Solheim Cup Caddy Concession Moment

[cliveb]

you are fine - you have completed the hole with the concession and 7-2 no longer applies. very bad ettiquette though; if you did it with me you would be putting everything out for the rest of the match!

I should just point out that I don't do this routinely, but have been known on occasions to do so. A typical example would be if the concession is for a birdie - I get so few of those that I don't want to miss the satisfaction of tapping it in!

 

[JustOne]

Is there a graphical account of where Ciganda could have dropped (anywhere on the web?) her ball? I thought she had an option to drop on the side of the hazard nearest to the green and can't figure out why she didn't take that option - was it nearer?

 

[Foxholer]

From what I understand, none of the proper options, Replay the shot, Back as far as wanted in line with PofE, nor the within 2 club-lengths NNTH on the either side, were particularly 'nice'. But the 'mixed' option that the ROs eventually came up with - after a lot of faffing around measuring - of as far back as wanted in line, on the other side of hazard allowed a decent shot.

 

[Old Skier]

From what I understand, none of the proper options, Replay the shot, Back as far as wanted in line with PofE, nor the within 2 club-lengths NNTH on the either side, were particularly 'nice'. But the 'mixed' option that the ROs eventually came up with - after a lot of faffing around measuring - of as far back as wanted in line, on the other side of hazard allowed a decent shot.

Now known as the Tiger Woods rule

 

[JustOne]

after a lot of faffing around measuring - of as far back as wanted in line, on the other side of hazard allowed a decent shot.

I thought that they'd come to an incorrect ruling??... are you saying they didn't? I'm not even sure what ruling they came to or why it was wrong Just wanted to see if there was a graphical account of what happened and what the options were.

 

[Old Skier]

During all the faffing about, nobody seemed to notice Kramers caddy clean her ball before she went to replace it.

 

[palindromicbob]

During all the faffing about, nobody seemed to notice Kramers caddy clean her ball before she went to replace it.

Where was she replacing it?

 

[Old Skier]

If memory serves she was just off the green but I was a long way through a very nice bottle of Bacardi at the time.

 

[FairwayDodger]

During all the faffing about, nobody seemed to notice Kramers caddy clean her ball before she went to replace it.

Her ball was hit by one of the other player's balls; he was allowed to clean it before he replaced it.

 

[SGC001]

Her ball was hit by one of the other player's balls; he was allowed to clean it before he replaced it.

Are you sure? I seem to recall Christina Kim going on about an incident of a player lifting a ball from off the green due to it interfering with play and not been able clean in that situation, then saying the caddy has cleaned it. I thought the player involved was Christie Kerr though.

They then went on and on about it, why they didn't inform someone in the match or attached official of the infringement they thought they'd seen before the hole had been finished is beyond me.

 

[Foxholer]

Now known as the Tiger Woods rule

That was another of the permutations/combinations of getting it wrong (wrongly dropping within 2 club lengths of point last shot played) - and because the player did it he suffered a penalty. In the SC, the RO Ok-ed (with all the faff may even have suggested) it so no penalty!

I thought that they'd come to an incorrect ruling??... are you saying they didn't? I'm not even sure what ruling they came to or why it was wrong Just wanted to see if there was a graphical account of what happened and what the options were.

No the Ruling s a combination/merger/hybrid of 26-1b (back as far as wanted in line) and 26-1c (within 2 club lengths of LPOE NNTH or equidistant on the other side of the hazard. Ended up with - as far back as wanted from point equidistant to LPOE on opposite side of hazard.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Do course architects never consider the poor old ROs and the rules when designing a course

 

[Old Skier]

Are you sure? I seem to recall Christina Kim going on about an incident of a player lifting a ball from off the green due to it interfering with play and not been able clean in that situation, then saying the caddy has cleaned it. I thought the player involved was Christie Kerr though.

They then went on and on about it, why they didn't inform someone in the match or attached official of the infringement they thought they'd seen before the hole had been finished is beyond me.

I might have got the wrong player but it was defiantly a sceptic and the balls were next to each other on the fairway which I believe cannot be cleaned unless winter rules are in operation but through my drunken haze it looked like summer. I however have to get my block jobs done so am to busy to check rules today. Require browny points so I can go to lovely Teignmouth and Dainton golf courses next week.

