Solheim Rules Kerfuffle

[Niall C]

David


The only thing required surely is that the players get a refresher class of the relevant rules for matchplay before each major matchplay event. It might not have prevented this scenario as the Euro player might still have made the same judgement call. Sometimes the difficulty is that you don't see the point from the other persons perspective.


Niall

[Sean_A]

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

Maybe it's naive, but I would prefer not to have ref's assigned to groups. I would rather players approach refs if they desire. However, even if a ref is not assigned to a group, aren't they obliged to intervene if they see something fishy?

Ciao

[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

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

Sean


My point is that the Euro player picked up the ball, having conceded the putt, in the normal course of play. When she did so she it appears she wasn't thinking what she was doing was dubious and needed verified before proceeding. If she had more knowledge of the rule she might have been more circumspect but maybe not because it appears she didn't think the ball was overhanging the hole.


In saying that I note Ken suggests the Euro player never said it wasn't hanging over the hole but instead said it is never going to drop. That's not quite my recollection but I wouldn't die in a ditch over it. Either way it is clear the Euro's weren't happy with the decision but accepted it as they should.


Niall

[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

Sean


My point is that the Euro player picked up the ball, having conceded the putt, in the normal course of play. When she did so she it appears she wasn't thinking what she was doing was dubious and needed verified before proceeding. If she had more knowledge of the rule she might have been more circumspect but maybe not because it appears she didn't think the ball was overhanging the hole.


In saying that I note Ken suggests the Euro player never said it wasn't hanging over the hole but instead said it is never going to drop. That's not quite my recollection but I wouldn't die in a ditch over it. Either way it is clear the Euro's weren't happy with the decision but accepted it as they should.


Niall

I never worry much about TV interviews or catching conversations on TV. A player could have said much more in other conversations.

I agree, it doesn't appear Sagstrom thought she did anything wrong. I never knew about the overhanging rule. But I did know that if a ball is close reasonable time must be allowed to be absolutely sure the ball is at rest. I didn't know reasonable was measured by the player reaching the ball plus 10 seconds. As I don't wear a watch or carry a phone it would be difficult for me to enforce the rule. 😎

Ciao

[Kalen Braley]

Sean even a slow count to 10 in your head when you reach the ball would still be "reasonable".  In this circumstance if Norda had took 10 seconds to get to the ball and another 10 to wait for it to drop...at that point it probably wasn't going to drop.

P.S.  After re-watching the video again, the ball was picked up closer to 5 seconds after it stopped rolling.

[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.

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.

In golf yes. The official couldn't tell if it was hanging over the lip or not. Sagstrom said it wasn't. No one else could tell if it was or wasn't. Basically called her a liar and reversed what she saw. Its supposed it be a game of honor.

[Thomas Dai]

After re-watching the video again, the ball was picked up closer to 5 seconds after it stopped rolling.

Would seem like a reason to reduce the 10 sec wait regulation to a 5 sec wait?
Atb

[Sean_A]

After re-watching the video again, the ball was picked up closer to 5 seconds after it stopped rolling.

Would seem like a reason to reduce the 10 sec wait regulation to a 5 sec wait?
Atb

Its interesting that on the Cavendish putting green Doc hit a putt and we both went over to have a look. I said the ball is overhanging the hole.  Doc said yes, the middle part is.  Then he said the ball started moving again...and it dropped...quite unexpectantly. Shit happens folks.


Ciao

[JohnVDB]

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

Nick Metcalfe’s comment is incorrect.  The Americans weren’t awarded the hole.  Korda’s putt was considered holed.  That meant her score was the lowest and they won the hole.  His comment makes it sound like it was a loss of hole penalty.


I believe the LPGA, like most of the organizations are using the Hawkeye system which allows the TV observer to rewind and watch all the camera angles.  Given that, would probably be able to check it from multiple angles and make a better determination.

[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.

