News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


MClutterbuck

  • Karma: +0/-0
Rules - Match Play - Kevin Na and DJ
« on: March 27, 2021, 02:02:45 PM »
I only got to see partial replays. Can anyone walk me through how Na's correct calling out of DJ was resolved into a halve of the hole within the rules of golf?

A conceded put is only allowed before your next stroke.


A player is obligated to advise his opponent of a rules violation as soon as possible.


A player can ignore having seen a violation, BUT both players can not agree to allow a violation of the rules of golf.


So how was it resolved?

Pete_Pittock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rules - Match Play - Kevin Na and DJ
« Reply #1 on: March 27, 2021, 02:21:22 PM »
First, I make an assumption that the match was not  assigned a referee. If that had been the case the referee would step in and control the situation. After that it depends on the players' knowledge of the rules. If they both had an imprecise knowledge, and they agreed upon a procedure, the match continues based on that agreement.


Something like this happened to me. I am happy to report that this was nearly a half century ago, and I still remember everything clearly.  On a par 3 I was tapping down spike marks that were well away from any possible play in the two matches of the group, and aware of what I was doing. No ball came close to my yardwork. After the hole was completed, but before teeing off on the next hole my opponent came up to me and told me that I had broken the rules, but that he was not going to call a penalty this time. My response was that I hadn't broken the rule, and if he wasn't going to call the penalty he shouldn't have said anything, or waited until after we teed off, because I was obligated to call the penalty on myself, and since I had done nothing wrong there was no penalty. Due to the status of the match we called the head pro, who arrived ruled in my favor.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2021, 03:40:29 PM by Pete_Pittock »

MClutterbuck

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rules - Match Play - Kevin Na and DJ
« Reply #2 on: March 27, 2021, 10:01:22 PM »
Is it reasonable to conclude that 2 of the best professionals in the world do no understand rules and do not know you can not agree to waive a penalty? The explanation has to be that the penalty was assessed and that Na still had not holed out and therefore could still agree to halve the hole.

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rules - Match Play - Kevin Na and DJ
« Reply #3 on: March 27, 2021, 10:59:19 PM »
Based on the history of the past 5-10 years, it is quite reasonable to assume that a good number of touring golf professionals do not know the rules of the game,especially matchplay, which they play so infrequently. If it was up to me, any golfer who gained playing rights on the PGA or LPGA Tours would be required to attend the base level USGA Rules Seminar and past the rules test for that seminar before they were allowed to compete on those tours.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2021, 12:16:40 AM by David_Tepper »

Pete_Pittock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rules - Match Play - Kevin Na and DJ
« Reply #4 on: March 27, 2021, 11:05:22 PM »
Two Americans in match play without a referee. What could possibly go wrong? I hope they now know the rules so this doesn't come back and bite them.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2021, 03:40:04 PM by Pete_Pittock »

JLahrman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rules - Match Play - Kevin Na and DJ
« Reply #5 on: March 27, 2021, 11:11:35 PM »
Was it a penalty if Johnson swatted the ball away from the hole? Or was it just another stroke? But I was confused by how this all played out. Once Johnson knocked the ball away from the hole, my understanding is that Na had no ability to retroactively concede the putt.

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rules - Match Play - Kevin Na and DJ
« Reply #6 on: March 27, 2021, 11:24:08 PM »
I invite everyone to read Rule3.2a(2) and explain to me the violation.  A player an an opponent can agree to treat a hole as tied.  That is what happened here.  There is no one else in the field who needs to be protected.  Na felt it appropriate to treat the hole as tied under the circumstances.  End of story.

Peter Flory

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rules - Match Play - Kevin Na and DJ
« Reply #7 on: March 27, 2021, 11:46:08 PM »
Why didn't MacIntyre need to be protected?  If DJ won the match, he and McIntyre would have had to have a playoff to see who advanced out of the pod.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rules - Match Play - Kevin Na and DJ
« Reply #8 on: March 28, 2021, 12:09:23 AM »
Why didn't MacIntyre need to be protected?  If DJ won the match, he and McIntyre would have had to have a playoff to see who advanced out of the pod.


Peter,

Interesting way to look at things.  Or perhaps imagine a pool play system where the top 2 advance, and on the final hole of the match, 2 players agree to half a hole, which ends in the match being halfed, giving them each a half point and ensuring they both advance, (as opposed to only one of them advancing, and the other being eliminated)

All the more reason golf needs to modernize like every other sport and be actively officiated by a 3rd party....

Jeff Schley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rules - Match Play - Kevin Na and DJ
« Reply #9 on: March 28, 2021, 01:14:03 AM »
Quite different from when Kuchar was playing Sergio and handled it less than classy, not soon after his caddie tipping fiasco down in Mexico.