 

[duncan mackie]

I might have got the wrong player but it was defiantly a sceptic and the balls were next to each other on the fairway which I believe cannot be cleaned unless winter rules are in operation but through my drunken haze it looked like summer. I however have to get my block jobs done so am to busy to check rules today.

the rules are the easy bit - the spefic incident, and the commentators comments at the time, was the confusion!

the balls did make contact, and ended up right next to each other.

if the ball of the player lifted was the one moved by the subsequent arrival and contact with the other ball, and it was being replaced in the best estimate of it's original position it can be cleaned.

if it was the ball that arrived second, and moved the other, that was lifted under 22-1 then it can't.

unfortunately I have deleted my recording of the whole incident so I can't review it!

the commentators started with comments around 'they will need to replace that ball' and moved onto 'she can't clean a ball lifted under this rule', implying 22-1.

either way, unless the opponents made a valid claim (which they clearly didn't) it's irrelevant!

just enjoy Teignmouth and Dainton, and I hope you have good conditions.

 

[duncan mackie]

Do course architects never consider the poor old ROs and the rules when designing a course

rules committees, tournament directors, course architects and course managers all have the odd discussion from time to time.....

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

rules committees, tournament directors, course architects and course managers all have the odd discussion from time to time.....

My thinking was aimed at new courses. I'm sure the architect will consider as many scenarios that would require rules to be applied as possible - but some holes on some new courses appear to have bizarre structure/layout that is almost asking for trouble with rulings.

 

[duncan mackie]

My thinking was aimed at new courses. I'm sure the architect will consider as many scenarios that would require rules to be applied as possible - but some holes on some new courses appear to have bizarre structure/layout that is almost asking for trouble with rulings.

I understand that, but I was trying to point out that it's not only how they are designed that creates issues. any competent course architects will be considering the relief issues as part and parcel of any hole design, almost from the beginning.

taking the SC LWH area as an example, it's how that particular area is marked, and managed over time, that creates the issue - the management being the course manager and the marking being the TD/TC for such events (and the marking can be very different from how the course is normally presented).

in your case you have a hedge and a path/track which seem to create a problem - don't know which came first, or if either were there when the course was originally laid out!

 

[FairwayDodger]

the rules are the easy bit - the spefic incident, and the commentators comments at the time, was the confusion!

the balls did make contact, and ended up right next to each other.

if the ball of the player lifted was the one moved by the subsequent arrival and contact with the other ball, and it was being replaced in the best estimate of it's original position it can be cleaned.

if it was the ball that arrived second, and moved the other, that was lifted under 22-1 then it can't.

unfortunately I have deleted my recording of the whole incident so I can't review it!

the commentators started with comments around 'they will need to replace that ball' and moved onto 'she can't clean a ball lifted under this rule', implying 22-1.

either way, unless the opponents made a valid claim (which they clearly didn't) it's irrelevant!

just enjoy Teignmouth and Dainton, and I hope you have good conditions.

It was all clarified later on; I saw interviews with officials and with the caddy - he said he knew what he was doing all the time. Take his word for it, I guess! But yeah, the commentary team didn't cover themselves in glory!

 

[pogle]

It was all clarified later on; I saw interviews with officials and with the caddy - he said he knew what he was doing all the time. Take his word for it, I guess! But yeah, the commentary team didn't cover themselves in glory!

In my view they never do. I always recommend ignoring 100% of what commentators say when they're talking about the rules. The small amount they get right is unlikely to advance many players' knowledge by a significant amount.

 

[duncan mackie]

In my view they never do. I always recommend ignoring 100% of what commentators say when they're talking about the rules. The small amount they get right is unlikely to advance many players' knowledge by a significant amount.

indeed - it's also somewhat biased in favour of the Tour Hard Card (like Local Rules) which can also confuse.

best example from the SC was the occassional reference to players practice putting after holes were decided and the comment 'this is matchplay and unlike stroke play events this is permitted.....' - for most of us the committee won't have implemented a LR/COC around practice during a competition, and therefore the same practice is permitted!

causing confusion to those who listened.