In golf yes. The official couldn't tell if it was hanging over the lip or not. Sagstrom said it wasn't. No one else could tell if it was or wasn't. Basically called her a liar and reversed what she saw. Its supposed it be a game of honor.

It is completely inaccurate to say the the official "called her a liar" in reference to Sagstrom.  Sagstrom said LATER that she disagreed with the judgement that the ball was overhanging AFTER she had first said that the ball had no chance to go in.  If you know that the official ASKED Sagstrom if the ball was overhanging, then you know something that I don't.  My understanding was that Sagstrom was notified, rather than questioned; perhaps you know otherwise, and I'll be happy to read that if you do.


Yes, golf is a game of honor.  In which players benefit AND are penalized by the Rules of Golf, often with penalties called on themselves, of course.  It isn't "dishonorable" to hit a ball into a hazard and be penalized, and it isn't dishonorable to inadvertently violate any other rule and subsequently be penalized.  I have yet to hear a single person involved with the situation say anything to the effect that Sagstrom tried to cheat; far from it, in fact.

I think Sagstrom's honor emerges from this intact, since nobody has questioned it.  I think the referee's honor emerges intact, because the easy road for her was to not intervene at all and avoid the controversy.  I think Korda, though a bystander, will be unaffected by this in the long run, and I don't think anybody who is paying attention sees her as anything but a bystander who happened to hit the putt.

But the referee calling Sagstrom a liar?  Hardly.

[Rob Marshall]

An emotional Sagstrom said: "Obviously I wasn't following the rules about leaving the ball for 10 seconds, but I do believe in integrity and honour of the game of golf, and I would never pick up a putt that had a chance to go in.
"I personally don't agree with the decision with the ball being on the edge, but I didn't follow the 10-second rule, so it sucks right now because I feel like I let my team down.”
Maybe I’m misinterpreting what she means in the second paragraph. Sounded to me like she was disagreeing that it was on the edge.

[Peter Flory]

TRANSCRIPT-  it's actually pretty interesting in hindsight

Missy Jones: "You guys... you picked up her ball before 10 seconds, so she was holed with that previous putt.  So she gets a 3."

Sagstrom: "Even if it's not... but it was never going to go in though." 

Missy Jones: "It doesn't matter, you didn't wait the 10 seconds.  It's a rule, I'm sorry."

Madsen:  "But if it was not going to go in?"

Missy Jones: "You have a reasonable time to get there and then it can sit for 10 seconds... to see if it falls." 

Sagstrom: "But it was never going to go in.  It was past the hole." 

Contriona Matthews to Missy Jones: "But you could technically do that about every hole..."  (implying that there couldn't possibly be a 10 second standard that was applicable to all putts)

Sagstrom:  "It was past the hole."

Missy Jones to Sagstrom: "Was it overhanging the hole?"

Sagstrom: "No.  Can we look at TV?" 

Missy Jones to someone in the distance:  "Was it?"  (then starts whispering in her mic)

Caddy: "It wasn't even hanging over the hole."

Sagstrom: "It was not hanging over the hole." 

[Announcer and Kendra Graham (USGA) talk about the situation for a bit.]

Announcer: "As you look at that, you think it was overhanging the lip?"

Kendra Graham (USGA): "It's really hard for me to tell, and that's what I was looking at right from the start... is you know with this camera angle and it's not really clear when we zoom in on it.  But the players with their human eyes are saying 'no, it's not overhanging.'  You know, if I had to make the call, I'd probably say it is, just slightly.  But it's hard for me to say at this angle from this distance.  So it sounds like the referee has asked for some assistance with TV, and that's what the players want.  They didn't think it was ever going to go in as they said... meaning they did not think it was overhanging." 

Judy Rankin:  "Well... I don't think we can clearly determine if it was overhanging.  It might have been.  It might not have been.  Uh, I think in this case, everything considered, we should probably take the word of the European players that it was not overhanging and that it would never go in the hole, and, let it go." 