Agree that in the match play have an official that is watching each group and can be called upon instantly.
"To give anything less than your best, is to sacrifice your gifts."
- Steve Prefontaine

AChao

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rules - Match Play - Kevin Na and DJ
« Reply #10 on: March 28, 2021, 05:39:20 AM »

Yes on having a rules official with every group ... I know there are costs, but at a high-level professional event, it's hard to believe there are so few rules officials available.



Why didn't MacIntyre need to be protected?  If DJ won the match, he and McIntyre would have had to have a playoff to see who advanced out of the pod.


Peter,

Interesting way to look at things.  Or perhaps imagine a pool play system where the top 2 advance, and on the final hole of the match, 2 players agree to half a hole, which ends in the match being halfed, giving them each a half point and ensuring they both advance, (as opposed to only one of them advancing, and the other being eliminated)

All the more reason golf needs to modernize like every other sport and be actively officiated by a 3rd party....

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rules - Match Play - Kevin Na and DJ
« Reply #11 on: March 28, 2021, 09:43:55 AM »
3 points.  First, the tour states that DJ thought he heard Na concede the putt and therefore there was no agreement hence nothing to penalize.  Second, and somewhat puzzling, for years many on this Board have bemoaned the fact that tour pros don't know the rules and rely on officials thereby weakening the underlying spirit of the rules and delaying play.  Indeed, that was a reaction when this thread was posted,  Now, in reaction to this incident, there is a call for a walking official to intercede in all rules questions, even when there is no dispute.  Curious.  Finally, have any of you, in a match, refrained from enforcing a rule when under the circumstances you thought it was the right thing to do?  Note I restrict the question to match play.  I officiate amateur tournaments but I have done so in matches of my own.

JLahrman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rules - Match Play - Kevin Na and DJ
« Reply #12 on: March 28, 2021, 10:03:31 AM »
Finally, have any of you, in a match, refrained from enforcing a rule when under the circumstances you thought it was the right thing to do?



What rule did the players refrain from enforcing?

Ian Mackenzie

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rules - Match Play - Kevin Na and DJ
« Reply #13 on: March 28, 2021, 11:13:35 AM »

Finally, have any of you, in a match, refrained from enforcing a rule when under the circumstances you thought it was the right thing to do?



Yes.
I once faced an opponent who would routinely, after removing his ball Mark, make a final alignment of his ball and touch it yet again without it leaving the surface....like a small rotation change to align the ball.


But I was 4 up through 6 and just decided to ignore it....unless the match tightened....😉
I won 8/7 then reminded him that, going forward, he ought watch his greenside manner.


When I played in the Jamaican Open in December, I saw 2 pros take blatantly incorrect drops and relief but said nothing as it was stroke play and I was an interloper anyway....😁




SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rules - Match Play - Kevin Na and DJ
« Reply #14 on: March 28, 2021, 11:21:23 AM »
As I understand the argument, DJ's putt was not conceded prior to his knocking the ball away.  Therefore he lost the hole.  Nonetheless the players agreed to count the hole as tied pursuant to Rule 3.2a.  Those taking this position suggest that this constitutes a violation of Rule 1.3b as a deliberate agreement to ignore a rule thus resulting in disqualification of both.  Based on some press reports, it appears that the Tour agrees except that DJ believed the putt had been conceded so they argue there was no agreement.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rules - Match Play - Kevin Na and DJ
« Reply #15 on: March 28, 2021, 12:29:06 PM »
As I understand the argument, DJ's putt was not conceded prior to his knocking the ball away.  Therefore he lost the hole.  Nonetheless the players agreed to count the hole as tied pursuant to Rule 3.2a.  Those taking this position suggest that this constitutes a violation of Rule 1.3b as a deliberate agreement to ignore a rule thus resulting in disqualification of both.  Based on some press reports, it appears that the Tour agrees except that DJ believed the putt had been conceded so they argue there was no agreement.


The problem with that is, they still didn't get it right, as there is a rule to specifically address that: 


3.2.b.2 - second bullet:

If the opponent lifts his or her ball in breach of a Rule because of a reasonable misunderstanding that the player’s statement or action was a concession of the next stroke, a hole or the match, there is no penalty and the ball must be replaced on its original spot (which if not known must be estimated)

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rules - Match Play - Kevin Na and DJ
« Reply #16 on: March 28, 2021, 12:32:29 PM »

Yes on having a rules official with every group ... I know there are costs, but at a high-level professional event, it's hard to believe there are so few rules officials available.


Completely agreed there.

