messages
6,789
Location
sarf Lunnon
Visit site
I'm a bit confused (as probably are others) as we seem to have gone off on a tangent (as can happen on the rules section).
The way I see it from reading the responses is:
1. Can the OP agree to a half on the hole that was just completed? No
2. Can the players tee off on the next hole and then the OP can concede the hole in play, effectively cancelling out the win on the previous hole? Yes

Is this correct?
I'm keeping out of it ... :)
 

salfordlad

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2020
Messages
874
Visit site
I'm a bit confused (as probably are others) as we seem to have gone off on a tangent (as can happen on the rules section).
The way I see it from reading the responses is:
1. Can the OP agree to a half on the hole that was just completed? No
2. Can the players tee off on the next hole and then the OP can concede the hole in play, effectively cancelling out the win on the previous hole? Yes

Is this correct?
Essentially correct. But to put it in the language of the rules...
1. There is no Rules authority to agree to change the outcome of a hole.
2. A player can concede a hole at any time before the hole is completed, including before it commences. (Aside, there is a different approach in the Rules with respect to tieing/halving a hole. That is not permitted before a stroke is made on a hole.)
 

Steven Rules

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 18, 2022
Messages
566
Visit site
Hopefully, some useful lessons learned here.
Surely the key lesson is that if your opponent concedes your next stroke or the hole to you, just politely say 'thank you' and move to the next hole. Don't argue about it, or say 'are you sure', or 'would you like to reconsider' or 'I think you forgot that you get a stroke there'. (Not that any of those statements would change the outcome under the Rules once the concession is made, but don't invite the kind of awkwardness that has been discussed in this thread.)
 

chrisd

Major Champion
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
24,810
Location
Kent
Visit site
2. A player can concede a hole at any time before the hole is completed, including before it commences. (Aside, there is a different approach in the Rules with respect to tieing/halving a hole. That is not permitted before a stroke is made on a hole.)

I once played as a single player in a matchplay ko against a pair. We were being held up by a group in front on every hole so I suggested that we concede the next two holes, one each to each other so we could skip ahead of the group in front. I'm pretty sure that I later read that we weren't allowed to do this? (It was some time back)

Did I read it right?
 
Top