[Stan Dodd]

While watching a match in the Carnegie Shield at Royal Dornoch I heard a player offer a good-good, in which one player had a significantly longer putt.
I understand it is not a rules violation but  is it cheeky, poor form or an acceptable practice in match play to negotiate?

[Mark Chaplin]

Totally acceptable up to 5-6 feet.

[Bill_McBride]

Totally acceptable period?

[JMEvensky]

Totally acceptable period?

Absolutely-- there's no harm in asking and there's no law which says the other guy has to accept.

[Ulrich Mayring]

I was always under the impression that you can't give putts conditionally?

But I also don't understand the purpose of it. I only give putts, if I'm 100% sure my opponent makes them. It doesn't matter whether he gives me my putt or not, because if it's 100% for him, then why should my putt have any bearing on that?

I wouldn't think it in the spirit of the game if I started to calculate percentages and then offered a good-good only, if the percentages are on my side. Let's say I think he makes his 95% of the time and I make mine 90% of the time, but he thinks he makes his only 80% of the time, whereas I make mine 85% of the time, then we would both agree on good-good and we both think we pulled a fast one. But to me that has nothing to do with golf.

Ulrich

[Tim Martin]

I was always under the impression that you can't give putts conditionally?

But I also don't understand the purpose of it. I only give putts, if I'm 100% sure my opponent makes them. It doesn't matter whether he gives me my putt or not, because if it's 100% for him, then why should my putt have any bearing on that?

I wouldn't think it in the spirit of the game if I started to calculate percentages and then offered a good-good only, if the percentages are on my side. Let's say I think he makes his 95% of the time and I make mine 90% of the time, but he thinks he makes his only 80% of the time, whereas I make mine 85% of the time, then we would both agree on good-good and we both think we pulled a fast one. But to me that has nothing to do with golf.

Ulrich

It is another unique facet of match play that does not exist in medal. Karma has way of rearing it's head when the opponent turns down a good good only to miss after the offerer makes his. It doesn't take much to figure out if the putts are of comparable length and short enough that both will probably be made. It can also speed up play and as previously mentioned the offer can be rejected. I don't see how it violates the spirit of the game.

[Tim Martin]

I was always under the impression that you can't give putts conditionally?

But I also don't understand the purpose of it. I only give putts, if I'm 100% sure my opponent makes them. It doesn't matter whether he gives me my putt or not, because if it's 100% for him, then why should my putt have any bearing on that?

I wouldn't think it in the spirit of the game if I started to calculate percentages and then offered a good-good only, if the percentages are on my side. Let's say I think he makes his 95% of the time and I make mine 90% of the time, but he thinks he makes his only 80% of the time, whereas I make mine 85% of the time, then we would both agree on good-good and we both think we pulled a fast one. But to me that has nothing to do with golf.

Ulrich

[Carl Johnson]

Reminds me of a situation in a senior inter-club two-ball match about seven years ago.  My opponent and I were both at about two feet.  He said, "Good, good?"  I said "agreed" and picked my ball up.  He said, "Oh, I thought you knew I was just kidding."  Of course, I had no idea.  I cannot remember how the matter was resolved.  No further comment from me here.

[Tim Martin]

Reminds me of a situation in a senior inter-club two-ball match about seven years ago.  My opponent and I were both at about two feet.  He said, "Good, good?"  I said "agreed" and picked my ball up.  He said, "Oh, I thought you knew I was just kidding."  Of course, I had no idea.  I cannot remember how the matter was resolved.  No further comment from me here.

I think that says all we need to know about your opponent.  Now that violates the spirit of the game.

[Jonathan Mallard]

While watching a match in the Carnegie Shield at Royal Dornoch I heard a player offer a good-good, in which one player had a significantly longer putt.
I understand it is not a rules violation but  is it cheeky, poor form or an acceptable practice in match play to negotiate?

If the word "Bunch" is used, is that more palatable?

[Ricardo Ramirez Calvo]

Reminds me of a situation in a senior inter-club two-ball match about seven years ago.  My opponent and I were both at about two feet.  He said, "Good, good?"  I said "agreed" and picked my ball up.  He said, "Oh, I thought you knew I was just kidding."  Of course, I had no idea.  I cannot remember how the matter was resolved.  No further comment from me here.