The NFL has over 100 officials for its games, MLB has roughly 75, the NBA has nearly that,  but somehow the PGA Tour seemingly cannot do same?

Jim_Coleman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rules - Match Play - Kevin Na and DJ
« Reply #17 on: March 28, 2021, 12:51:31 PM »
   Na was just being a jerk. Either call it or shut up.  What purpose did his comment serve?  Of course, had he called it he’d have been excoriated. So, just keep quiet.

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rules - Match Play - Kevin Na and DJ
« Reply #18 on: March 28, 2021, 01:38:23 PM »
Kalen, query doesn't 3.2a(2)2nd bullet take precedence over 3.2b(I)(2) 2nd bullet.  If players can agree to treat a hole as tied, which clearly happened here, there is no need to replace the ball and play the stroke.


Jim, would Na have been a better sport if he had called the penalty?  Unless one accepts Johnson's after the fact statement that he thought Na had conceded, I suggest that Johnson's behavior was improper and that Na did him a favor both by letting it go and by "reminding" him of the rule.

Jim_Coleman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rules - Match Play - Kevin Na and DJ
« Reply #19 on: March 28, 2021, 02:05:24 PM »
  Do you really think Dustin needs reminding?  Divorces has been caused by less. And no, Na shouldn’t have called him on it. Let it go.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2021, 02:07:43 PM by Jim_Coleman »

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rules - Match Play - Kevin Na and DJ
« Reply #20 on: March 28, 2021, 02:25:25 PM »
Kalen, query doesn't 3.2a(2)2nd bullet take precedence over 3.2b(I)(2) 2nd bullet.  If players can agree to treat a hole as tied, which clearly happened here, there is no need to replace the ball and play the stroke.

Jim, would Na have been a better sport if he had called the penalty?  Unless one accepts Johnson's after the fact statement that he thought Na had conceded, I suggest that Johnson's behavior was improper and that Na did him a favor both by letting it go and by "reminding" him of the rule.


Shelly, that was going to be next question, how is precedence actually set there?  Perhaps just another "quirk" in the rules, yet another reason why many of us have issues with them.

P.S.  Jim, couldn't disagree more, DJ is the one who broke the rules but somehow Na is to blame? All because he was trying to be cool about it and give him a gentle reminder to not assume conceded strokes?  If he wanted to be a prick, he could have insisted DJ replace the ball and putt it out as the other rule stipulates.

SL_Solow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rules - Match Play - Kevin Na and DJ
« Reply #21 on: March 28, 2021, 03:06:09 PM »
Kalen,  I would defer to our resident rules expert, John, but ordinary rules of statutory interpretation would provide that if players can agree to a tie, there would be no need to replace the ball.  If Na had refused to concede ,i.e. agree to a tie, and DJ had a reasonable misunderstanding, then the ball would be replaced and he would play the stroke.

Peter Flory

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rules - Match Play - Kevin Na and DJ
« Reply #22 on: March 28, 2021, 04:40:26 PM »

I don't care about this emotionally at all, but it is an interesting and unique situation to analyze in terms of the economics and tournament structure.  So bear with me as I nerd out a little and don't think that I'm this passionate about Kevin Na.  :)

Rhetorical questions: If the pod rounds were stroke play, would anyone here be OK with DJ having a brain fart and picking up a 1' putt and his playing partners agreeing to grant him a par because he would have never missed it?  Would a guy in the field who got bumped by DJ by a stroke be OK with that?  Of course not.  We know that DJ never would have missed that putt, so why are we morally opposed to it in stroke play, but OK with it in this context?  I would argue that it is because we are not used to there being a "field" to protect in match play.  And with the field to protect, the only reason we care at all is because of the danger of the slippery slope.  If an inch is OK, then a foot is OK, then 2 feet, etc.  It's easier to have a hard and fast rule than agree on reasonableness.  And due to this, I would argue that gimmies should not be allowed at all in match-play where there is a pod system.  It is the equivalent to allowing gimmies in a stroke play pod qualifier.  The potential victims are the others in the pod who aren't granting the concessions and who have a vested interest in certain outcomes. 

MacIntyre's expected value if DJ lost the match was something like $550K (total prize money remaining for each of the 16 players) and he still had a shot at being a WGC champion.  His expected value if DJ won the match was about $334K (his money if he lost + 50% x his expected payout if he advanced).  So Na's decision cost MacIntyre about $215K in expected value if DJ would have won the match.  And for Na, he would have only gotten an extra $12K for winning the match.  The incentives weren't set up well to protect the field.  For $12K, Na was reluctant to call a ticky tack penalty and face the social awkwardness and reputation damage. And he didn't seem to realize that he had any responsibility to protect MacIntyre.

