Duke commit Erica Shepherd wins (controversial) jr national golf championship

[nmduke2001]

Erica Shepard is the number one ranked junior golfer in the US and a Duke commit. Shepard won the junior national but her semifinal was marred with controversy. Shepherd and Elizabeth Moon were playing for a spot in the U.S. Girls’ Junior finals at the Boone Valley Golf Club in Augusta, Mo. The head-to-head match had gone to extra holes, and on the 19th hole, Shepherd made par and Moon had a birdie putt to advance. Moon missed the putt and left 4 inches for par to extend the match. Typically in match play, short putts are conceded by the opponent. That's where the problem began. Shepard couldn't bear to watch Moon's birdie putt so she closed her eyes. She didn't see how close the par putt was and didn't concede it. Moon picked up, assuming the concession. Shepard opened her eyes seeing moon picking up the ball and told Moon that she had not conceded. Rules dictate a 2 stroke penalty. Shepard wins on the rules violation. Many people were not happy about it.

https://sports.yahoo.com/bizarre-rules-violation-costs-player-tournament-four-inch-putt-012400603.html
http://golfweek.com/2017/07/29/erica-shepherd-overcomes-concession-controversy-to-win-us-girls-junior/

[Indoor66]

You know what they say about "assume".

[cspan37421]

Would it have mattered if she had not said "I didn't say that was good" ?
In other words, would it still be a violation of the rules to pick up the putt without affirmative concession from the waiting player?
From the stories it looked like Erica tried to take back what she pointed out, but I wonder if it still would be a rules violation if she hadn't pointed it out. Moon did act very quickly, it appeared. Not sure Erica should feel guilty or bad, though it sounds like she took a lot of heat. Not sure if that was because she pointed out that she hadn't (yet) granted the concession, or that she wasn't ready to grant it immediately, before Moon drew the ball back.

[sagegrouse]

Would it have mattered if she had not said "I didn't say that was good" ?
In other words, would it still be a violation of the rules to pick up the putt without affirmative concession from the waiting player?
From the stories it looked like Erica tried to take back what she pointed out, but I wonder if it still would be a rules violation if she hadn't pointed it out. Moon did act very quickly, it appeared. Not sure Erica should feel guilty or bad, though it sounds like she took a lot of heat. Not sure if that was because she pointed out that she hadn't (yet) granted the concession, or that she wasn't ready to grant it immediately, before Moon drew the ball back.

It's a four-inch putt. Make it.

[duketaylor]

"Would it have mattered if she had not said "I didn't say that was good" ?"

Yes. In match play if you "assume" your opponent is giving it to you but have heard it's good, you ask. She should've just putted out, then no issue.
I'm not saying I like how it played out, but never assume...

She could've just tapped it in, unless her opponent hadn't finished the hole and was further away. Such is match-play golf.

[unclsam1]

Would it have mattered if she had not said "I didn't say that was good" ?
In other words, would it still be a violation of the rules to pick up the putt without affirmative concession from the waiting player?
From the stories it looked like Erica tried to take back what she pointed out, but I wonder if it still would be a rules violation if she hadn't pointed it out. Moon did act very quickly, it appeared. Not sure Erica should feel guilty or bad, though it sounds like she took a lot of heat. Not sure if that was because she pointed out that she hadn't (yet) granted the concession, or that she wasn't ready to grant it immediately, before Moon drew the ball back.

Per the rules in match play, you cannot pick up a put without a clear (unambiguous) concession from your opponent. Also assume there are other witnesses to lack of concession present e.g. officials, caddies, scorekeepers.

[ipatent]

I'd have to know what the culture is in this level of women's golf for four inch putts to pass judgement, but it was a heck of a way for the match to be decided and cheated the fans of another hole.

[Indoor66]

I'd have to know what the culture is in this level of women's golf for four inch putts to pass judgement, but it was a heck of a way for the match to be decided and cheated the fans of another hole.

No, no one was cheated. The match ended by one participant breaking the rules.

[sagegrouse]

No, no one was cheated. The match ended by one participant breaking the rules.

Not to lay it on too heavy on a 16 or 17 YO, but Elizabeth Moon basically choked. There are two moves after leaving the ball close to the hole (sez I, who just plays in the occasional club event) -- tap it in or look directly at the opponent and hesitate until there is a word or signal.

[Channing]

By the letter of the law, clearly a rules violation. By the spirit of match play she shouldn't have said anything and just moved on, especially after her opponent just gave her a longer putt and she said she was planning to give her the putt anyway.

[WakeDevil]

No, no one was cheated. The match ended by one participant breaking the rules.

No, the match ended by one person being a jerk. I would not want to win that way. I would not take a win that way. Obviously, so obviously, your mileage is different.

[unclsam1]

No, the match ended by one person being a jerk. I would not want to win that way. I would not take a win that way. Obviously, so obviously, your mileage is different.

Golf is based on the honor system that means if you commit an infraction, you are obligated to self report. If you are not aware, another individuals observing can point out the infraction. Calling it out is not limited to your opponent. Others within hearing range would have the obligation to point out the infraction to officials, or maybe the officials would have called it. Looking the other way when infractions are committed would destroy the credibility of the game.

[CameronBlue]

Golf is based on the honor system that means if you commit an infraction, you are obligated to self report. If you are not aware, another individuals observing can point out the infraction. Calling it out is not limited to your opponent. Others within hearing range would have the obligation to point out the infraction to officials, or maybe the officials would have called it. Looking the other way when infractions are committed would destroy the credibility of the game.

Is this an infraction of the written rules or just a misunderstanding of a "gentleman's agreement" that exists outside the rulebook? I'm not familiar with the rules but to call it an 'infraction' seems misapplied.

[nmduke2001]

Honestly, watching the replay made me cringe. It seemed against the spirit of match play. Had that happened during the women's NCAA championship the act would be the topic of every talking head out there.

It's unfortunate that it happened that way, but she did regroup and win the championship round against a young lady that hadn't trailed the entire tournament. So congratulations to her. Hopefully something like this never happens to her again.

[unclsam1]

Is this an infraction of the written rules or just a misunderstanding of a "gentleman's agreement" that exists outside the rulebook? I'm not familiar with the rules but to call it an 'infraction' seems misapplied.

2-4. Concession of Match, Hole or Next Stroke
A player may concede his opponent's next stroke at any time, provided the opponent's ball is at rest. The opponent is considered to have holed out with his next stroke, and the ball may be removed by either side.


2-4/3 (Decisions) Player Lifts Ball in Mistaken Belief That Next Stroke Conceded
Q.In a match between A and B, B made a statement which A interpreted to mean that his (A's) next stroke was conceded. Accordingly, A lifted his ball. B then said that he had not conceded A's next stroke. What is the ruling?
A.If B's statement could reasonably have led A to think his next stroke had been conceded, in equity (Rule 1-4), A should replace his ball as near as possible to where it lay, without penalty.
Otherwise, A would incur a penalty stroke for lifting his ball without marking its position - Rule 20-1 - and he must replace his ball as near as possible to where it lay.

20-1. Lifting and Marking
A ball to be lifted under the Rules may be lifted by the player, his partner or another person authorized by the player. In any such case, the player is responsible for any breach of the Rules.
The position of the ball must be marked before it is lifted under a Rule that requires it to be replaced. If it is not marked, the player incurs a penalty of one stroke and the ball must be replaced.

[Furniture]

My daughter played golf in High school. Her friend did a similar thing and admitted it herself, took the penalty. She cried a lot and moved on.
That's golf!
Erica did nothing wrong. There is nothing to discuss here.
welcome to Duke Erica!!
My eldest lived on campus with a Duke golfer. Ladies golf was my second favorite Duke sport because of that.

