Kuchar/Sergio - WGC Match Play Drama - Your Take?

Because I don't know, is it an offense to the rules to ask your opponent if it is conceded?

Or does it have to be a questioning look?
 
Because I don't know, is it an offense to the rules to ask your opponent if it is conceded?

Or does it have to be a questioning look?

A battle of wills and wits consisting of nothing but indecisive gestures and subtle eye rolls over an 18" putt would be an event in and of itself.

Sadly, Sergio didn't give Kuchar a chance to engage in this, "Is it good?" staring contest. Shame, really.
 
Did you watch the video? In that series of events, when would Kuch have been able to concede the putt? No effort was made by Sergio to look for a concession. You cannot retroactively concede. It was a 2 inch putt. Patrick Reed would have conceded this putt to Ian Poulter in the 12th match on Sunday to win the Ryder Cup for the Europeans, this was not a gamesmanship decision to not concede.

The idea that Kuch a douche for his role in this is laughable.

Yes, I have watched the video. Are you suggesting Kuchar did not watch Sergio's putt? When the ball stopped, Kuchar easily had time to say something. This notion of having to look at someone is pretty silly. Also, I have never said at any time about a retroactive concession. Ryder cup is a team event so has zero relevance.
 
Yes, I have watched the video. Are you suggesting Kuchar did not watch Sergio's putt? When the ball stopped, Kuchar easily had time to say something. This notion of having to look at someone is pretty silly. Also, I have never said at any time about a retroactive concession. Ryder cup is a team event so has zero relevance.

I'm suggesting that Kuchar did not have time to concede the putt because Sergio did not give him the opportunity. He thought he could just tap it in with the back of his putter and halve the hole, and did not consider the possibility of him missing it. To blame Kuchar for that lapse in judgement is nonsense. Its one thing if Kuchar had been standing there for a minute being tight lipped, but Sergio did not give him the opportunity for a concession so there wasn't one. Pretty simple.
 
I'm suggesting that Kuchar did not have time to concede the putt because Sergio did not give him the opportunity. He thought he could just tap it in with the back of his putter and halve the hole, and did not consider the possibility of him missing it. To blame Kuchar for that lapse in judgement is nonsense. Its one thing if Kuchar had been standing there for a minute being tight lipped, but Sergio did not give him the opportunity for a concession so there wasn't one. Pretty simple.

How long does it take to say "pick it up" or "that's good"? My point is he didn't say it intentionally in the hope Sergio would do what he did. What other reason would he have for not giving it immediately? I'm guessing you haven't played much matchplay.
 
What could Kuch have done differently that does not go against Rule 1.3?

Im still trying to wrap my head around this one.
Each person against Kuchar in this situation appears to be from the opposite side of the pond, and that could merely be coincidence, but I still can't figure out what should he have done that would not have broken a rule?
 
How long does it take to say "pick it up" or "that's good"? My point is he didn't say it intentionally in the hope Sergio would do what he did. What other reason would he have for not giving it immediately? I'm guessing you haven't played much matchplay.

In the video posted in the OP it took around 2 to 2.5 seconds from when the ball stopped to Sergio making another stroke. Also, thats with the video being replayed in slow motion so we're probably looking realistically at 1 second of true elapsed time for Kuchar to concede. So my final answer is that it takes more than 1 second to say "pick it up" or "thats good."
 
In the video posted in the OP it took around 2 to 2.5 seconds from when the ball stopped to Sergio making another stroke. Also, thats with the video being replayed in slow motion so we're probably looking realistically at 1 second of true elapsed time for Kuchar to concede. So my final answer is that it takes more than 1 second to say "pick it up" or "thats good."

Serious question, why do you not address the other part of my post referring to the intent? And the intent is blindingly obvious when he makes it clear to the rules official he never conceded the putt. As for the timing, clearly we won't agree, which is fine.
 
Serious question, why do you not address the other part of my post referring to the intent? And the intent is blindingly obvious when he makes it clear to the rules official he never conceded the putt. As for the timing, clearly we won't agree, which is fine.
Because there is no reason to comment on intent. Kuchar CAN NOT concede the putt after the fact. That is a breach of the rules and would cost Kuchar the match. He must state honestly whether the putt was conceded prior to the stroke being made (which it wasn't). End of story.
 