Kendra Graham:  ".... because the key here is the waiting time is for the players to determine if the ball is at rest- not whether the ball is going to fall into the hole.  Uh, because they need to not play a stroke at it... uh, if it's still moving."

Rankin: "Yeah, but that's as Cantriona Matthews said, Kendra, 'well then you could say that about every single putt'."

Kendra Graham: "That's why, Judy, the key is, 'is it overhanging?'"

Rankin: "Yes, and I don't think we have a way to determine that and so I would not give her the 3.  Uh, I would think, big lesson learned."

Kay: "Well I was just talking to Missy and her TV person that is the official rules person with the tournament, said that it appears to be overhanging and that's what he told Missy and that helped her then make the ruling that she did.  And he sent a photo via iphone/ telephone that showed the image that they were basing the judgment on."

[Tim Leahy]

Golf could eliminate problems like this with a simple rule change. In match play it results in a loss of hole if you touch an opponent's ball without them asking you to pick it up.
And by the way Sagstrom knew exactly what she was doing and has done it before but got caught this time.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

And by the way Sagstrom knew exactly what she was doing and has done it before but got caught this time.

Care to elaborate?

As others have said, "it was never going to go in" and "it was overhanging the hole" are two different things. One is a hypothesis, the other is a fact, and the fact wins out here: if a ball is over-hanging, we don't get to test the hypothesis if you pick it up prematurely. Hence the Rule.

[A.G._Crockett]

An emotional Sagstrom said: "Obviously I wasn't following the rules about leaving the ball for 10 seconds, but I do believe in integrity and honour of the game of golf, and I would never pick up a putt that had a chance to go in.
"I personally don't agree with the decision with the ball being on the edge, but I didn't follow the 10-second rule, so it sucks right now because I feel like I let my team down.”
Maybe I’m misinterpreting what she means in the second paragraph. Sounded to me like she was disagreeing that it was on the edge.

Rob, I’ve read this; everyone has. It’s what Sagstrom said after the match to the press.  You are claiming that the official called Sagstrom a liar; she didn’t, and Sagstrom’s own comments hours later have no bearing on that.




And since when is disagreeing with an official’s ruling about honor or truthfulness?  It happens every day in every sport; it is just part of the games.  Sagstrom knew before the first ball was struck that there was going to be a Rules official there, and that the referee, not the players, would have the last say on ALL matters involving the Rules.




No matter how you parse words, Sagstrom screwed up, and the match referee did what she had to do. I can’t see why that is so mysterious.

[Kalen Braley]

Agreed AG,

The way that last comment reads as well as the above transcript, all I'm basically seeing is a whole lot of arrogance and basically "how dare you question me".  Experience tells me when that is someone's comeback, it makes me even more suspicious...

P.S.  It also seems like she still doesn't understand the 10 second rule, its not about her waiting for 10, its about waiting for 10 seconds after her opponent arrives at the ball.

[Rob Marshall]

An emotional Sagstrom said: "Obviously I wasn't following the rules about leaving the ball for 10 seconds, but I do believe in integrity and honour of the game of golf, and I would never pick up a putt that had a chance to go in.
"I personally don't agree with the decision with the ball being on the edge, but I didn't follow the 10-second rule, so it sucks right now because I feel like I let my team down.”
Maybe I’m misinterpreting what she means in the second paragraph. Sounded to me like she was disagreeing that it was on the edge.

Rob, I’ve read this; everyone has. It’s what Sagstrom said after the match to the press.  You are claiming that the official called Sagstrom a liar; she didn’t, and Sagstrom’s own comments hours later have no bearing on that.




And since when is disagreeing with an official’s ruling about honor or truthfulness?  It happens every day in every sport; it is just part of the games.  Sagstrom knew before the first ball was struck that there was going to be a Rules official there, and that the referee, not the players, would have the last say on ALL matters involving the Rules.