[PackMan97]

Before I make a comment on this thread, I need to know if Ms. Moon is a Tarheel recruit? A Tarheel fan? Is anyone in her family associated with the Tarheels or perhaps employeed by the Tarheels?

[Indoor66]

Before I make a comment on this thread, I need to know if Ms. Moon is a Tarheel recruit? A Tarheel fan? Is anyone in her family associated with the Tarheels or perhaps employeed by the Tarheels?

😂😊😋😎

[Troublemaker]

No, the match ended by one person being a jerk. I would not want to win that way. I would not take a win that way. Obviously, so obviously, your mileage is different.

I don't think Shepard wanted to win that way, either. BUT, she HAS to point out the error to her opponent lest Moon makes the same mistake again on ensuing holes. You just can't have your opponent picking up balls that you haven't decided whether or not to concede yet.

If there's any blame here to assign (and there might not be), it'd be to the strict rules of golf for ending the match right there (and, of course, to Moon for picking up the ball). The way I see it, if both players wanted to continue to play to decide the winner on pure golfing skills, they should be allowed to.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Wonder what this board would say if Erica Shepard was a Tar Heel...

[killerleft]

No, the match ended by one person being a jerk. I would not want to win that way. I would not take a win that way. Obviously, so obviously, your mileage is different.

Actually, ignoring the illegal pick-up of the ball and not saying anything is a breach of the rules, isn't it? Shepard could have done it, and indeed tried to talk the referee into changing the ruling and allowing her opponent to play on. Rules is rules.

[OldPhiKap]

Wonder what this board would say if Erica Shepard was a Tar Heel...

Well . . . that would be different.


I didn't see it, so not sure if Erica either complained that she had not conceded the putt or if she just stated the fact. Either way, crappy way to win.

But then again, I win lots of cases on technicalities before the case even gets to the merits. So probably the wrong one to ask.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I'm not much of a golfer so I'm wondering how often there is a formal "go ahead, pick it up" or if it is just assumed? As someone said above, we all know what happens when we assume. At the same time, I would also not want to win this way. At times golf tends to take itself a little too seriously, such as when fans call in a minor violation after a round is over. The Dustin Johnson incident in the US Open was a disaster. I am all for the enforcement of rules, but the spirit of the rules is also important.

Also, I think everyone responding to this thread (and many other threads) should look themselves in the mirror and think about their take on this if Shepard was a UNC recruit and Moon was a Duke recruit.

[Troublemaker]

Wonder what this board would say if Erica Shepard was a Tar Heel...

I would be even tougher on Moon for the brain-fart and on the rules of golf for allowing a Tar Heel to win, but Shepard would still objectively have done nothing wrong.

[Troublemaker]

Well . . . that would be different.


I didn't see it, so not sure if Erica either complained that she had not conceded the putt or if she just stated the fact. Either way, crappy way to win.

But then again, I win lots of cases on technicalities before the case even gets to the merits. So probably the wrong one to ask.

There's a fine line there, but to me, she merely stated the fact to her opponent. One of the links in the thread-starting post has a video.

[Troublemaker]

Incidentally, another error needs to be pointed out.

Erica's last name appears to be Shepherd, not Shepard.

The originating post has the error, and it's been propagated throughout the thread because nobody pointed out the error right away.

Good thing I have now brought attention to the error so future posts will have a chance to spell it correctly as Shepherd.

[nmduke2001]

Incidentally, another error needs to be pointed out.

Erica's last name appears to be Shepherd, not Shepard.

The originating post has the error, and it's been propagated throughout the thread because nobody pointed out the error right away.

Good thing I have now brought attention to the error so future posts will have a chance to spell it correctly as Shepherd.

My bad. Two stroke penalty. Good thing I haven't signed my scorecard.

[plimnko]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zidFfTd5uA

it's not like the players were close enough to communicate whether she was conceding the putt or not. moon should have taken an extra second to confirm. it's not like it was her first round of match play. it sucks, but that's just the way it is.

[Indoor66]

I'm not much of a golfer so I'm wondering how often there is a formal "go ahead, pick it up" or if it is just assumed? As someone said above, we all know what happens when we assume. At the same time, I would also not want to win this way. At times golf tends to take itself a little too seriously, such as when fans call in a minor violation after a round is over. The Dustin Johnson incident in the US Open was a disaster. I am all for the enforcement of rules, but the spirit of the rules is also important.

Also, I think everyone responding to this thread (and many other threads) should look themselves in the mirror and think about their take on this if Shepard was a UNC recruit and Moon was a Duke recruit.

In your weekend games with your buddies you might play "inside the leather" is good; but in a USGA match, you do not assume anything is good - you follow all the rules strictly. If your opponent does not actually say "that's good" or a clear equivalent, you putt it out. In a match, you might concede a three foot putt on one and make them put a three inch putt on eighteen. Such decisions are part of the strategy of Match Play. The young lady lost, fair and square, under any rational view of the rules and the playing of golf.

[sagegrouse]

I'm not much of a golfer so I'm wondering how often there is a formal "go ahead, pick it up" or if it is just assumed? As someone said above, we all know what happens when we assume. At the same time, I would also not want to win this way. At times golf tends to take itself a little too seriously, such as when fans call in a minor violation after a round is over. The Dustin Johnson incident in the US Open was a disaster. I am all for the enforcement of rules, but the spirit of the rules is also important.

Also, I think everyone responding to this thread (and many other threads) should look themselves in the mirror and think about their take on this if Shepard was a UNC recruit and Moon was a Duke recruit.

"Formal" rules in golf??? You have no idea!!!

Lexi Thompson, an LPGA golfer, lost a tournament when she hastily replaced her ball for a putt of less than two feet. Some cretin on TV noticed that it was a bit off -- maybe 1/2 inch -- and reported it. The LPGA reviewed the tapes and assessed a four-stroke penalty, which cost Lexi the tournament win. This is total horse hockey, and the golf gods need to change it.

Assuming a four-inch putt is good? No! You have to hole out in golf. Any concession needs to be clear. As I said in an earlier post, Elizabeth Moon just choked -- she knows the rules and the proper procedures.

[Troublemaker]

Duke's Shane Ryan with a Golf Digest column apologizing for attacking Shepherd on twitter (http://www.golfdigest.com/story/how-i-botched-the-whole-conceded-putt-fiasco-why-we-cant-quit-lavar-ball-and-why-this-ump-needs-to-lighten-up). Apparently he wasn't the only loser to do so.



Beth Ann Nichols‏ @GolfweekNichols (https://twitter.com/GolfweekNichols) Jul 29 (https://twitter.com/GolfweekNichols/status/891365653470433280)
Watching telecast. @NicoleCastrale (https://twitter.com/NicoleCastrale) said lot of tears from Erica Shepherd last night. She and Moon were fine. Shepherd shocked by backlash.

[duketaylor]

Having played in numerous match-play tourneys and thousands of matches, you always wait to hear it or just putt out. I'll even ask, "Do you want to see this?" as in do you want me to putt it. There are a lot of mind-games in match play, or at least there can be. Depends who you're playing.

[Owen Meany]

I don't think anyone is questioning the legality of the ruling - they are questioning the sportsmanship involved. Hopefully Shepherd made her comment in the heat of play with no intention of ending the match with a ruling. Particularly since Shepherd, herself, didn't actually putt out the hole - it was conceded by Moon.

Shepherd is young, was in likely the most meaningful competition she has participated in, and says she tried to retroactively concede the putt. She should get the benefit of the doubt. But it was a very unfortunate ending.

[SoCalDukeFan]

Having played in numerous match-play tourneys and thousands of matches, you always wait to hear it or just putt out. I'll even ask, "Do you want to see this?" as in do you want me to putt it. There are a lot of mind-games in match play, or at least there can be. Depends who you're playing.

