Derivative of the Solheim Rules issue

[Jim Hoak]

Reading over the discussion of the Solheim rules issue on the putt being conceded and tossed back while overhanging the hole within 10 seconds--I know of a similar situation that is indirectly illustrative of this ruling.  Let me tell you what the facts were, and then ask everyone for their ruling, and then I'll tell you what was ruled on the spot and confirmed later by USGA rules officials:
It was a windy Texas day.  A putt in Match Play Club Championship for a 3 stopped a couple of inches outside the hole.  Both the Player and Opponent agree that the ball had stopped moving and that it was not overhanging the hole.  Within 10 seconds, the Opponent said, "That's good," conceding the next putt for a 4, but never touching the ball.  While the Player walked up to the hole to get  his ball, a gust of the heavy wind blew the ball in the hole.
What score did the Player have--3 or 4?  I'll tell you what was decided after I get a few answers.

[Matt_Cohn]

My *guess* is: the reason you can pick up your ball after a concession is that it’s not in play anymore. What happens to a ball that’s not in play can’t possibly be relevant, right? So I would think that the guy made a 4.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

It may help (or hurt?  ) some to consider if this was more than just a putt - consider if your answer would change if someone nearly aces a par three, and from the tee, the opponent says "that's good." As the other player is getting ready to hit, the wind blows the ball into the hole.

Same answer? Why or why not?

[Peter Flory]

I didn't think that there was any 10 second limitation for a ball that wasn't overhanging the hole (and hadn't been marked and then set back down).  i.e. say your ball is 5 feet from the hole and at rest for 20 seconds while you putz around and you never mark it.  If the wind blows it in, it's in, right?

So given that and the fact that concessions always would violate that infinite time limit, I would think that the concession would stand. 

[Kalen Braley]

Points of clarification:

1) When the two players had the conversation, were they already in the proximity of the ball?
2)  You said the opponent conceded the next putt within 10 seconds.  Was the ball also blown into the hole within 10 seconds too?

[Jim Hoak]

Erik--The issue from the Tee might be that you couldn't tell if the ball was clearly overhanging the hole.  In the case I gave you, no one claimed that the ball was or might be overhanging.  It was clearly not.
Peter--The 10 second rule (and it actually is the time to reasonably walk to the hole plus 10 seconds) applies to everything,  not just balls overhanging the hole.  And, yes, once the ball has been marked and then replaced, it  is clear that if it moves for any reason other than a stroke with the intent to hit it, the ball is replaced where it was marked with no penalty.  The ball was never marked in this case.
Kalen--Both parties were near the hole and could clearly see that the ball was not overhanging the hole--they agreed to that.  And since the waiting time is a reasonable walk to the hole plus 10 seconds, and it was blown in while the Player was walking to the hole, it was well within this allowed period when it went in the hole.

[Kalen Braley]

Erik--The issue from the Tee might be that you couldn't tell if the ball was clearly overhanging the hole.  In the case I gave you, no one claimed that the ball was or might be overhanging.  It was clearly not.
Peter--The 10 second rule (and it actually is the time to reasonably walk to the hole plus 10 seconds) applies to everything,  not just balls overhanging the hole.  And, yes, once the ball has been marked and then replaced, it  is clear that if it moves for any reason other than a stroke with the intent to hit it, the ball is replaced where it was marked with no penalty.  The ball was never marked in this case.
Kalen--Both parties were near the hole and could clearly see that the ball was not overhanging the hole--they agreed to that.  And since the waiting time is a reasonable walk to the hole plus 10 seconds, and it was blown in while the Player was walking to the hole, it was well within this allowed period when it went in the hole.

Thanks for the clarification Jim,

My answer is: if the player never verbally accepted the concession, then it was a 3.

[Peter Flory]

Peter--The 10 second rule (and it actually is the time to reasonably walk to the hole plus 10 seconds) applies to everything,  not just balls overhanging the hole. 

Where does it say that? 

[Matt_Cohn]

Erik--The issue from the Tee might be that you couldn't tell if the ball was clearly overhanging the hole.  In the case I gave you, no one claimed that the ball was or might be overhanging.  It was clearly not.
Peter--The 10 second rule (and it actually is the time to reasonably walk to the hole plus 10 seconds) applies to everything,  not just balls overhanging the hole.  And, yes, once the ball has been marked and then replaced, it  is clear that if it moves for any reason other than a stroke with the intent to hit it, the ball is replaced where it was marked with no penalty.  The ball was never marked in this case.
Kalen--Both parties were near the hole and could clearly see that the ball was not overhanging the hole--they agreed to that.  And since the waiting time is a reasonable walk to the hole plus 10 seconds, and it was blown in while the Player was walking to the hole, it was well within this allowed period when it went in the hole.

