Solheim Rules Kerfuffle

[JESII]

Wait a second, Peter, unless you think her concession of a 4 should be valid, you have two choices;


Sagstrom unwittingly broke the rule, thereby essentially conceding the first putt for 3 (which is what happened), or
Sagstrom intentionally "disturbed the scene" (as you refer to it) so as to not allow the ball to fall in.


I don't see another alternative view.


The "rule" seems to require interpretation as to the ball hanging over the hole. The fact that she didn't allow anyone else to consider that was the fault.

[JESII]

In the Reed sandcastle incident I could count the grains of sand flying through the air...

[David_Tepper]

Peter F. -

Three BIG differences:

1) This was matchplay, not stroke play.

2) Sagstrom was making a judgement of Korda's ball. Reed was making a judgement of his ball.

3) There was a rules official following each Solheim Cup match. There was not a rules official following Reed.

DT

[Niall C]

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.

Kalen


Clearly the Euro player didn't realise it needed to be assessed, probably due to ignorance of rule (just like the vast majority of golfers including me) but also because she didn't think it was overhanging the hole and wasn't going to drop. Peter sums it up very well in his last post.


It does appear to me that the TV pictures (that I've seen) are inconclusive on whether the ball was or was not overhanging the hole which makes it a bit disappointing that the players word wasn't taken on face value.


Niall 

[Niall C]

David


Those are indeed 3 points of difference but I'm not sure that they are entirely relevant to the question of taking a players word on their actions in the absence of conclusive proof that they did something wrong.


Niall

[Kalen Braley]

David


Those are indeed 3 points of difference but I'm not sure that they are entirely relevant to the question of taking a players word on their actions in the absence of conclusive proof that they did something wrong.


Niall

NIall,

You pretty much pointed out my biggest beef with this situation.

Instead of defaulting to: where the ball lay was questionable and it needed further inspection before being moved...

Your viewpoint is the player's actions shouldn't be questioned and she made the right call unless conclusive proof can be provided otherwise?  This is completely backwards...

[David_Tepper]

Niall -

Even if Sagstrom was 100% sure the ball was not overhanging the cup (which it sounds like she was), it was not her call to make at that point in time, especially before Korda had a chance to look at it.

DT

[John Kavanaugh]

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?

https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,50497.100.html


You are reply 110. Now that is an epic cheating thread. note: I'm not proud of being the mouthy little bitch that I know sometimes I can be.

[JMEvensky]

Niall -

Even if Sagstrom was 100% sure the ball was not overhanging the cup (which it sounds like she was), it was not her call to make at that point in time, especially before Korda had a chance to look at it.

DT

This is the whole kerfuffle in a nutshell--Sagstrom (certainly unknowingly) made a call she wasn't allowed to make.

[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?

https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,50497.100.html

You are reply 110. Now that is an epic cheating thread. note: I'm not proud of being the mouthy little bitch that I know sometimes I can be.

You got me John.  Unfortunately that was 10 years ago and I was playing a lot more golf back then so I've completely forgotten the context.  Nice detective work thou...

Barney 1, Kalen 0.

[Peter Flory]

This is the whole kerfuffle in a nutshell--Sagstrom (certainly unknowingly) made a call she wasn't allowed to make.

If the ball were 2 inches further from the cup, would you say that she would have been allowed to make the call?  Where do you draw the line and how would you define it in the rules? 

There is currently no rule relating to tampering with evidence that Sagstrom violated.  There is a spirit of the game catch-all of course for bad faith conduct- but I doubt anyone here believes she acted in bad faith.

Imagine this situation:
You're in a match against an opponent and you hit a blind approach shot to a green.  Say you even hear it hit the pin and you kneel down in some sort of weird celebration for what a great shot you hit.  When you eventually get up to the green, your opponent hands you the ball and says, "great birdie, your ball was 6 inches." 

Would you try to accuse them of disturbing evidence?  How do you know that your ball wasn't actually in the hole other than taking their word for it?  Would you accuse your opponent of breaching an unwritten rule in golf about never touching your ball until you could make your own determination? 

[Niall C]

Once again Peter got there before me. There is nothing in the rules about not being able to concede a putt. And indeed nothing against picking up your opponents ball in doing so, other than in the instance where the ball is hanging over the hole and the ten seconds aren't up. I suspect if the player was aware of the rule, which she didn't appear to be, she might have been a bit more circumspect in her actions. That isn't to say she couldn't have picked the ball up anyway.