These guys would probably never do this because they are so financially secure and have reputations to maintain, but in the current structure, it would have made economical sense for DJ to pay Na a little over $100K to forfeit.  Because in that scenario, DJ would have a 50% chance (beating MacIntyre in a playoff) to get the $550K expected value of advancing, less the value that DJ would get by losing.  And if Na didn't forfeit, DJ had a 50% chance of beating him naturally, so the market value of the forfeit is the other 50%.  And Na would find it economical to auction off his decision to forfeit or not between MacIntyre and DJ to monetize the intangible asset that he controlled- i.e. his decision to try or not.

An optimal tournament and payout structure doesn't create these blackmarket side deal opportunities.  A similar thing led to widespread match rigging that took over Japanese sumo wrestling- as outlined in Freakonomics.  Those were thought to be very honorable men in a very honorable sport.  A better tournament structure here would be stroke play in the pods and then match play from thereon out.  It works in the US am and other places.  It would allow the stars to hang around for 2 days before departing and it would eliminate these unintended structuring consequences. 

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rules - Match Play - Kevin Na and DJ
« Reply #23 on: March 28, 2021, 05:23:42 PM »
I wonder if the outcome would have been different if the two players concerned had had, or were known to have had, ‘issues’ between them in the past?
Shouldn’t make any difference though. Rules are rules and should apply to all at all times. Hopefully lessons will be learnt.
Atb



JohnVDB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Rules - Match Play - Kevin Na and DJ
« Reply #24 on: March 28, 2021, 07:13:22 PM »
 A few thoughts on the situation:
 
1)    The PGA Tour does not have referees assigned to matches during the round-robin portion of the match play.  It would require 32 officials and they don’t have that many or want to invite so many outsiders to help out.
2)    As Peter said in reply #1, if the players agree to a solution because they don’t know the Rule there is no penalty and the agreement stands.
3)    MClutterbuck in #2, the PGA pros do not know the Rules very well.  If there is any question about DJ knowing the Rules see some of his past incidents.
4)    This is the only time they play match play without a referee right there so they don't know how to protect their rights when doing so.
5)    JLarhman, DJ wasn’t making a stroke at the ball, he had no intention of playing it as a shot.  He intentionally moved his ball in play without marking the location and so should get a one-stroke penalty under Rule 9.4.
6)    SL, while there is no problem with two players agreeing to a half however if they knew there was a penalty and decided not to apply the penalty it could be a disqualification of both players. See Rule 1.3b(1), first bullet, second sub-bullet.
7)    Peter Flory and Kalen, the Rules of Golf only cover the match being played.  The Committee could still disqualify players who acted in this way for failing to act with integrity if they felt it was deserved. Similarly, Interpretation 3.2b(1)/1 says players can’t concede holes to shorten a match.  The same could be applied to agreeing to half a number of holes.  If they did and knew they weren’t allowed to they would be disqualified.
8)    SL, I didn’t hear that DJ thought he heard KN concede.  If so, Rule 3.2b(2) would allow the ball to be replaced without penalty, provided there was a good reason to believe that.  If they agreed that there was a possibility that he mistakenly heard that, then they resolved the issue and all was ok.  KN could have made him put it back, concede that stroke or agree to halve the hole as they did.
9)    As to seeing opponents break Rules, I’ve seen things and ignored them since I didn’t really feel they mattered.  I have a good friend who did this once and when his opponent asked him about it, he said, “Let’s wait until we tee off on the next hole to discuss it.”  Once they teed off on the next hole it was too late to get a ruling so he could explain the mistake the player made without being required to apply the penalty to him.
10) SL, in regards to #14.  DJ lifting his ball when it wasn’t conceded was a one-stroke penalty, not a loss of hole.  Additionally, since KN was aware of the breach Rule 3.2d(2)’s Exception would mean that he wasn’t even required to tell KN under that Rule.

11) SL, regarding #21, you are correct, once they agreed to halve the hole, no need to continue.
12) Peter, in reply #22, In stroke play you have to hole out so, no DJ couldn’t just pick up his ball.  If he did and teed off on the next hole he’d be DQ’ed (See Rule 3.3c)  As to not allowing concessions in the pod system, the Tour could write their own rule for this and also to deal with all out penalties where a player might ignore it.  If they are that concerned about it, they can play stroke play.’
13) As for KN telling DJ about it, I don’t think he was being a jerk about as some have suggested. He was probably trying to make sure it didn’t happen again when it might have mattered and offered a nice solution that resolved it in the most reasonable way.  Players with better minds than DJ go brain-dead at times and it is nice to not be too hard-ass about it.  That being said, there are probably a few players I can think of who might have called the penalty at that point.