Matchplay query

[Wolf]

Just sat here with my dad and he's explained something that occurred in a Vets league match his club had. Wasn't his group but he wanted advice so thought I'd ask here.. Bare with me.

4BBB matchplay only 1 player from each team left in the hole. Player from Team A is on the green putting for birdie and putts up to roughly 6 inches, putt isn't given so ball he marks his ball. Team B player is putting for par, he rolls his putt up again to within a few inches but instead of waiting for it to be given he scoops the ball up with his putter and both he and his partner walk off from the hole.

Team A assumed as the player scooped his call without it being given and that both Team B walked off that the hole had therefore been conceded so picked up their marker and made their way to next tee to join Team B.. However this is where it goes wrong Team B argue that they hadn't given the 6 inch putt therefore were claiming a half on the hole,team A argued that they had effectively been given the hole by Team B because they picked up without their putt being given and walked off. Team B argued they should still have putted out regardless, Team A argued they claimed the hole as Team B picked up.

Overall it didn't affect the result of the team however it did continue into the clubhouse with the teams all disagreeing.

So the question is did Team A do the right thing in claiming the hole, or are Team B actually in with having a valid point.

 

[Colin L]

Just sat here with my dad and he's explained something that occurred in a Vets league match his club had. Wasn't his group but he wanted advice so thought I'd ask here.. Bare with me.

Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[Wolf]

Thanks, but no thanks.

You might like it.. But more importantly any suggestions on the actual query

 

[Colin L]

To the real question. Correct me if I misunderstand the events at any point

Side B putted up but their next stroke was not conceded by Side B nor was there anything said or done by Side A which could have been mistakenly taken to be a concession of their next stroke. Side B therefore picked up their ball without marking which gets them a 1 stroke penalty and they would have to replace and hole out which would be for a double bogey.
Side A thinks their putt has been conceded by their picking up and take it they have won the hole, and so pick up. Side B could say that they had not intended to concede the putt, but I would say it was reasonable for Side A to to believe their picking up and walking off was a concession. A misunderstanding like that is resolved by permitting Side A to replace their ball without penalty and hole out which would be for a par.

If Side B does not concede the hole and both sides play on without either actually holing out, I'm not at the moment sure of the resolution. Thinking about it,

 

[woofers]

I’d say it was a half.
Neither side completed the hole as in either ‘holing out’ or a concession being given.
See Rule 23.
The mistake team A made was to assume......never assume anything, even though it was poor etiquette and behaviour by Team B.

 

[Orikoru]

Sounds like the team B feller is trying it on having missed his putt, but without anything being said, no putts were conceded and nobody finished the hole so I'd say technically that is a half.

 

[Colin L]

Thinking about it,

First thought is that if neither side holes out, Side B loses the hole because it was the first to fail to do so. But that's tentative.

 

[woofers]

Rule 23.3c -

When Hole Is Completed
(1) Match Play. A side has completed a hole when both partners have holed out or had their next strokes conceded or either side has conceded the hole.

 

[Wolf]

First thought is that if neither side holes out, Side B loses the hole because it was the first to fail to do so. But that's tentative.

Think you're summary is spot in and that's my thoughts to. As @woofers quotes above the rule is relatively clear, however even with the rule it does also state failing to hole out is loss of hole 🤔

So I'm back to thinking perhaps team B loss of hole. It's caused quite a stir apparently and I'm hoping you guys can help my understanding at least..

 

[Wolf]

Rule 23.3c -

When Hole Is Completed
(1) Match Play. A side has completed a hole when both partners have holed out or had their next strokes conceded or either side has conceded the hole.

However it goes on to state..

When Neither Partner Holes Out or Otherwise Completes the Hole under the Rules. The side does not have a score for that hole, which means:
In match play, the side loses the hole, unless the opposing side already had conceded or otherwise lost the hole

This is effectively what team A are saying that by Team B failing to hole out and picked up the rule states they lost the hole.

I think this is where the confusion is caused because both sides can claim part of the rule in their favour

 

[Colin L]

Well aware of 23.3c(1) but what bothers me here is the idea that a side can just walk off without holing out, without a concession, leaving their opponents with the understandable impression that the hole was conceded and "get away" with a half that they clearly weren't going to get by normal play. I'm still inclined to think that once they start play at the next hole, and neither side has holed out, then the first to have failed to complete the hole loses it. Off to watch some of the Open now!

 

[Wolf]

Well aware of 23.3c(1) but what bothers me here is the idea that a side can just walk off without holing out, without a concession, leaving their opponents with the understandable impression that the hole was conceded and "get away" with a half that they clearly weren't going to get by normal play.