As an aside, I assume if that the Euro's had conceded the putt and it subsequently dropped (within 10 secs) that the eagle would have stood rather than the birdie ?


Niall

[John Kavanaugh]

I was recently playing in a member/guest where we were clearly in the lead on the final day. As I was over a putt I look up for my final glance and my opponent was taking a leak facing me. I could see his hillbilly manhood. When I backed off and asked him to move he took offense thinking I was some kind of snob. On each subsequent green he asked me permission for where to stand so I could putt without being disturbed. The cat was out of the bag and I three putted four holes in a row for a loss.


I tell this for the millions of golfers who now will slow down play and increase the drama of rounds all over the world as we regurgitate another example of rules out of control. Everyone needs to eat a stopwatch and get back to having fun.

[JMEvensky]

This is the whole kerfuffle in a nutshell--Sagstrom (certainly unknowingly) made a call she wasn't allowed to make.

If the ball were 2 inches further from the cup, would you say that she would have been allowed to make the call?  Where do you draw the line and how would you define it in the rules? 

There is currently no rule relating to tampering with evidence that Sagstrom violated.  There is a spirit of the game catch-all of course for bad faith conduct- but I doubt anyone here believes she acted in bad faith.

Imagine this situation:
You're in a match against an opponent and you hit a blind approach shot to a green.  Say you even hear it hit the pin and you kneel down in some sort of weird celebration for what a great shot you hit.  When you eventually get up to the green, your opponent hands you the ball and says, "great birdie, your ball was 6 inches." 

Would you try to accuse them of disturbing evidence?  How do you know that your ball wasn't actually in the hole other than taking their word for it?  Would you accuse your opponent of breaching an unwritten rule in golf about never touching your ball until you could make your own determination? 

The ball wasn't 2 inches from the cup--we could play "what if" all day and nothing would change.


The only Golf Club Atlas participant qualified to opine is JVDB--everyone else just has an opinion based solely on their opinion.


He, the RO who made the call, each Solheim Cup side, and most importantly, the players involved have said the right ruling was made. What else do you want?

[JMEvensky]

I was recently playing in a member/guest where we were clearly in the lead on the final day. As I was over a putt I look up for my final glance and my opponent was taking a leak facing me. I could see his hillbilly manhood. When I backed off and asked him to move he took offense thinking I was some kind of snob. On each subsequent green he asked me permission for where to stand so I could putt without being disturbed. The cat was out of the bag and I three putted four holes in a row for a loss.


I tell this for the millions of golfers who now will slow down play and increase the drama of rounds all over the world as we regurgitate another example of rules out of control. Everyone needs to eat a stopwatch and get back to having fun.

Is hillbilly manhood a euphemism for not Jewish?

[John Kavanaugh]

I wasn’t that close. His teeth were uncut.

[John Kavanaugh]

When I asked him why the hell he was pointing that thing at me he said he didn’t want that home behind the green to see him. It was in one of the Virginia’s. I can never remember exactly which one.


I quit the club a month later after realizing that I didn’t measure up.

[Rob Marshall]

This is the whole kerfuffle in a nutshell--Sagstrom (certainly unknowingly) made a call she wasn't allowed to make.

If the ball were 2 inches further from the cup, would you say that she would have been allowed to make the call?  Where do you draw the line and how would you define it in the rules? 

There is currently no rule relating to tampering with evidence that Sagstrom violated.  There is a spirit of the game catch-all of course for bad faith conduct- but I doubt anyone here believes she acted in bad faith.

Imagine this situation:
You're in a match against an opponent and you hit a blind approach shot to a green.  Say you even hear it hit the pin and you kneel down in some sort of weird celebration for what a great shot you hit.  When you eventually get up to the green, your opponent hands you the ball and says, "great birdie, your ball was 6 inches." 

Would you try to accuse them of disturbing evidence?  How do you know that your ball wasn't actually in the hole other than taking their word for it?  Would you accuse your opponent of breaching an unwritten rule in golf about never touching your ball until you could make your own determination? 

The ball wasn't 2 inches from the cup--we could play "what if" all day and nothing would change.


The only Golf Club Atlas participant qualified to opine is JVDB--everyone else just has an opinion based solely on their opinion.


He, the RO who made the call, each Solheim Cup side, and most importantly, the players involved have said the right ruling was made. What else do you want?

No they didn’t. Sagstrom said it wasn’t hanging over the lip and she had the closest look.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Once again Peter got there before me. There is nothing in the rules about not being able to concede a putt.