Moon hit the ball before Shepherd had much of a chance to concede. Shepherd tried to concede after the fact. Moon should have waited. Its also not like Shepherd walked to the next tee to entice Moon to pick up her ball and then said "gotcha."

I understand that in Europe some coaches teach to concede by picking up the ball and handing it to the player with the short putt, and teach that player to wait until the ball is picked up before assuming a concession. A problem with a gallery is that someone in the gallery could yell "thats good" and then the ball is picked up by mistake.

SoCal

[Jazzy]

I saw this incident reported on The Golf Channel before finding this thread. Didn't know Erica is a Duke commit, but that wouldn't change my opinion, or the rules of golf, or the facts. Many of the rules of golf seem odd to non golfers or even to golfers with limited experience.

Moon was the victim of her own act of frustration. Erica was victimized by the uninformed who commented from their lofty pedestal built with ignorance and arrogance (and by Moon's action).

AND, for those who believe that was a four inch putt, I'd like to buy real estate from you!

[subzero02]

Wonder what this board would say if Erica Shepard was a Tar Heel...

the thread would be twice as long and there would be at least one apple/tree reference.

[unclsam1]

Golf rules don't deserve bashing. Golf is not the only game where a rules brain fart can determine the outcome. To quote Dean Smith after Chris Webber called an extra time out with 11 sec remaining in the NCAA 1993 final and Michigan down by 73-71, "It's all part of the game".

[johnb]

Golf rules don't deserve bashing. Golf is not the only game where a rules brain fart can determine the outcome. To quote Dean Smith after Chris Webber called an extra time out with 11 sec remaining in the NCAA 1993 final and Michigan down by 73-71, "It's all part of the game".

Just to be clear--since this thread gets fuzzy--"Shepherd told rules officials she would have given Moon the putt had there been more time. Even tried to reverse it. But Moon incurred a penalty under Rule 18-2."
http://golfweek.com/2017/07/28/us-girls-junior-semifinal-ends-in-concession-controversy/

This is absolutely not Shepherd's fault. She won the match and the tournament.

[killerleft]

I saw this incident reported on The Golf Channel before finding this thread. Didn't know Erica is a Duke commit, but that wouldn't change my opinion, or the rules of golf, or the facts. Many of the rules of golf seem odd to non golfers or even to golfers with limited experience.

Moon was the victim of her own act of frustration. Erica was victimized by the uninformed who commented from their lofty pedestal built with ignorance and arrogance (and by Moon's action).

AND, for those who believe that was a four inch putt, I'd like to buy real estate from you!

LOL. Yep, that was a 1-footer. I'm sure Erica would have conceded the putt if she'd been given the time.

[elvis14]

Wonder what this board would say if Erica Shepard was a Tar Heel...

Well, she's certainly acting like one. This is the kind of crap that makes people hate golf. And yes, I'm a golfer (a really lousy one).

[gam7]

I don't think anyone is questioning the legality of the ruling - they are questioning the sportsmanship involved. Hopefully Shepherd made her comment in the heat of play with no intention of ending the match with a ruling. Particularly since Shepherd, herself, didn't actually putt out the hole - it was conceded by Moon.

Shepherd is young, was in likely the most meaningful competition she has participated in, and says she tried to retroactively concede the putt. She should get the benefit of the doubt. But it was a very unfortunate ending.

I watched that video of the incident and she did actually try to concede afterwards, but I tend to agree with elvis14 on this one. The only mitigating factor that makes some sense to me is that Shepherd did not appear to be watching the putt and I am not sure Erica even saw where the putt ended up before Moon pulled it back. So, it was probably kind of confusing when she looked up and saw what Moon was doing...

[uh_no]

Well, she's certainly acting like one. This is the kind of crap that makes people hate golf. And yes, I'm a golfer (a really lousy one).

I think the blame is somewhat equally shared among the three parties.

Ms Moon should have not picked up a non-conceded putt.


Ms Shepherd should have been more prompt if she did intend to concede...not that she was technically wrong in anything she did, but the situation could have been avoided had she been paying attention, regardless of her reason for not paying attention....and when your partner is dependent on your decision, it's at least somewhat customary to be prompt. I don't know what Ms Moon saw or thought she saw, but if I saw my partner facing the other direction, I'd have thought they watched the putt and assumed it was a gimme.....4" or 1' regardless. Obviously that was not Erica's intent, but I can at least imagine how someone might have read it that way in the heat of the moment.


The rules people could have done the sensible thing when she said that it was fine with it being conceded.

So the only person that was technically wrong was Moon, and she paid for it. But I think the other parties could have helped avoid the situation as well. This is the kind of thing that nobody comes away from looking good, win or lose and it's a shame that it will follow the two players for some time, i'd imagine.

[jimsumner]

Another perspective.

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/article164400012.html

[Indoor66]

I think the blame is somewhat equally shared among the three parties.

Ms Moon should have not picked up a non-conceded putt.


Ms Shepherd should have been more prompt if she did intend to concede...not that she was technically wrong in anything she did, but the situation could have been avoided had she been paying attention, regardless of her reason for not paying attention...and when your partner is dependent on your decision, it's at least somewhat customary to be prompt. I don't know what Ms Moon saw or thought she saw, but if I saw my partner facing the other direction, I'd have thought they watched the putt and assumed it was a gimme....4" or 1' regardless. Obviously that was not Erica's intent, but I can at least imagine how someone might have read it that way in the heat of the moment.


The rules people could have done the sensible thing when she said that it was fine with it being conceded.

So the only person that was technically wrong was Moon, and she paid for it. But I think the other parties could have helped avoid the situation as well. This is the kind of thing that nobody comes away from looking good, win or lose and it's a shame that it will follow the two players for some time, i'd imagine.

To me this sentiment is rediculous! Moon made a mistake- for whatever reason - anger, frustration, disappointment - whatever. She broke a fundamental, universally known rule: you play until the ball is in the hole. Period.

The rules in match play PERMIT your opponent to concede a putt or a hole, but no opponent is obligated, either by rule OR custom to concede anything. There is no issue of sportsmanship, should have or any other feel good factor here. Moon was obligated to play until the ball was in the hole. BY HER ACTION, she conceded the hole when SHE picked up the ball.

[BD80]

Well, she's certainly acting like one. This is the kind of crap that makes people hate golf. And yes, I'm a golfer (a really lousy one).

You may have played some golf, but it doesn't sound like you are a golfer.


Another perspective.

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/article164400012.html

She's left-handed?? How sinister.

[elvis14]

You may have played some golf, but it doesn't sound like you are a golfer.



She's left-handed?? How sinister.


Yeah, hating on me for not agreeing with the purist is a good example of the type of crap that makes people hate golf and turn away from it. How are those LPGA ratings lately? PGA ratings?

[AtlDuke72]

No, the match ended by one person being a jerk. I would not want to win that way. I would not take a win that way. Obviously, so obviously, your mileage is different.

I completely agree. Just no excuse for this if they had been conceding very short putts all day. Seems like that would be a basis for assuming it was conceded which would result in replacing the ball and putting out if there was a misunderstanding. I seem to recall a player pulling a stunt like that in a Ryder Cup ( maybe against Tom Lehman) and they just replaced the ball and played. it.

[sagegrouse]

I completely agree. Just no excuse for this if they had been conceding very short putts all day. Seems like that would be a basis for assuming it was conceded which would result in replacing the ball and putting out if there was a misunderstanding. I seem to recall a player pulling a stunt like that in a Ryder Cup ( maybe against Tom Lehman) and they just replaced the ball and played. it.