Serious question, why do you not address the other part of my post referring to the intent? And the intent is blindingly obvious when he makes it clear to the rules official he never conceded the putt. As for the timing, clearly we won't agree, which is fine.

You’re saying Kuch devised this entire scheme in less than a second?
 
Im still trying to wrap my head around this one.
Each person against Kuchar in this situation appears to be from the opposite side of the pond, and that could merely be coincidence, but I still can't figure out what should he have done that would not have broken a rule?

apparently shout at the top of his lungs that it was good


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
This is simply the greatest idea I have ever heard and will forever call you Sir, because you should be knighted for having come up with it.

Lol!

Hall Of Fame Tag worthy? I laughed my ass off reading that. Reminds me of a joke game I learned as a kid, “let’s see who can punch the lightest, you go first”. After the unsuspecting very lightly taps you on the arm you smack the snot out of theirs and say “you win”. Haha!
 
I can't believe that anyone could think that this was part of Kuchar's grand scheme to win this match. Sergio is 100% at fault.
 
Each person against Kuchar in this situation appears to be from the opposite side of the pond

Or only people who support him are from the same side as him. But we come together as one to describe Garcia as a dick. It appears that people this side of the pond say both players were dicks and did the game no good. Only the Ryder Cup losers think Kuch was lilywhite.

I think the negative reaction to Kuch is driven by disappointment, we always thought a lot of the guy and now he shows a lack of class.
 
Last edited:
I can't believe that anyone could think that this was part of Kuchar's grand scheme to win this match. Sergio is 100% at fault.

agreed, Sergio showed his anger problems. it is well know he has problems with anger and Kuchar should not be punished for Sergio's problem
 
Or only people who support him are from the same side as him. But we come together as one to describe Garcia as a dick. It appears that people this side of the pond say both players were dicks and did the game no good. Only the Ryder Cup losers think Kuch was lilywhite.

I think the negative reaction to Kuch is driven by disappointment, we always thought a lot of the guy and now he shows a lack of class.

It’s been asked numerous times but skipped over every time. What should Kuchar have done that isn’t in violations of the rules?

It’s actually pretty funny that Sergio misses a putt, swipes at it with in a second and then somehow Kuchar is to blame for not conceding fast enough....the internet is serious business haha
 
It’s been asked numerous times but skipped over every time. What should Kuchar have done that isn’t in violations of the rules?

It’s actually pretty funny that Sergio misses a putt, swipes at it with in a second and then somehow Kuchar is to blame for not conceding fast enough....the internet is serious business haha

Kuchar should have picked up his ball on the next tee and conceded the hole. After all, he totally would have conceded the putt for half had his opponent not been an obnoxious hothead.

No, wait, that's stupid and patronizing, the golf equivalent of patting a child on the head. Kuchar would have been accused of totally unnecessary gamesmanship. To be honest, there's always a way to spin Kuchar as the bad guy here if you squint hard enough.
 
Because there is no reason to comment on intent. Kuchar CAN NOT concede the putt after the fact. That is a breach of the rules and would cost Kuchar the match. He must state honestly whether the putt was conceded prior to the stroke being made (which it wasn't). End of story.

This is where it starts and stops for me.

It's not up to Kuchar to babysit a temper tantrum.
 
The point is simple. After Garcia swiped at the ball in temper Kuch had a choice.

Either walk to the next tee with everyone assuming the putt was conceded and a half was the result. Had he done that, it would have been a fair result and nothing more would have been said. Kuch dodged a bullet because Garcia should have holed the four footer for a win. A six inch putt should always be conceded in that position, and I doubt any tour pro has been asked to hole a six inch putt in match play.

Or he could approach the referee and claim the hole because he had not been heard to state the obvious. By pointing out to the referee ,unasked, that he had not said out loud what everyone knew to be true, he knew he was claiming a win, lighting Garcia's fuse, and getting something he did not deserve.