Thanks for the clarification Jim,

My answer is: if the player never verbally accepted the concession, then it was a 3.

There is no such thing as “accepting a concession,” and indeed it also cannot be declined. Once a shot is conceded, The ball is considered holed.

[Jim Hoak]

Ok, here's the answer as to how it was ruled at the time on the course and later confirmed by two USGA rules guys.  I'm not guaranteeing it is right--but this what they all said--
Once a shot is validly conceded, that's it.  It is done.  So the score was 4.  And for the reasons that Matt Cohn says.  A concession does not have to be accepted to be valid.  And nothing that happens after that concession matters as to the score of that ball.
Here's how it relates to the Solheim issue--a putt overhanging the hole cannot be "validly" (as I qualified it above) conceded before the walking to the hole and 10 seconds is up (the time allotted to see if the ball falls).  That's why the ruling was correct there and why it mattered if the ball was overhanging the hole or not.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Erik--The issue from the Tee might be that you couldn't tell if the ball was clearly overhanging the hole.

No, sorry, I was saying that it clearly wasn't overhanging in my example, too. Maybe it lipped out and was sitting only a few inches away, but clearly not overhanging the hole at all. I was giving a similar example (as the ten-second rule only applies to balls overhanging the hole) of when a longer time limit might apply… or not… depending on the way the person thought the rule would go. 

So yeah, once a ball is at rest (not overhanging the hole and at rest, as that's the special case), that stroke is over. The concession ends the hole for that player, and the ball is no longer in play.

[Peter Flory]

One other post concession situation that has occurred is something like this:

- Player A putts past the hole
- Player B concedes that next putt
- Player B then putts his own ball and it hits the conceded ball that is still lying there

If player A wasn't attempting to pick it up and didn't verbally express a desire to do so, then there is no penalty for player B and he plays his ball where it ends up (legal backstop situation).  i.e. he didn't hit another ball that was in play on the putting green.  It was just like a loose impediment. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

loose impediment.

movable obstruction

[Marty Bonnar]

Please, please, please stop this kind of discussion on a golf course architecture website. There’s plenty of other places where it’ll be great.
F.

[Matt_Cohn]

I’ve gotten enough weird rules questions and hypotheticals wrong over the years. It’s pretty satisfying to actually get one right!

[A.G._Crockett]

One other post concession situation that has occurred is something like this:

- Player A putts past the hole
- Player B concedes that next putt
- Player B then putts his own ball and it hits the conceded ball that is still lying there

If player A wasn't attempting to pick it up and didn't verbally express a desire to do so, then there is no penalty for player B and he plays his ball where it ends up (legal backstop situation).  i.e. he didn't hit another ball that was in play on the putting green.  It was just like a loose impediment.

There is never a penalty for hitting another ball on the green with a putt in match play, conceded or not.  It is, to me, the least explicable difference in the stroke play vs match play rules.

[Ken Moum]

There is never a penalty for hitting another ball on the green with a putt in match play, conceded or not.  It is, to me, the least explicable difference in the stroke play vs match play rules.

Gotta be a leftover from the stymie.


When I started playing tournament golf it was exclusively match play and you couldn't lift your ball unless your opponent requested it.


The common practice of it was near the hole in an advantageous position was say, "Mark that and leave it."


The rule was changed a few years later, and tbh it still kind of pisses me off.


Match play is the only time golfers play directly against another golfer and their  ball. Having different rules is appropriate and cool IMHO.


But then I'd bring back the stymie if I could.


As someone wrote more than 100 years ago, "The card-and-pencil boys are ruining the game."


IIRC the same source added,  "You can't even get around in an hour and a half anymore."

[Kalen Braley]

I was actually looking at this from the viewpoint of Rule 9, specifically 9-3.

If natural forces (such as wind or water) cause a player’s ball at rest to move:
 - There is no penalty, and
 - the ball must be played from its new spot.

However, the one exception to this is if the ball is already on the green, then it must be replaced as best as possible.

But it does bring up a corner case to the assertion that "concessions are always binding" and I can think of at least one scenario that is plausible even if not very likely.

Say i'm playing in a match and I hit my 2nd shot approach that just barely hangs up in the fringe on the high side of the green.  If my opponent were to concede before i played my next shot and a gust of wind comes up and gets it rolling and it ended up going in the cup, by rule it would be deemed to be a continuation of my previous shot and holed as a 2.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Say i'm playing in a match and I hit my 2nd shot approach that just barely hangs up in the fringe on the high side of the green.  If my opponent were to concede before i played my next shot and a gust of wind comes up and gets it rolling and it ended up going in the cup, by rule it would be deemed to be a continuation of my previous shot and holed as a 2.

No, I believe it would be a three. If the ball comes to rest, the concession is valid and changes the status of the ball: it's no longer a ball in play, and your hole is "done." The three is conceded and that's your score.