I think that was about a different rule -- "order of play." The Ryder Cup incident was pure gamesmanship by Seve Ballesteros a long time ago. Tom Lehman missed a putt and then putted out the short remaining putt. His opponent Seve objected, because he was "away." Lehman had to replace his ball and then mark it. Seve later said he wanted to use Lehman's ball mark as an aim point for his putt. I didn't believe it then, and I still don't believe it -- Seve was messing with Lehman.

[Indoor66]

I think that was about a different rule -- "order of play." The Ryder Cup incident was pure gamesmanship by Seve Ballesteros a long time ago. Tom Lehman missed a putt and then putted out the short remaining putt. His opponent Seve objected, because he was "away." Lehman had to replace his ball and then mark it. Seve later said he wanted to use Lehman's ball mark as an aim point for his putt. I didn't believe it then, and I still don't believe it -- Seve was messing with Lehman.

Gamesmanship is a part of match play. Getting into your opponent's head. It often works. Look at some of the posting on this board. :cool:

[OldPhiKap]

Gamesmanship is a part of match play. Getting into your opponent's head. It often works. Look at some of the posting on this board. :cool:

I took tennis at Duke for my PE. The teacher taught us one thing -- when playing against someone, casually ask before they serve a big game if they've gained weight recently.

Also, a trick I heard from a high school golf coach -- ask an opponent at some point if they breathe in or hold their breath near the top of their back swing.

Both of those things will mess you up.

[Furniture]

I saw this incident reported on The Golf Channel before finding this thread. Didn't know Erica is a Duke commit, but that wouldn't change my opinion, or the rules of golf, or the facts. Many of the rules of golf seem odd to non golfers or even to golfers with limited experience.

Moon was the victim of her own act of frustration. Erica was victimized by the uninformed who commented from their lofty pedestal built with ignorance and arrogance (and by Moon's action)!
^^^^^^
This. Non golfers please go away!!!

[OZ]

To me this sentiment is rediculous! Moon made a mistake- for whatever reason - anger, frustration, disappointment - whatever. She broke a fundamental, universally known rule: you play until the ball is in the hole. Period.

The rules in match play PERMIT your opponent to concede a putt or a hole, but no opponent is obligated, either by rule OR custom to concede anything. There is no issue of sportsmanship, should have or any other feel good factor here. Moon was obligated to play until the ball was in the hole. BY HER ACTION, she conceded the hole when SHE picked up the ball.

One certainty that will come from this... I'm betting Moon won't make this "mistake" again.

[OldPhiKap]

It reminds me of poker. Always announce your intention clearly to the dealer; always ask if you are unsure of the action. Otherwise, you risk a mistake to your own detriment.

[BD80]

Yeah, hating on me for not agreeing with the purist is a good example of the type of crap that makes people hate golf and turn away from it. How are those LPGA ratings lately? PGA ratings?

So someone who throws dynamite into a lake and then collects the dead fish is a fisherman?


Gamesmanship is a part of match play. Getting into your opponent's head. It often works. Look at some of the posting on this board. :cool:

:cool:

[swood1000]

Those who want to read something truly hilarious (if you like English dry humor) should try The Theory and Practice of Gamesmanship: Or the Art of Winning Games Without Actually Cheating (https://www.amazon.com/Practice-Gamesmanship-Winning-Actually-Cheating/dp/1607960192) by Stephen Potter, who originated the term “gamesmanship.”

[devildeac]

So someone who throws dynamite into a lake and then collects the dead fish is a fisherman?



:cool:

You might be a redneck if...

...your fishing lure has a fuse.

(no offense to our esteemed poster ;))

[sagegrouse]

Those who want to read something truly hilarious (if you like English dry humor) should try The Theory and Practice of Gamesmanship: Or the Art of Winning Games Without Actually Cheating (https://www.amazon.com/Practice-Gamesmanship-Winning-Actually-Cheating/dp/1607960192) by Stephen Potter, who originated the term “gamesmanship.”

Yes, and as I recall, the movie "School for Scoundrels" was funny as hell. It was based on the Potter books.

[rsvman]

Moon clearly made a huge mistake but this is an ugly way to win.


The best example of the kind of thing that OUGHT to happen in match-play golf was Steve Scott versus Tiger Woods in the 1996 U.S. Amateur in the Championship match. The match was very close and on the 16th or 17th hole of the second 18 (can't remember all the details), Tiger had moved his ball marker to allow Scott to putt for a birdie that would've won the match. The putt missed, and Tiger got a good read. However, when Tiger went to play his shot, he just placed the ball down where the marker was, forgetting to move the marker back to the original position.

Steve saw this happen. If he had just allowed Tiger to putt the ball, Steve would've won the hole and the match, and would've been the U.S. Amateur champion. But he didn't do that. He informed Tiger that he forgot to replace his ball mark to its original position. Tiger replaced the ball mark, set his ball down on the correct spot, made the birdie putt and won the hole.

The match ended up going to extra holes and was decided on the 38th hole, with Tiger winning.



I suppose if Steve had been looking somewhere else and not noticed that Tiger did that, Steve would've been declared champion, because Tiger would've incurred the penalty, so maybe the situations aren't exactly analogous, but it's the spirit of the game I'm talking about.

[Indoor66]

And it is possible that the same degree of magnamity might have occurred here BUT FOR Moon acting to bat the ball before her opponent could or did react. Had she paused the putt might well have been conceded. She did not wait for that and broke the rules. The spirit and the letter of the rules prevailed. The only ones having a problem here do not seem to understand or accept the rules and practices of golf.

The Tiger situation was entirely different. There no action was taken before the error was corrected. Thus no rules were broken.

[sagegrouse]

And it is possible that the same degree of magnamity might have occurred here BUT FOR Moon acting to bat the ball before her opponent could or did react. Had she paused the putt might well have been conceded. She did not wait for that and broke the rules. The spirit and the letter of the rules prevailed. The only ones having a problem here do not seem to understand or accept the rules and practices of golf.

The Tiger situation was entirely different. There no action was taken before the error was corrected. Thus no rules were broken.

Erica had the towel over her head when Moon putted -- 'cuz, if she makes it, Moon wins the match one-up. She, therefore, was in no position to concede the putt. Then, after Moon picked up her ball without putting out, Erica said, "I didn't say it was good" -- almost in an absent-minded way. Then it was a done deal -- the officials heard her say it -- she couldn't backtrack -- and the USGA constabulary was in their prime element as a relentless enforcer of the rules.

[killerleft]

And it is possible that the same degree of magnamity might have occurred here BUT FOR Moon acting to bat the ball before her opponent could or did react. Had she paused the putt might well have been conceded. She did not wait for that and broke the rules. The spirit and the letter of the rules prevailed. The only ones having a problem here do not seem to understand or accept the rules and practices of golf.

The Tiger situation was entirely different. There no action was taken before the error was corrected. Thus no rules were broken.

Exactly. Moon neither listened for nor looked at Erica to confirm the concession. She just immediately batted the ball back to herself. She was perhaps stunned that she missed a chance to end the match. Erica was perhaps shocked to still be in it. The only question was whether Moon would get away with the foolish act. She didn't.

If the referee noticed the non-call, I would think it automatic that Moon would have lost at that point, regardless of whether Erica said anything. Does anyone know for sure?

[AtlDuke72]

Exactly. Moon neither listened for nor looked at Erica to confirm the concession. She just immediately batted the ball back to herself. She was perhaps stunned that she missed a chance to end the match. Erica was perhaps shocked to still be in it. The only question was whether Moon would get away with the foolish act. She didn't.

If the referee noticed the non-call, I would think it automatic that Moon would have lost at that point, regardless of whether Erica said anything. Does anyone know for sure?

There is a rule that both players are disqualified if they agree to waive a rule. It may be that there was no option. Just a very unfortunate event which Moon did cause.

