Solheim Rules Kerfuffle

[David_Tepper]

AG Crockett -

Great post. You summed up the situation correctly and completely.

DT

[Ken Moum]

So far as I can tell, nobody except for possibly Sagstrom knows if the ball was overhanging because Sagstrom took a unilateral decision to pick up the ball.

I don't see how anyone can look at this and not see that at least part of the ball was overhanging the hole.

[Peter Flory]

So far as I can tell, nobody except for possibly Sagstrom knows if the ball was overhanging because Sagstrom took a unilateral decision to pick up the ball.

That is why I would take her word for it unless there was conclusive video evidence to the contrary. There is no rule that says that you can't pick up your opponent's ball when it is really close to being overhanging.

The referee had a worse view than Sagstrom and worse than the video and made the ruling from her personal vantage point.  Deep into the conversation after explaining the rule twice (very curiously without mentioning the overhanging clause and confusing the hell out of everyone), she seemed perplexed by the pushback from the Europeans and then asked the players if the ball was overhanging the hole.  After they adamantly said that it was past the hole and not overhanging, she turned to someone in the distance and asked "was it?"  Meanwhile, Sagstrom was the one inquiring about whether they could review the footage- a very bold move if she didn't think she was right.  The announcers spent a while discussing it while looking at the zoomed in freeze frame and couldn't determine if it was or wasn't.

My personal theory is that the referee assumed that the ball was overhanging and that the European players just didn't know the rule.  When she made the call, she thought it was going to be simply informing them of the rule and it would be an open and shut case.  She didn't contemplate that the beginning premise might be flawed- which would make the rule a moot point.  By the time she realized that the exact position of the ball was the central issue, she was backed into a corner and had to either stick to her guns or look very foolish.  If she backed out of the call at that point, she'd basically be admitting that she didn't have a clear enough view of it and that she made the call in an inappropriate manner.  She's the referee- if she had a clear enough view to make the call in the first place, then there was no need to go to the video after all.  She would have just said in nicer words than this, "nice try ladies, but I saw it overhanging with my own eyes." 

[Sean_A]

So far as I can tell, nobody except for possibly Sagstrom knows if the ball was overhanging because Sagstrom took a unilateral decision to pick up the ball.

I don't see how anyone can look at this and not see that at least part of the ball was overhanging the hole.

I think it's likely the ball was overhanging, but I wouldn't testify in court it was. I don't fully trust grainy images.

Ciao

[Peter Flory]

I don't see how anyone can look at this and not see that at least part of the ball was overhanging the hole.

It's just because it is really hard to tell with a sphere near a cylinder from an angle.  The ideal vantage point is straight down from above it.  It's like a breaking the plane of the goal line call in football.  Unless you're looking straight down the line, it can be deceiving. 

Here is an example of one where there is also some ambiguity.  It looks like it probably is overhanging, but I wouldn't overrule someone who had a top down view and claimed that it wasn't. 

[Sean_A]

So far as I can tell, nobody except for possibly Sagstrom knows if the ball was overhanging because Sagstrom took a unilateral decision to pick up the ball.

That is why I would take her word for it unless there was conclusive video evidence to the contrary. There is no rule that says that you can't pick up your opponent's ball when it is really close to being overhanging.

The referee had a worse view than Sagstrom and worse than the video and made the ruling from her personal vantage point.  Deep into the conversation after explaining the rule twice (very curiously without mentioning the overhanging clause and confusing the hell out of everyone), she seemed perplexed by the pushback from the Europeans and then asked the players if the ball was overhanging the hole.  After they adamantly said that it was past the hole and not overhanging, she turned to someone in the distance and asked "was it?"  Meanwhile, Sagstrom was the one inquiring about whether they could review the footage- a very bold move if she didn't think she was right.  The announcers spent a while discussing it while looking at the zoomed in freeze frame and couldn't determine if it was or wasn't.

My personal theory is that the referee assumed that the ball was overhanging and that the European players just didn't know the rule.  When she made the call, she thought it was going to be simply informing them of the rule and it would be an open and shut case.  She didn't contemplate that the beginning premise might be flawed- which would make the rule a moot point.  By the time she realized that the exact position of the ball was the central issue, she was backed into a corner and had to either stick to her guns or look very foolish.  If she backed out of the call at that point, she'd basically be admitting that she didn't have a clear enough view of it and that she made the call in an inappropriate manner.  She's the referee- if she had a clear enough view to make the call in the first place, then there was no need to go to the video after all.  She would have just said in nicer words than this, "nice try ladies, but I saw it overhanging with my own eyes."

