Na v Dj

[Deleted Member 1156]

n't
He couldn't claim the hole.


That's correct.

If Na had not ignored the matter, the situation is that without a concession, Johnson was in breach of Rule 14.1a for having picked up his ball without marking it which carries a penalty of one stroke. If, with the penalty he could still be in a position to win or halve the hole, he could replace his ball and putt out. If the penalty meant that he couldn't even halve the hole by carrying on, you would expect him to concede.

Why can't he claim the hole?

 

[3offTheTee]

Why can't he claim the hole?

Because ‘Nah’ it’s not possible. That is Tashy language! Sorry

 

[Colin L]

Why can't he claim the hole?

Because the penalty in match play for lifting a ball that is to be replaced without marking it is one stroke, not loss of hole.

 

[rulefan]

So why did Kuchar claim the hole when Garcia picked it up

Didn't Garcia accidentally kick the ball and then pick up. 2 penalty strokes.

 

[rulefan]

Apologies i dont understand . U pick up . Opponent says i did not concede . Do u not just replace ball and take a 1 shot penalty ?

I thought only 2 shot pen carried automatic loss of hole ?

As said it is only one stroke. But he would have had to make the putt and Na miss his in order to halve the hole. In the event Na holed his putt.

 

[rulie]

Didn't Garcia accidentally kick the ball and then pick up. 2 penalty strokes.

This link should straighten out the facts of the Kuchar-Garcia incident - the short version - Garcia missed a tap-in before Kuchar could concede it. The putt lipped out and the ball hit Garcia's foot. In hindsight, Garcia could/should have cancelled the stroke per Rule 11.1b, Exception 2 and replayed, without penalty.
https://www.golfchannel.com/news/watch-garcia-loses-hole-after-missing-tap-kuchar-can-concede-putt

 

[bladeplayer]

Thanks all for the replys much appreciated glad i wasnt mad ???


Not important now but wonder what rules gurus thoughts on fact Na said i did not concede that putt , but i will , so he informed DJ he broke a rule , then they both waived the breach and move on .

Both DQ under RoG ?

 

[chrisd]

Thanks all for the replys much appreciated glad i wasnt mad ???


Not important now but wonder what rules gurus thoughts on fact Na said i did not concede that putt , but i will , so he informed DJ he broke a rule , then they both waived the breach and move on .

Both DQ under RoG ?

My understanding of the DQ rule is where players agree to ignore the rules before a breach occurs. I played a friendly game a while ago and my mate he said that he had 15 clubs in his bag on the way to the first tee. My understanding if it was a serious game that, had I agreed that so long as he didnt use one of them at all, that it would be ok and he not be penalized, I also would be guilty of "agreeing to break the rules" and both DQ'd

 

[rulie]

Imo, an agreement to waive a penalty can occur anytime before or during a round, ie Rule 1.3b is applicable whenever the agreement was made.

 

[SammmeBee]

Thanks all for the replys much appreciated glad i wasnt mad ???


Not important now but wonder what rules gurus thoughts on fact Na said i did not concede that putt , but i will , so he informed DJ he broke a rule , then they both waived the breach and move on .

Both DQ under RoG ?

Not in Match Play as already mentioned.....

 

[bladeplayer]

Thanks all ??️‍?️‍ enjoy getting back out . No start date here yet ??

 

[rulie]

Not in Match Play as already mentioned.....

It would be a dq if the players knew the Rules and what they were doing! If you're going to ignore a breach by your opponent, do it quietly and without any discussion with the opponent (at least until a cold beverage in the 19th).

 

[davemc1]

In the solheim cup incident a few years back with Suzanne Peterson an Charlie Hull, the Americans missed a putt to win the hole, then picked up assuming the next was given, resulting in loss of hole

Different rules in pairs matches?

 

[chrisd]

In the solheim cup incident a few years back with Suzanne Peterson an Charlie Hull, the Americans missed a putt to win the hole, then picked up assuming the next was given, resulting in loss of hole

Different rules in pairs matches?

That depends on the nature of the match to some extent, If its 4bbb or greensomes. Generally if its 4bbb most penalties are on the individual who breaks a rule alone and greensomes would generally affect the pair together. So in 4bbb one of the pair could be out of the hole whilst his partner carrys on alone.

The Solheim Cup incident , I believe ( but might be very wrong) was that , unlike the Na incident, the pair called the penalty instead of choosing to ignore it and then all hell broke loose.

 

[rulefan]

The Solheim Cup incident , I believe ( but might be very wrong) was that , unlike the Na incident, the pair called the penalty instead of choosing to ignore it and then all hell broke loose.

I think you will find there was a referee in attendance. The player missed the putt and assuming the concession had been given, then picked up the ball without marking. The referee had no option but to give the penalty.
Rule 20.1b But if a referee is assigned to the match, the referee must rule on any issue that comes to his or her attention in time and the players must follow that ruling.

 

[chrisd]

I think you will find there was a referee in attendance. The player missed the putt and assuming the concession had been given, then picked up the ball without marking. The referee had no option but to give the penalty.
Rule 20.1b But if a referee is assigned to the match, the referee must rule on any issue that comes to his or her attention in time and the players must follow that ruling.

So, in the Pro game no players can ignore a rule infringement in matchplay if the referee sees it first hand ?

 

[rulefan]

So, in the Pro game no players can ignore a rule infringement in matchplay if the referee sees it first hand ?

If in any matchplay event (pro or am) a referee is assigned to a match then the referee must rule.
If a referee is only appointed to 'rove' (ie he is not dedicated to a match) he may only rule if requested to by a player.

There wasn't an assigned referee in the Na v DJ case

 

[Tashyboy]

DJ picked up thinking “ am giving myself that”. He could probably hole 100/100 from that distance. But at what distance does it not become acceptable to do that. I think Na was right to have a quiet word between friends, am happy at that.
As much as it has been discussed, it was an opportunity for the tv to discuss the correct procedure/ ruling to follow.

 

[chrisd]

If in any matchplay event (pro or am) a referee is assigned to a match then the referee must rule.
If a referee is only appointed to 'rove' (ie he is not dedicated to a match) he may only rule if requested to by a player.

There wasn't an assigned referee in the Na v DJ case

Thanks Rulefan, the difference in the roving and dedicated referees being that with roving not all matches will get the same attention I assume?

 

[rulefan]

Thanks Rulefan, the difference in the roving and dedicated referees being that with roving not all matches will get the same attention I assume?

Exactly