[unclsam1]

Exactly. Moon neither listened for nor looked at Erica to confirm the concession. She just immediately batted the ball back to herself. She was perhaps stunned that she missed a chance to end the match. Erica was perhaps shocked to still be in it. The only question was whether Moon would get away with the foolish act. She didn't.

If the referee noticed the non-call, I would think it automatic that Moon would have lost at that point, regardless of whether Erica said anything. Does anyone know for sure?

If there is an official present, wouldn't it be the official's job to call a rules violation that the official observed? Isn't that what officials are for?

[duketaylor]

"If the referee noticed the non-call, I would think it automatic that Moon would have lost at that point, regardless of whether Erica said anything. Does anyone know for sure?"

That's an interesting question, my guess would be yes. I'll pose the question with my friends at the VSGA and reply here. They will know the answer.

[unclsam1]

"If the referee noticed the non-call, I would think it automatic that Moon would have lost at that point, regardless of whether Erica said anything. Does anyone know for sure?"

That's an interesting question, my guess would be yes. I'll pose the question with my friends at the VSGA and reply here. They will know the answer.

"In match play, if a player removes his/her ball from near the hole, make certain as to whether or not the putt has been conceded."

[SilkyJ]

Yeah, hating on me for not agreeing with the purist is a good example of the type of crap that makes people hate golf and turn away from it. How are those LPGA ratings lately? PGA ratings?

I hope they're low. More availability on the tee sheet for me :)

Seriously though, I'm with Indoor here--you have to be a purist in golf. For a variety of reasons. Its a self-refereed game. There are rules officials around the course, but they are not standing over your ball making sure you do things like: ensuring you mark it probably, seeing if you tweek your lie in the rough, ground your club in the sand, etc. And as an active and decent golfer, all of those things can be done subtly, without being caught, and improve your next shot dramatically.

99% of us aren't pro golfers, and I still insist on being a purist. For "avid amateurs" like myself who play in matches at clubs, gamble with their friends, etc. there is zero accountability. Your opponent will never see you tweak your lie. They will never know if a ball you found in the rough is really yours or not. You have to be 100% honest and self-policing. Its the inherent nature of the game.

Getting to this particular moment: picking up a putt that matters is ridiculous. Don't pick it up. If you think its so easy to make, then go hit it with the back of your putter. Hit it through your legs. Putt it with your eyes shut. You NEVER pick up a putt that hasn't been given. But more importantly, its a violation of the rules to pick up a putt that hasn't been given and so its unfair to Erica to have been put in that position. Moon should never have done that--if I was Erica I'd be pissed for being put in that position. Moon broke the rules and Erica is obligated to report it, even if she would like to have conceded the putt.

And BTW I've seen people miss a 6 inch putt before, present company included. Here's Ernie Els missing a few (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YefULut6YrA)...on one hole.


To me this sentiment is rediculous! Moon made a mistake- for whatever reason - anger, frustration, disappointment - whatever. She broke a fundamental, universally known rule: you play until the ball is in the hole. Period.

The rules in match play PERMIT your opponent to concede a putt or a hole, but no opponent is obligated, either by rule OR custom to concede anything. There is no issue of sportsmanship, should have or any other feel good factor here. Moon was obligated to play until the ball was in the hole. BY HER ACTION, she conceded the hole when SHE picked up the ball.

[uh_no]

Hit it through your legs.

Actually, that's against the rules as well. both feet must be on the same side of the putting line.

[BD80]

Actually, that's against the rules as well. both feet must be on the same side of the putting line.

So a one legged player can't play?

[Indoor66]

So a one legged player can't play?

He or she is OK if they always face south.

[uh_no]

So a one legged player can't play?

only if it's lavar ball in a twosome with michael jordan

[Ewe]

"In match play, if a player removes his/her ball from near the hole, make certain as to whether or not the putt has been conceded."

In this match-play circumstance, Erica could have said, "yes, that was good" - or even not said anything - and the putt would have been deemed to be conceded. The competitors have broad latitude on this point, and the rules official are not obligated to overrule them.

However, Erica was well within her rights to point out that the putt had not been conceded, and that's what she did. Certainly not the course I would have chosen, though.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I hate to beat a dead horse (though isn't that what this board is all about?!?). I agree that best practices would have been for Moon to wait for a formal acknowledgement, and that by the letter of the law, the correct outcome occurred. I don't really like this, but those are the rules, so you have to live by them.

That being said, I find it interesting that no one has commented on the fact that part of the reason this occurred is that Shepherd "had her eyes closed in anticipation of possibly losing the match." I hate to bash one of our own, but perhaps if she had been a bit more grown up about it and actually watched the putt, this might have been a non-issue. Again, Moon definitely should have shown more patience as it isn't like Shepherd had her eyes closed for hours, but a little growing up by Shepherd might have helped too.

[Indoor66]

I hate to beat a dead horse (though isn't that what this board is all about?!?). I agree that best practices would have been for Moon to wait for a formal acknowledgement, and that by the letter of the law, the correct outcome occurred. I don't really like this, but those are the rules, so you have to live by them.

That being said, I find it interesting that no one has commented on the fact that part of the reason this occurred is that Shepherd "had her eyes closed in anticipation of possibly losing the match." I hate to bash one of our own, but perhaps if she had been a bit more grown up about it and actually watched the putt, this might have been a non-issue. Again, Moon definitely should have shown more patience as it isn't like Shepherd had her eyes closed for hours, but a little growing up by Shepherd might have helped too.

Please. We are now critical of a competitor who looked away when an opponent in a national championship is taking a shot that could be the winner and mean her defeat?

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Please. We are now critical of a competitor who looked away when an opponent in a national championship is taking a shot that could be the winner and mean her defeat?

Let's say that while Shepherd had her eyes closed, Moon double hit the ball, or did some other violation of an esoteric rule, and Shepherd didn't see it. For those of you who are so hell bent on following the rules of golf to the letter of the law, this could have also caused all sorts of problems. If you want to be really strict about enforcing all the rules, and it is the player's responsibility to enforce all of the rules rather than another rules official, the player needs to be constantly aware. You can't have it both ways.

Again, I'm nitpicking here. But I think a lot of these rules are nitpicking. (and I consider myself someone who is extremely obsessive about obeying rules).

[SoCalDukeFan]

Let's say that while Shepherd had her eyes closed, Moon double hit the ball, or did some other violation of an esoteric rule, and Shepherd didn't see it. For those of you who are so hell bent on following the rules of golf to the letter of the law, this could have also caused all sorts of problems. If you want to be really strict about enforcing all the rules, and it is the player's responsibility to enforce all of the rules rather than another rules official, the player needs to be constantly aware. You can't have it both ways.

Again, I'm nitpicking here. But I think a lot of these rules are nitpicking. (and I consider myself someone who is extremely obsessive about obeying rules).

You are critical of a 16 year old who could not stand to watch while her opponent was (she thought) about to win the match and end her chance at a national championship?

The problem was that Moon did not wait for the concession. Period. Moon also moved the ball so quickly that even if Shepherd were watching and then say breathed a sigh of relief before trying to concede Moon would have broken the rule.

Also Shepherd's caddy, a golf coach, would have noticed any rule violation, told Shepherd and she could then ask Moon about a double hit or whatever.

SoCAl

[killerleft]

In this match-play circumstance, Erica could have said, "yes, that was good" - or even not said anything - and the putt would have been deemed to be conceded. The competitors have broad latitude on this point, and the rules official are not obligated to overrule them.

However, Erica was well within her rights to point out that the putt had not been conceded, and that's what she did. Certainly not the course I would have chosen, though.

Well, other than both Moon and Erica being obligated to report it, no. But, yes, the official IS obligated to overrule them. Which she most certainly did.