I don't believe Sagstrom took a measured view of the situation. So no, I don't trust her opinion more than the grainy image. Being the closest player to the situation doesn't mean she actually confirmed the ball wasn't overhanging. Again, Sagstrom is not the arbiter in this situation. The other player has a right to assess the situation of how her own ball lies.

My bottom line is that I think the ref did exactly what she had a duty to do. I can't ask anymore from a rules official than that . It was an unfortunate situation, but that's life.

Ciao

[Niall C]

Coming rather late to the party. Some random thoughts;


The rule seems pretty straight forward as is the requirement for the referee to act on any transgression that they see. In making the decision that the rule has been broken the ref has, in my view, two judgement calls to make. Firstly whether the player picked the ball up before 10 seconds which seems to me to be fairly self evident, and secondly whether the ball was overhanging the hole.


On this second point undoubtedly the person who had the best view of that was the player who picked up the ball. She was adamant that the ball wasn't overhanging the hole although as it appears she didn't know the rule then you could question how closely she was paying attention on that particular point. I don't doubt her sincerity and it appears to me that her reaction and indeed the US players reaction suggested they both thought the ball had missed and wasn't dropping, which isn't the same thing as saying the ball wasn't overhanging the hole.


The unfortunate thing for me in this incident is that during the discussion with the players, the "offending" player having stated that clearly in her opinion the ball wasn't overhanging the hole, that the officials didn't accept that but instead looked at TV footage which at best appears to be suggestive rather than conclusive. At its best golf is about sportsmanship and integrity and in going with the TV footage over the players opinion then it seems to me that the rules officials, perhaps unwittingly, brought the players integrity into question. That said, I'm not going to berate the rules officials who had a difficult job to do, which they did well and which they try to do to the best of their ability.


Final random thought; we often talk about bifurcation on this site in relation to professionals and equipment. It seems to me that we have a bifurcation taking place in terms of how the rules are applied. In matches below elite level it is for the players to make judgment calls and to apply the rules. It appears that no longer is the case at elite level.


Niall

[David_Tepper]

"Final random thought; we often talk about bifurcation on this site in relation to professionals and equipment. It seems to me that we have a bifurcation taking place in terms of how the rules are applied. In matches below elite level it is for the players to make judgment calls and to apply the rules. It appears that no longer is the case at elite level."

Niall -

Taking your comments a little further, my guess is once elite golfers turn professional they play very, very little matchplay golf (and even less foursomes and 4-ball golf). Given most professional golfers are not particularly up to speed on the rules for even strokeplay golf, it is not surprising they are even further behind the curve for the rules of matchplay.

I am sure Sagstrom regrets her mistake.

DT 

[Niall C]

David


Evidently Sagstrom doesn't think the ball was overhanging the hole so presumably doesn't think she made a mistake but no doubt she will be regretting the officials decision.


Niall

[David_Tepper]

Niall -

Well that is where the nature of matchplay gets interesting. Shouldn't the player who hit the putt at least have a chance to examine where their ball has stopped on the green relative to the hole before an opponent makes the decision for them?

DT

[JESII]

Am I the only one that’s ever scooped up an opponents ball in a similar situation to keep it out of the hole before it changes it’s mind?


Never in a tournament (although I didn’t know the rule), but for $5 I’ve probably done this 4 or 5 times.

[Rob Marshall]

So far as I can tell, nobody except for possibly Sagstrom knows if the ball was overhanging because Sagstrom took a unilateral decision to pick up the ball.

I don't see how anyone can look at this and not see that at least part of the ball was overhanging the hole.

Angles can make it look closer that it is. May not be the case here.

[JESII]

If we consider the face of a clock from this angle, I’d suggest the ball is at 8:00, not 9:00. This perspective pulls it away from the lip a little.

[John Kavanaugh]

Am I the only one that’s ever scooped up an opponents ball in a similar situation to keep it out of the hole before it changes it’s mind?


Never in a tournament (although I didn’t know the rule), but for $5 I’ve probably done this 4 or 5 times.

If never done that specifically but it's not uncommon to give up telling an opponent to stop taking illegal drops. Some guys can wear you down to the point that protecting the field just isn't worth the effort. As a matter of fact the rule of me being required to protect the field is why I only play match play where the field is moot.