That's where I take issue as well they picked up, walked off to next hole and then try to claim half which they could not have got without these actions. I believe its being taken further by my dad's club due to the bitter taste left.

 

[duncan mackie]

It's quite simple.

Neither sides putt was conceded, and team A believed theirs had been.

This was established before teeing of from the next hole so it's simple to resolve.

In this case you don't even need to consider whether team A are entitled to replace their ball without penalty because team B have a penalty for picking theirs up (without marking etc) and have a best score of double bogey. Personally in such a situation as described I would be happy that they are entitled to proceed without any penalty (but that's not an issue here)

If team B require team A to hole out (for the win) then they just go back and do it.

 

[Colin L]

We're in agreement about how they could have resolved the muddle at the time apart from penalising Side B or not, but they played on without resolving it. If we take it that Side A made a timely claim, how should the Committee resolve it given that neither side holed out and, I'd argue, that you cannot assume a putt would have been made?
a. B as the first side to fail to complete the hole loses it?
b. B's action in picking up and walking off can be taken as a concession and so A wins the hole?
c. They have to go back out on to the course for A to finish the hole?
d. Something else?

 

[Wolf]

We're in agreement about how they could have resolved the muddle at the time apart from penalising Side B or not, but they played on without resolving it. If we take it that Side A made a timely claim, how should the Committee resolve it given that neither side holed out and, I'd argue, that you cannot assume a putt would have been made?
a. B as the first side to fail to complete the hole loses it?
b. B's action in picking up and walking off can be taken as a concession and so A wins the hole?
c. They have to go back out on to the course for A to finish the hole?
d. Something else?

I think a combination of those 2 is where the argument for Team A wins and where this has occurred along with some sour grapes from Team B because of the cock up they made by picking up and then trying to claim after walking off to the next hole.

Certainly seems messy

 

[duncan mackie]

We're in agreement about how they could have resolved the muddle at the time apart from penalising Side B or not, but they played on without resolving it. If we take it that Side A made a timely claim, how should the Committee resolve it given that neither side holed out and, I'd argue, that you cannot assume a putt would have been made?
a. B as the first side to fail to complete the hole loses it?
b. B's action in picking up and walking off can be taken as a concession and so A wins the hole?
c. They have to go back out on to the course for A to finish the hole?
d. Something else?

Good question.

The committee should start by asking why it wasn't resolved on the course at the time in the first instance...

More directly in this case would be to look at the detail of the claim. Taken exactly as written that team B are claiming a half because team A didn't hole out I would rule that as team B didn't hole out they have no basis for their claim. Had they tapped in there might have been a case for a claim...but then again team A wouldn't have picked up their marker in such a situation.

The only time I can see any basis for a claim here would be if team B had requested team A to go back and hole out and team A had flat refused...at which point I would get as far as considering any counter claim from team A.

If your post was the multiple choice question I would go for (b.)

 

[Wolf]

Good question.

The committee should start by asking why it wasn't resolved on the course at the time in the first instance...

More directly in this case would be to look at the detail of the claim. Taken exactly as written that team B are claiming a half because team A didn't hole out I would rule that as team B didn't hole out they have no basis for their claim. Had they tapped in there might have been a case for a claim...but then again team A wouldn't have picked up their marker in such a situation.

The only time I can see any basis for a claim here would be if team B had requested team A to go back and hole out and team A had flat refused...at which point I would get as far as considering any counter claim from team A.

If your post was the multiple choice question I would go for (b.)

Your first point I belive from what my Dad told me it wasn't resolved because neither side would budge on their stance Team A adamant Team B action meant they'd surrendered the hole therefore they believed they coukd claim the hole. Whereas Team B were adamant they will claim half as Team A also didn't hike out even though they'd already picked up, got their bags and moved onto the next tee.

Your other point is exactly how it was described to me which is why I think the same as you. Its a very strange one, all I know is from what my Dad said these same pair did something similar against another club in another match so perhaps there is some previous in gamesmanship. Its something that's had my dad racking his brains for the last 3 days since the match happened.

How does a club overcome it though because can they realistically raise it as an issue with Team B's club to prevent future issues 🤔

 

[duncan mackie]

Team B's club should deal with it in the simplest of ways - refuse to select them.

Everything that everyone does when playing representative golf for a club reflects directly on the club.

 

[Kellfire]

“In match play, the side loses the hole, unless the opposing side already had conceded or otherwise lost the hole”

The rule reads quite clearly to me. The hole was lost when Team B failed to hole out. They were clearly trying to goad Team A into picking up so they could steal a half but their lack of rules knowledge has cost them the hole.

 

[Leftie]

My view, for what it's worth, is that as soon as team B had picked their ball up without holing out, the hole was over and conceded.