[dudog84]

Because I have been unsuccessful in trying to protect/enure myself from our knee-jerk culture, I initially thought this was a very bush league move by the future Dukie. But I have now watched the pertinent portion of the video linked on page 2 of this thread several times. The opponent is clearly in the wrong. Although the video appears to be in somewhat slow-motion, she took less than 2 seconds to scoop her ball back and did not even glance at Shepherd. Shepherd had a natural split-second reaction, and the cake was baked. She couldn't take it back even though she tried. It's a good lesson to everyone to breathe, think, and then act (I'm talking about the opponent's mistake).

So I'm glad I didn't immediately react as many on social media did. Maybe I'm learning.

[Ewe]

Well, other than both Moon and Erica being obligated to report it, no. But, yes, the official IS obligated to overrule them. Which she most certainly did.

Don't agree.

Rule 1.3 says players may not make a prior agreement to waive any rule. This is true under both stroke and match play. However, that's not what happened here.

Rule 2 covers match play specifically. Rule 2.5, Doubt as to Procedure has the following note:

"Note 1: A player may disregard a breach of the Rules by his opponent provided there is no agreement by the sides to waive a Rule (Rule 1-3)."

Under this Rule, in match play, Erica could have chosen to disregard. She didn't.

So far as I'm aware, There is no mention under Rule 2 of an obligation to report.

I play a lot of golf, both stroke and match, and lots of competitions - so if you know of a rule creating this obligation in match play, let me know ASAP as I don't want to get myself disqualified.

[AtlDuke72]

I hate to beat a dead horse (though isn't that what this board is all about?!?). I agree that best practices would have been for Moon to wait for a formal acknowledgement, and that by the letter of the law, the correct outcome occurred. I don't really like this, but those are the rules, so you have to live by them.

That being said, I find it interesting that no one has commented on the fact that part of the reason this occurred is that Shepherd "had her eyes closed in anticipation of possibly losing the match." I hate to bash one of our own, but perhaps if she had been a bit more grown up about it and actually watched the putt, this might have been a non-issue. Again, Moon definitely should have shown more patience as it isn't like Shepherd had her eyes closed for hours, but a little growing up by Shepherd might have helped too.

I had a knee jerk reaction blaming Shepherd but think that I was dead wrong. It is really basic, even in the 10th flight of a club tournament , to get a putt conceded before you pick it up. It is very poor form to react in anger to blowing a short putt and raking it back out of frustration which Moon unfortunately did. It is also not a silly golf rule - short putts do get missed and conceding a putt is a courtesy and not a right.

To say that Shepherd is to blame for not watching the putt is truly ridiculous. You often don't watch the other person putt for any number of reasons . She could have walked off the green if she had wanted to and then Moon would just putt out. If you watch the replay Shepherd would have had no time to do anything even if she had been watching.

I apologize to Shepherd for thinking ill of her!

[AtlDuke72]

Don't agree.

Rule 1.3 says players may not make a prior agreement to waive any rule. This is true under both stroke and match play. However, that's not what happened here.

Rule 2 covers match play specifically. Rule 2.5, Doubt as to Procedure has the following note:

"Note 1: A player may disregard a breach of the Rules by his opponent provided there is no agreement by the sides to waive a Rule (Rule 1-3)."

Under this Rule, in match play, Erica could have chosen to disregard. She didn't.

So far as I'm aware, There is no mention under Rule 2 of an obligation to report.

I play a lot of golf, both stroke and match, and lots of competitions - so if you know of a rule creating this obligation in match play, let me know ASAP as I don't want to get myself disqualified.

Thanks for the clarification. The news reports say that Shepherd tried to waive the violation after first saying that the putt had not been conceded. i wonder why this was not allowed in view of Rule 2, Note 1 which you quoted above.

[killerleft]

Don't agree.

Rule 1.3 says players may not make a prior agreement to waive any rule. This is true under both stroke and match play. However, that's not what happened here.

Rule 2 covers match play specifically. Rule 2.5, Doubt as to Procedure has the following note:

"Note 1: A player may disregard a breach of the Rules by his opponent provided there is no agreement by the sides to waive a Rule (Rule 1-3)."

Under this Rule, in match play, Erica could have chosen to disregard. She didn't.

So far as I'm aware, There is no mention under Rule 2 of an obligation to report.

I play a lot of golf, both stroke and match, and lots of competitions - so if you know of a rule creating this obligation in match play, let me know ASAP as I don't want to get myself disqualified.

I apologize, then. That's a strange rule. The cartoon characters Chip and Dale could have a field day with that one.:)

[AtlDuke72]

Let's say that while Shepherd had her eyes closed, Moon double hit the ball, or did some other violation of an esoteric rule, and Shepherd didn't see it. For those of you who are so hell bent on following the rules of golf to the letter of the law, this could have also caused all sorts of problems. If you want to be really strict about enforcing all the rules, and it is the player's responsibility to enforce all of the rules rather than another rules official, the player needs to be constantly aware. You can't have it both ways.

Again, I'm nitpicking here. But I think a lot of these rules are nitpicking. (and I consider myself someone who is extremely obsessive about obeying rules).

It is a players responsibility to enforce the rules on themselves. It is not a player's responsibility to enforce all the rules on their opponent.

[bob blue devil]

count me in those completely confused by the criticism of shepherd. her opponent made a mistake that merited a penalty, period and regardless of any action/inaction by shepherd. if the rules officials see the violation, it is their job to enforce the rules and assess the penalty. so the real question people seem to be raising is whether shepherd was unsportsmanlike in calling attention to that fact by her immediate reaction. i suppose the issue itself is debatable, but leaping to criticize a 16 year old who obviously did not plan for that situation/was surprised by it, who had no opportunity to take back her action, and, if the rules are properly enforced, had no influence on the outcome is way too harsh IMO. save your indignation for actual bad actors out there - there are plenty.

p.s. blaming her for closing her eyes is the best case of rationalization i've seen in years - far better than anything i see from the children in the BBD family - kudos!

[Tripping William]

I apologize, then. That's a strange rule. The cartoon characters Chip and Dale could have a field day with that one.:)

Either I'm dense, or my statutory construction skills have gotten mega-rusty, but I really cannot reconcile Rule 1-3, Rule 2-5, and Note 1 to Rule 2-5. Text of all of them is below, for swood-style ease of reference.

I guess what I cannot reconcile is Rule 1-3 and the Note. Seems to me Rule 2-5 provides context to the Note, but I'm not sure that it adds anything substantive, and instead just adds context, in this situation. But when is "disregard[ing] a breach of the Rules by his opponent" *not" an "agree[ment] to exclude the operation of [a] Rule or to waive [a] penalty incurred." Maybe if the opponent doesn't accept the "disregarding"? Or maybe it is just a way of saying that a player isn't disqualified if she looks the other way while an opponent breaches a Rule?

I'm confused. :confused:



Rule 1-3. Agreement to Waive Rules: Players must not agree to exclude the operation of any Rule or to waive any penalty incurred.


Rule 2-5. Doubt as to Procedure; Disputes and Claims: In match play, if a doubt or dispute arises between the players, a player may make a claim. If no duly authorized representative of the Committee is available within a reasonable time, the players must continue the match without delay. The Committee may consider a claim only if it has been made in a timely manner and if the player making the claim has notified his opponent at the time (i) that he is making a claim or wants a ruling and (ii) of the facts upon which the claim or ruling is to be based.

A claim is considered to have been made in a timely manner if, upon discovery of circumstances giving rise to a claim, the player makes his claim (i) before any player in the match plays from the next teeing ground, or (ii) in the case of the last hole of the match, before all players in the match leave the putting green, or (iii) when the circumstances giving rise to the claim are discovered after all the players in the match have left the putting green of the final hole, before the result of the match has been officially announced.