[JESII]

You do it once, and correctly, and it doesn’t happen again…

[Sean_A]

So far as I can tell, nobody except for possibly Sagstrom knows if the ball was overhanging because Sagstrom took a unilateral decision to pick up the ball.

I don't see how anyone can look at this and not see that at least part of the ball was overhanging the hole.

Angles can make it look closer that it is. May not be the case here.

The LPGA Tour said in a statement: “The chief referee, match referee, observer and TV observer all deemed that Nelly Korda’s third shot on No. 13 was overhanging the hole and was picked up by her opponent before the waiting time had ended. Therefore, her third stroke was treated as holed.”

Folks forget that the ref has an earpiece and is being fed info from other observers. I strongly suspect that before the ref even got involved, that someone was talking in her ear about an issue.  As a hockey fan, I am used to this odd rulings help from off location (Toronto). Its frustrating not to be able to see all the footage that a decision is based upon.  Honestly, Sagstrom is not in a great position to see if the ball is overhanging. She would need to go either to her left or right to get a proper look.

https://twitter.com/Nick_Metcalfe/status/1434253203139354628

Ciao

[David_Tepper]

Repeating the question I raised earlier.....should the opponent have the sole discretion to determine whether or not a player's putt is over hanging the hole? In this case should Sagstrom at least have offered Korda a chance to see where her putt ended up?

In matchplay does an opponent have the power or right to make a ruling on an opponent's ball? I don't think so.     

[JESII]

If someone could photo shop a vertical line from her eyes down I suspect it would hit the ball...which is a pretty good perspective.




Seeing David's question now...I think that's the crux of the ruling. Sagstrom took away that right and so comes out on the losing end of a judgement call.

[Kalen Braley]

I find it interesting 5 pages in that the issue at hand still seems to be misunderstood.

The issue is not whether the ball was actually over-hanging the lip or not, its that when it was still clearly in question (based on video footage and several vantage points), Sagstrom decided to became sole judge, jury, and executor in determining such and picked it up...and she clearly had a conflict of interest.

The burden of proof was never on Korda to have a reaction of some sort or another, and adding insult to injury, was denied her due process to walk to the ball...and be able to wait an additional 10 seconds for it to drop.

That makes the official decision both correct and a no-brainer..

[John Kavanaugh]

Kalen,


A couple of years ago you made an improper ruling with one of your playing partners. Refresh my memory.

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,

A couple of years ago you made an improper ruling with one of your playing partners. Refresh my memory.

I probably did John, but can't recall what you're referring to.  Please refresh my memory. 

[JESII]

I do t think anyone actually thinks the ruling was bad, or Sagstrom’s intent…


She simply removed the opportunity for any interpretation so the benefit of the doubt goes to Korda.

[John Kavanaugh]

Kalen,

A couple of years ago you made an improper ruling with one of your playing partners. Refresh my memory.

I probably did John, but can't recall what you're referring to.  Please refresh my memory. 

Your quote to me:


"John,That's where once again, you would be wrong.  I merely informed him that I thought the stroke he was taking was illegal. I never assessed nor even suggested that he should be penalized...which wouldn't have mattered anyways as we weren't playing a match against each other.However, since then I have contacted him and apologized for giving him incorrect information...When the last time you apologized to someone John?  "



So you contacted a man an apologized for giving an incorrect ruling and do not recall the event? I think your moral compass is overhanging a dark hole itself.

[Peter Flory]

I do t think anyone actually thinks the ruling was bad, or Sagstrom’s intent…

She simply removed the opportunity for any interpretation so the benefit of the doubt goes to Korda.

In the Reed situation (embedded ball), he was the only one who inspected it and moved the ball himself before anyone else could do so.  Even though the video evidence was circumstantially bad for him, his judgment held.  The PGA tour said that he handled it in a textbook manner. 

In the Sagstrom situation, people seem to be implying that the ruling should go against her because she disturbed the scene, even though there is no rule that requires her to preserve it and she did so in good faith. 

[Kalen Braley]

Peter,

I'm not sure its apples to apples given this was not a PGA Tour event.  Lord knows they do the look other way on stuff and given Reeds propensity for dubious actions in the past, it remains suspect despite the PGA Tour standing by their man.  But the basic gist certainly applies, in both cases the scene was altered before it could be properly assessed.

Barney,

That's an interesting quote, are you sure you didn't just type that up?  Perhaps a link to the thread where I allegedly posted that?