No matter how you parse words, Sagstrom screwed up, and the match referee did what she had to do. I can’t see why that is so mysterious.

AG, in the transcript provided a few posts above Sangstrom says it wasn’t over the edge. The official over ruled her. That means the official didn’t believe her…….. she didn’t screw up if it wasn’t hanging over the hole. If it was over the hole she screwed up and lied. I don’t think we’ll ever know the truth.


Sagstrom: "It was not hanging over the hole." 

[A.G._Crockett]

An emotional Sagstrom said: "Obviously I wasn't following the rules about leaving the ball for 10 seconds, but I do believe in integrity and honour of the game of golf, and I would never pick up a putt that had a chance to go in.
"I personally don't agree with the decision with the ball being on the edge, but I didn't follow the 10-second rule, so it sucks right now because I feel like I let my team down.”
Maybe I’m misinterpreting what she means in the second paragraph. Sounded to me like she was disagreeing that it was on the edge.

Rob, I’ve read this; everyone has. It’s what Sagstrom said after the match to the press.  You are claiming that the official called Sagstrom a liar; she didn’t, and Sagstrom’s own comments hours later have no bearing on that.




And since when is disagreeing with an official’s ruling about honor or truthfulness?  It happens every day in every sport; it is just part of the games.  Sagstrom knew before the first ball was struck that there was going to be a Rules official there, and that the referee, not the players, would have the last say on ALL matters involving the Rules.




No matter how you parse words, Sagstrom screwed up, and the match referee did what she had to do. I can’t see why that is so mysterious.

AG, in the transcript provided a few posts above Sangstrom says it wasn’t over the edge. The official over ruled her. That means the official didn’t believe her…….. she didn’t screw up if it wasn’t hanging over the hole. If it was over the hole she screwed up and lied. I don’t think we’ll ever know the truth.


Sagstrom: "It was not hanging over the hole." 

Rob,


You’re wrong.

[Kalen Braley]

Rob,

Once again there is a difference between:

"It wasn't over-hanging the hole"

AND...

"We don't know if it was over-hanging the hole or not because you picked it up so quickly and are the only one who saw it up close, so we're going to err on the side of your opponent"

Huge.  Massive.  Difference.

[Rob Marshall]

Then I guess I wonder what the difference was a couple of years ago on the PGA tour when one of the foreign players took a drop way closer to green than his player partner said the drop should be. The pga tour official over road the guy who was required to sign the card and allowed the drop. The player partner  flat out called him a cheater.

[Kalen Braley]

Then I guess I wonder what the difference was a couple of years ago on the PGA tour when one of the foreign players took a drop way closer to green than his player partner said the drop should be. The pga tour official over road the guy who was required to sign the card and allowed the drop. The player partner  flat out called him a cheater.

Seems like a different scenario Rob.

Mainly there was a dispute to where the ball entered the hazard and the drop should be.  In that case, seems like everyone was working on an unknown (assuming they had no access to video replay) and the referee came over and made a judgement call after hearing arguments.

Which is completely different to this one where they COULD HAVE assessed if the ball was over-hanging the cup BEFORE the opponent quickly picked it up and altered/changed that scenario permanently.

[Rob Marshall]

Then I guess I wonder what the difference was a couple of years ago on the PGA tour when one of the foreign players took a drop way closer to green than his player partner said the drop should be. The pga tour official over road the guy who was required to sign the card and allowed the drop. The player partner  flat out called him a cheater.

Seems like a different scenario Rob.

Mainly there was a dispute to where the ball entered the hazard and the drop should be.  In that case, seems like everyone was working on an unknown (assuming they had no access to video replay) and the referee came over and made a judgement call after hearing arguments.

Which is completely different to this one where they COULD HAVE assessed if the ball was over-hanging the cup BEFORE the opponent quickly picked it up and altered/changed that scenario permanently.

Ok, I surrender!