A claim relating to a prior hole in the match may only be considered by the Committee if it is based on facts previously unknown to the player making the claim and he had been given wrong information (Rules 6-2a or 9) by an opponent. Such a claim must be made in a timely manner.
Once the result of the match has been officially announced, a claim may not be considered by the Committee, unless it is satisfied that (i) the claim
is based on facts which were previously unknown to the player making the claim at the time the result was officially announced, (ii) the player
making the claim had been given wrong information by an opponent and (iii) the opponent knew he was giving wrong information. There is no time
limit on considering such a claim


Note 1 [to Rule 2-5]: A player may disregard a breach of the Rules by his opponent provided there is no agreement by the sides to waive a Rule (Rule 1-3).

[cato]

Either I'm dense, or my statutory construction skills have gotten mega-rusty, but I really cannot reconcile Rule 1-3, Rule 2-5, and Note 1 to Rule 2-5. Text of all of them is below, for swood-style ease of reference.

I guess what I cannot reconcile is Rule 1-3 and the Note. Seems to me Rule 2-5 provides context to the Note, but I'm not sure that it adds anything substantive, and instead just adds context, in this situation. But when is "disregard[ing] a breach of the Rules by his opponent" *not" an "agree[ment] to exclude the operation of [a] Rule or to waive [a] penalty incurred." Maybe if the opponent doesn't accept the "disregarding"? Or maybe it is just a way of saying that a player isn't disqualified if she looks the other way while an opponent breaches a Rule?

I'm confused. :confused:

I think the difference is in "breach" and "penalty." So, a player who sees a breach is not obligated to report it. However, once a penalty has been assessed, the player cannot waive it. That would seem to match what happened here perfectly. Moon picked up -- a breach. Shepherd noticed the breach, and commented on it. Since she did not disregard it, a penalty was assessed. Once assessed, she could not waive the penalty.

[Tripping William]

I think the difference is in "breach" and "penalty." So, a player who sees a breach is not obligated to report it. However, once a penalty has been assessed, the player cannot waive it. That would seem to match what happened here perfectly. Moon picked up -- a breach. Shepherd noticed the breach, and commented on it. Since she did not disregard it, a penalty was assessed. Once assessed, she could not waive the penalty.

But why would that interpretation not allow Shepherd, pre-penalty, then to concede Moon's putt? I suppose that is because Moon's ball was not "at rest" as required by Rule 2-4 ("A player may concede his opponent’s next stroke at any time, provided the opponent’s ball is at rest.")

Still, say Moon accepts Shepherd's belated (but pre-penalty) concession -- paraphrasing what I understand would have been the colloquy: "I know I mentioned that I didn't say your putt was good before you raked the ball back, but I was willing then, and am willing now, to concede that putt." Isn't that an agreement among those two players to exclude operation of a Rule in violation of Rule 1-3, thereby disqualifying both players?

[AtlDuke72]

I think the difference is in "breach" and "penalty." So, a player who sees a breach is not obligated to report it. However, once a penalty has been assessed, the player cannot waive it. That would seem to match what happened here perfectly. Moon picked up -- a breach. Shepherd noticed the breach, and commented on it. Since she did not disregard it, a penalty was assessed. Once assessed, she could not waive the penalty.

So when and by whom did the penalty get "assessed"? Commenting that the putt had not been conceded is not a "claim". There is a whole book published annually called the Rules Decisions which lays out all kinds of bizarre situations with many surprising conclusions. This will be a good one to submit for a Decision.

[cato]

But why would that interpretation not allow Shepherd, pre-penalty, then to concede Moon's putt?


Because she did not disregard the violation. If she has said nothing and gone on to the next tee, and no one ever called out Moon's violation, then there would have been a breach, but no penalty. But that is not what happened.

Anyway, that is how I read those rules in harmony.

[Tripping William]

Because she did not disregard the violation. If she has said nothing and gone on to the next tee, and no one ever called out Moon's violation, then there would have been a breach, but no penalty. But that is not what happened.

Anyway, that is how I read those rules in harmony.

I sincerely appreciate the effort to square the language. I still struggle because, in that scenario, the only disregarding that could occur is disregarding-by-silence. And perhaps that is what the USGA intended. But that's quite a lot to put on a competitive golfer in the heat of that moment (perhaps milliseconds to evaluate, "I saw something. Do I say something?").

Plus the part where "no one [else] ever called out Moon's violation" assumes that (a) Moon maintains the putt was conceded, (b) a representative of the Committee didn't observe the issue in real time, and (c) you don't have the Lexi-Thompson-Done-In-By-Joe-Fanboy-And-His-Email-Account scenario.

[budwom]

and people wonder why golf is losing popularity (I now duck and scurry away in my lime green pantalons)

[cato]

I sincerely appreciate the effort to square the language. I still struggle because, in that scenario, the only disregarding that could occur is disregarding-by-silence. And perhaps that is what the USGA intended. But that's quite a lot to put on a competitive golfer in the heat of that moment (perhaps milliseconds to evaluate, "I saw something. Do I say something?").

Plus the part where "no one [else] ever called out Moon's violation" assumes that (a) Moon maintains the putt was conceded, (b) a representative of the Committee didn't observe the issue in real time, and (c) you don't have the Lexi-Thompson-Done-In-By-Joe-Fanboy-And-His-Email-Account scenario.

Yes, that is how I read it. Moon should have called her penalty on herself. Shepherd would have been within her rights to say nothing, but Moon should never have put her in that situation.

The more this discussion goes on, the more it strikes me as very silly. Even someone like me, who is lucky to play 4 rounds a year and hasn't shot in the 80s in over 25 years never picks up a putt in a round that matters without an unequivocal concession.

[Tripping William]

and people wonder why golf is losing popularity (I now duck and scurry away in my lime green pantalons)

A whole 'nother discussion for a whole 'nother day (and thread). Maybe come back when you're dressed more like John Daly . . . . :o

7560

[Ewe]

Thanks for the clarification. The news reports say that Shepherd tried to waive the violation after first saying that the putt had not been conceded. i wonder why this was not allowed in view of Rule 2, Note 1 which you quoted above.

Yes, I'm puzzled by that, too. I have seen rule 2, Note 1 in action several times - in fact, the most common application is EXACTLY the situation that Erica found herself in: player 1 picks up a tap-in before the player 2 concedes, but player 1 fully intended to concede and the putt was so short that nothing needed to be said.

The more difficult situation is where player 1 "assumes" you concede a 2 foot, sidehill, downhill slider, and you damn well wanted to have him putt it. Then he berates you for calling him on it.

Anyway, the whole thing is unfortunate. I don't think either player deserves criticism. Moon made a common mistake of picking up after a short miss. I've done it. Erica immediately commented that "I didn't concede that", which was true. I believe she had the option at that point of declaring it conceded under Rule 2.5, note 1. I do not know why the Official ruled otherwise.

[cato]

Yes, I'm puzzled by that, too. I have seen rule 2, Note 1 in action several times - in fact, the most common application is EXACTLY the situation that Erica found herself in: player 1 picks up a tap-in before the player 2 concedes, but player 1 fully intended to concede and the putt was so short that nothing needed to be said.

The more difficult situation is where player 1 "assumes" you concede a 2 foot, sidehill, downhill slider, and you damn well wanted to have him putt it. Then he berates you for calling him on it.

Anyway, the whole thing is unfortunate. I don't think either player deserves criticism. Moon made a common mistake of picking up after a short miss. I've done it. Erica immediately commented that "I didn't concede that", which was true. I believe she had the option at that point of declaring it conceded under Rule 2.5, note 1. I do not know why the Official ruled otherwise.