The problem isn't the concession, which by rule and common sense would only apply to the NEXT stroke (the birdie) since the eagle putt had already been hit.

The problem was that in picking up the ball, Madelene removed the possibility of the ball falling into the hole and Nelly not even needing the conceded stroke.

If you hit a 30 foot putt toward the hole that has a chance to go in, and your opponent knocks it out of the way before it stops rolling, would you be okay with that? I doubt it.

As an aside, I assume if that the Euro's had conceded the putt and it subsequently dropped (within 10 secs) that the eagle would have stood rather than the birdie?

Of course. But by picking it up, she removed the possibility of it falling.

If the ball were 2 inches further from the cup, would you say that she would have been allowed to make the call?  Where do you draw the line and how would you define it in the rules?

Right where the rules define it: overhanging the lip.

There is currently no rule relating to tampering with evidence that Sagstrom violated.

Yes, there is. She picked up a ball that the referee thought was overhanging the lip, and deprived Nelly of the time to walk to the ball to make that judgment for herself.

[A.G._Crockett]

This is the whole kerfuffle in a nutshell--Sagstrom (certainly unknowingly) made a call she wasn't allowed to make.

If the ball were 2 inches further from the cup, would you say that she would have been allowed to make the call?  Where do you draw the line and how would you define it in the rules? 

There is currently no rule relating to tampering with evidence that Sagstrom violated.  There is a spirit of the game catch-all of course for bad faith conduct- but I doubt anyone here believes she acted in bad faith.

Imagine this situation:
You're in a match against an opponent and you hit a blind approach shot to a green.  Say you even hear it hit the pin and you kneel down in some sort of weird celebration for what a great shot you hit.  When you eventually get up to the green, your opponent hands you the ball and says, "great birdie, your ball was 6 inches." 

Would you try to accuse them of disturbing evidence?  How do you know that your ball wasn't actually in the hole other than taking their word for it?  Would you accuse your opponent of breaching an unwritten rule in golf about never touching your ball until you could make your own determination? 

The ball wasn't 2 inches from the cup--we could play "what if" all day and nothing would change.


The only Golf Club Atlas participant qualified to opine is JVDB--everyone else just has an opinion based solely on their opinion.


He, the RO who made the call, each Solheim Cup side, and most importantly, the players involved have said the right ruling was made. What else do you want?

No they didn’t. Sagstrom said it wasn’t hanging over the lip and she had the closest look.

I'm curious; do you advocate the call being made by the closest person, rather the referee, in other sports?  At home plate with the winning run?  In the end zone?  Goaltending?  Yellow cards?  Should the NBA go to "call your own fouls" like pickup games at the Y?


There. Was. A. Rules. Official.  End of story.

[David_Tepper]

"No they didn’t. Sagstrom said it wasn’t hanging over the lip and she had the closest look."

Because of her haste, Sagstrom had the only look. It was not her call to make.

[Sean_A]

David


Those are indeed 3 points of difference but I'm not sure that they are entirely relevant to the question of taking a players word on their actions in the absence of conclusive proof that they did something wrong.

Niall

Niall

You are assuming there is no conclusive proof. Its difficult to gather conclusive proof when an opposing player removes the evidence. Second, the rule doesn't call for conclusive proof. The rule calls for the ref to step in if there is an "issue". To me there is clearly an issue, but maybe not for you. This was certainly a judgement call to some degree, which is what a ref is for.

Ciao

[John Kavanaugh]

At the Ryder Cup will there be referees jumping in making calls?

[Ken Moum]

No they didn’t. Sagstrom said it wasn’t hanging over the lip and she had the closest look.

I don't believe that's the case.  I looked for quotes from her, and what she said when the call was made was, "The ball was never going to drop."


Which is a LOT different from declaring that no part of the ball was overhanging the hole.


Most importantly, the players were all supposedly at a rules meeting earlier in the week where they were specifically reminded about this rule and told not to do what she did.


FWIW, Shack had a pretty decent summation IMHO in his coverage of the Solheim Cup.  https://quadrilateral.substack.com/p/lessons-from-the-solheim-cup (You'll have to scroll down a bit.)


There is also another grainy image of it from the other side, and it certainly looks like the ball is overhanging the hole, at least a little bit--which is the ONLY question.

[Thomas Dai]

Time to look ahead not backwards. What’s happened has happened. So -
A) are there lessons to be learnt …. not only by one or two but by many …. and if so what are they?
B) should any changes or tweaks to the RoG of the protocols of competitive golf including elite events such as this now be introduced?
Atb