The point you seem to avoid is that Kuch had the option to do nothing and let it ride. Had the referee approached him (why would he?), then Kuchar would have been entitled to say he had not conceded the putt, and should have been asked if he wanted to claim the hole. At no stage was Kuchar in danger of breaking any rule, only the unwritten etiquette of the game. By doing so, he had gone from being one of the most liked and respected players on the Tour to a dick.
 
The point is simple. After Garcia swiped at the ball in temper Kuch had a choice.

Either walk to the next tee with everyone assuming the putt was conceded and a half was the result. Had he done that, it would have been a fair result and nothing more would have been said. Kuch dodged a bullet because Garcia should have holed the four footer for a win. A six inch putt should always be conceded in that position, and I doubt any tour pro has been asked to hole a six inch putt in match play.

Or he could approach the referee and claim the hole because he had not been heard to state the obvious. By pointing out to the referee ,unasked, that he had not said out loud what everyone knew to be true, he knew he was claiming a win, lighting Garcia's fuse, and getting something he did not deserve.

The point you seem to avoid is that Kuch had the option to do nothing and let it ride. Had the referee approached him (why would he?), then Kuchar would have been entitled to say he had not conceded the putt, and should have been asked if he wanted to claim the hole. At no stage was Kuchar in danger of breaking any rule, only the unwritten etiquette of the game. By doing so, he had gone from being one of the most liked and respected players on the Tour to a dick.

Nope. Players have an obligation to enforce the rules of golf on each other. Which means Kuchar has an obligation to positively inform his opponent when a putt is conceded, and Sergio has an obligation to treat the ball as being in play until he hears his opponent positively inform him the score is good. Sergio failed on his end. Kuchar would have failed, even by omission, had he not called Sergio on it.

This isn't Nam, Smokey. This is golf. There are rules.
 
This is golf. There are rules.

And there is etiquette and good manners.
 
And there is etiquette and good manners.

Like, for example, checking to make sure that a putt is conceded before you backhand it?
 
Nobody denies Garcia is a dick, the question is whether Kuch is, so Garcia's usual petulance is not important. That ship sailed a long time ago ,but Kuch is measured by higher standards...……..


Fast forward to next year's Ryder Cup, last singles out is Garcia v Kuch, on the 18th green , the match score is 13 1/2 v 13 1/2 , they are all square . Kuch has a four foot putt to win the Ryder Cup, if he two putts , the match is halved, and if he three putts , Europe win. His putt horseshoes, and is left on the edge. Distraught, he flicks the ball back to his feet to re-enact the putt. Garcia claims the hole, and therefore the cup.


Obviously, none of you guys would have an issue, 'cos the rules are the rules.
 
Nobody denies Garcia is a dick, the question is whether Kuch is, so Garcia's usual petulance is not important. That ship sailed a long time ago ,but Kuch is measured by higher standards...……..


Fast forward to next year's Ryder Cup, last singles out is Garcia v Kuch, on the 18th green , the match score is 13 1/2 v 13 1/2 , they are all square . Kuch has a four foot putt to win the Ryder Cup, if he two putts , the match is halved, and if he three putts , Europe win. His putt horseshoes, and is left on the edge. Distraught, he flicks the ball back to his feet to re-enact the putt. Garcia claims the hole, and therefore the cup.


Obviously, none of you guys would have an issue, 'cos the rules are the rules.

In that case, a draw would result in Europe keeping the Ryder Cup anyway, so sure.

And in any case, yes, rules are rules.
 
Nobody denies Garcia is a dick, the question is whether Kuch is, so Garcia's usual petulance is not important. That ship sailed a long time ago ,but Kuch is measured by higher standards...……..


Fast forward to next year's Ryder Cup, last singles out is Garcia v Kuch, on the 18th green , the match score is 13 1/2 v 13 1/2 , they are all square . Kuch has a four foot putt to win the Ryder Cup, if he two putts , the match is halved, and if he three putts , Europe win. His putt horseshoes, and is left on the edge. Distraught, he flicks the ball back to his feet to re-enact the putt. Garcia claims the hole, and therefore the cup.


Obviously, none of you guys would have an issue, 'cos the rules are the rules.

Correct. If he didn't give Garcia a chance to concede the putt before he foolishly rakes it back, he loses the hole and the Ryder Cup. I don't see the issue.
 
Back
Top