Steven Rules
Well-known member
What was the opponent's score for the hole and how did you arrive at that number?
Matchplay - Can I give a half after winning the hole
- Thread starter SwingsitlikeHogan
- Start date
Slab
Occasional Tour Caddy
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 He still awarded the hole to SILH which can’t be rescinded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
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 He still awarded the hole to SILH which can’t be rescinded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
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
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.
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
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 And so, isn't the principle of 'a concession can't be withdrawn' also fundamental and should be (and is supposed to be) absolute. If there's flexibility around the principle, and concessions could be withdrawn, then wouldn’t there be all sorts of doubt & nonsense which would arise as a result.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) ?
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.
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
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.
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
I’ve been playing competitive matches for nearly 40yrs and what happened yesterday was a new one…
Orikoru
Tour Winner
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. 
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
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.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.
Orikoru
Tour Winner
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
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
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.
Last edited:
backwoodsman
Tour Winner
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
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?
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
I'm keeping out of it ...
salfordlad
Well-known member
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.)
woofers
Medal Winner
No, it happens on every section.
Steven Rules
Well-known member
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
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?
Similar threads