My WAG is that the note, to the extent actually considered, was read literally. Erica had the right to "disregard" the breach (which I supposed she did, by covering her eyes), by either staying silent or conceding the putt after the fact. But she did not disregard it: she specifically called it out. Once she noted the breach, she could not retroactively disregard it.

[OldPhiKap]

I think we're spending a lot of time analyzing the snap reaction of a high school senior.

Also -- and perhaps this is my fault for skimming so I'm just catching up to y'all -- this did not occur in the championship game:

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/no-controversy-this-time-as-erica-shepherd-wins-final-match-at-the-us-girls-junior-claims-dream-title

I'm moving on.

[Spanarkel]

I think Erica's victory is all the more remarkable in that she is left-handed and hails from Greenwood, IN.

According to BleacherReport, only 5 left-handed golfers have won more than once on the PGA Tour.

Now PLEASE return to the very entertaining discussion of golf rules/decorum...

[cato]

I think we're spending a lot of time analyzing the snap reaction of a high school senior.

Also -- and perhaps this is my fault for skimming so I'm just catching up to y'all -- this did not occur in the championship game:

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/no-controversy-this-time-as-erica-shepherd-wins-final-match-at-the-us-girls-junior-claims-dream-title

I'm moving on.

I do like the visor, though.

[Rich]

So a one legged player can't play?

I have two legs and I can't play, as much as I try

[jv001]

I think we're spending a lot of time analyzing the snap reaction of a high school senior.

Also -- and perhaps this is my fault for skimming so I'm just catching up to y'all -- this did not occur in the championship game:

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/no-controversy-this-time-as-erica-shepherd-wins-final-match-at-the-us-girls-junior-claims-dream-title

I'm moving on.

I agree. I'm more concerned by the action of professional basketball players and professional football players. Next Play!!!!!!! GoDuke!!!!

[ipatent]

Two teenagers in a pressure situation, one couldn't look and the other swiped her putt away in frustration without checking first. The rules were correctly applied, and they'll both learn from this.

[Furniture]

I think we're spending a lot of time analyzing the snap reaction of a high school senior.

Also -- and perhaps this is my fault for skimming so I'm just catching up to y'all -- this did not occur in the championship game:

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/no-controversy-this-time-as-erica-shepherd-wins-final-match-at-the-us-girls-junior-claims-dream-title

I'm moving on.

I agree. Please close this thread!!

[Indoor66]

Two teenagers in a pressure situation, one couldn't look and the other swiped her putt away in frustration without checking first. The rules were correctly applied, and they'll both learn from this.

Thank you. May your sanity prevail in this mostly ridiculous discussion.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I agree. Please close this thread!!

Huh. I guess you could close the thread. I have found it rather fascinating.

[Furniture]

Huh. I guess you could close the thread. I have found it rather fascinating.

Fair enough if we are just talking about golf rules. However in my opinion this thread is very much about criticizing a Duke Athlete.i didn't think we were allowed to do that. I can't imagine that there would be as much criticism of Justice Winslow if he stepped out of bounds, got an advantage from it, and did not admit it!

[OldPhiKap]

I don't think there was anything wrong with the thread. And I can personally attest, having met the OP before the Sun Bowl in El Paso, that he is a true Duke guy. I appreciate him bringing the matter to my attention.

I just think the subsequent analysis on this thread is getting somewhat skewed. The event happened in a blink of an eye. By definition, everyone who has thought, typed, and posted has spent more time on the issue than it took to transpire.

She is a high school senior. She acted within the rules. Making judgments about her sportsmanship in such a situation seems mighty unfair.

I would hate to be judged by what I did in certain situations in college, let alone when I was 17 or 18. Jeesh.

[gep]

Is it possible that Moon thought she lost the match when she missed that putt!? Might explain why she picked up her ball so abruptly and quickly wjrhout looking around first.

[kcduke75]

Is it possible that Moon thought she lost the match when she missed that putt!? Might explain why she picked up her ball so abruptly and quickly wjrhout looking around first.

No, it is not possible.

And she's a 16 year old rising Junior, not a Senior.

Close the thread please

[nmduke2001]

I don't think there was anything wrong with the thread. And I can personally attest, having met the OP before the Sun Bowl in El Paso, that he is a true Duke guy. I appreciate him bringing the matter to my attention.

I just think the subsequent analysis on this thread is getting somewhat skewed. The event happened in a blink of an eye. By definition, everyone who has thought, typed, and posted has spent more time on the issue than it took to transpire.

She is a high school senior. She acted within the rules. Making judgments about her sportsmanship in such a situation seems mighty unfair.

I would hate to be judged by what I did in certain situations in college, let alone when I was 17 or 18. Jeesh.

Thanks, OPK. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that people want to close the thread. My intent on opening the thread was just to let people know that she had won but with a bit of controversy. I went on to write why there was controversy. I think the rules analysis since has been pretty fascinating. I actually meant to post in the "off-topic" forum but mistakenly opened it here.

[SilkyJ]

Actually, that's against the rules as well. both feet must be on the same side of the putting line.

Well Chevy Chase, Ty Webb, and Mitch Cumstein would all vigorously disagree (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsqvVCm7VqY)!


and people wonder why golf is losing popularity (I now duck and scurry away in my lime green pantalons)


Huh. I guess you could close the thread. I have found it rather fascinating.

I think the issue is that there wasn't a great Caddyshack reference...until now!

[uh_no]

Well Chevy Chase, Ty Webb, and Mitch Cumstein would all vigorously disagree (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsqvVCm7VqY)!





I think the issue is that there wasn't a great Caddyshack reference...until now!

did Miss Moon perhaps shout "I'M HAVING THE ROUND OF MY LIFE" before lighting struck?

[rsvman]

See the ball; be the ball.

[kcduke75]

I'm a bit surprised that people want to close the thread
Because people that don't know about golf are opining that there's a controversy. Wrong. But, the Caddy Shack turn means this thread needs to go on forever!!

[Jim3k]

...(I now duck and scurry away in my lime green pantalons)

What? Did you outgrow your plus fours?

What? Did your plus fours have holes in the knees?

Wait...You're wearing pantaloons? With or without a top?

(http://www.orientaltrading.com/womens-pantaloons-a2-13730454.fltr?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI8pW46vDI1QIVTksNCh 3BmQWkEAYYASABEgJYz_D_BwE&cm_mcca1=OTC+PLAs&categoryId=90000&ms=search&cm_mmca2=GooglePLAs&cm_mmca12=Women%27s-Pantaloons&cm_mmc10=Shopping&cm_mmca11=13730454&source=google&cm_mmca3=PS532&cm_mmca4=FS39&cm_mmca5=Shopping&cm_mmca6=PLAs&BP=PS532&cm_mmc=Google-_-898077963-_-47349782320-_-Women%27s-Pantaloons)

[Reilly]

I don't think there was anything wrong with the thread ...

Not yet, anyway, but we haven't gotten to Erica's views of Woodrow Wilson.

[OldPhiKap]

Not yet, anyway, but we haven't gotten to Erica's views of Woodrow Wilson.

Woody would not concede the putt, but instead would form a standing body aimed at preventing the problem from arising again.

[Indoor66]

Woody would not concede the putt, but instead would form a standing body aimed at preventing the problem from arising again.

It is a huge Princeton/UVA problem. Call in John J.

[sagegrouse]

When I went back and looked at the video again, I got a different impression. After Elizabeth Moon's putt missed, she raked the ball back,and prepared to take a practice putt. That's what's often done in match play when one misses a putt and loses the hole. Except, except -- she halves the hole with a tap-in and, if she had truly lost the hole, the sudden-death match would have been over. I think Elizabeth had a double brain freeze.