According to Decision 2-4/3, since your oponent's statement reasonably led you to believe that your next stroke had been conceded, you should have replaced your ball without penalty and play your next stroke.

[Bill_McBride]

Reminds me of a situation in a senior inter-club two-ball match about seven years ago.  My opponent and I were both at about two feet.  He said, "Good, good?"  I said "agreed" and picked my ball up.  He said, "Oh, I thought you knew I was just kidding."  Of course, I had no idea.  I cannot remember how the matter was resolved.  No further comment from me here.

According to Decision 2-4/3, since your oponent's statement reasonably led you to believe that your next stroke had been conceded, you should have replaced your ball without penalty and play your next stroke.

Or struck him with your putter.  You would be exonerated. 

[Jon Wiggett]

Reminds me of a situation in a senior inter-club two-ball match about seven years ago.  My opponent and I were both at about two feet.  He said, "Good, good?"  I said "agreed" and picked my ball up.  He said, "Oh, I thought you knew I was just kidding."  Of course, I had no idea.  I cannot remember how the matter was resolved.  No further comment from me here.

According to Decision 2-4/3, since your oponent's statement reasonably led you to believe that your next stroke had been conceded, you should have replaced your ball without penalty and play your next stroke.

Ricardo,

I think you will find that once conceded you cannot take the concession back. I do not have the decision in front of me but I would imagine it is to do with MISUNDERSTANDING a concession has been given. In this case the concession was clearly given whether as a joke or not. It is also clearly poor form on the joker's part as well.

Jon

[Sean_A]

I was always under the impression that you can't give putts conditionally?

But I also don't understand the purpose of it. I only give putts, if I'm 100% sure my opponent makes them. It doesn't matter whether he gives me my putt or not, because if it's 100% for him, then why should my putt have any bearing on that?

I wouldn't think it in the spirit of the game if I started to calculate percentages and then offered a good-good only, if the percentages are on my side. Let's say I think he makes his 95% of the time and I make mine 90% of the time, but he thinks he makes his only 80% of the time, whereas I make mine 85% of the time, then we would both agree on good-good and we both think we pulled a fast one. But to me that has nothing to do with golf.

Ulrich

Ulrich

I will remember not to wear a hearing aid around your then    Is no gimmies an Ulrich or a Germanic deal? 

You are numerically way too analytical because there is no way to calculate the percentages with any accuracy.  Its obvious to me you take the game far more seriously than I do.  I offer good-good when I think the likelihood is both guys will make the putt and we can just kick on. 

The only time I am hesitant to offer a concession is when a guy gets a shot on a hole.  I have to be convinced he will not miss the putt because I'll be damned if I am gonna give a shot on the tee and on the green. 

Anyway, to answer the question, I think an offer of good-good no matter the length of putts is fine.  Golfers have the final say as to accept or not so there is no reason to hot.  I have had times where an offer of good-good was made and accepted when it guaranteed a loss of the hole because guys forgot about shots given.  I am sure folks don't do this intentionally. 

Ciao 

[Ulrich Mayring]

You give putts, when you think your opponent "probably" makes it? So essentially you're saying that you'll give him some putts he wouldn't have made. Interesting concept!

I haven't found anything in the rules of golf concerning good-good. Any decisions that I missed?

Its obvious to me you take the game far more seriously than I do.

I assume we are talking about real competions here, not friendly games. The original poster mentioned the Carnegie Shield. I would hope that everyone takes these contests very seriously in the sense that the rules of golf are observed to the letter.

Ulrich

[Ulrich Mayring]

You can extend that to any type of gamesmanship. I believe matches should be won on the merits of the golf being played.

Obviously, others may see it differently and think gamesmanship is fun or that good-good is not gamesmanship. That's perfectly fine with me, I like to see happy people on the course. But if someone is offering good-good to me (in an official competition), I think he either wants to trick me or he chickens out from putting. What other reason could there be? Saving time is no argument, he could just give me my putt then.

Ulrich

[Scott Warren]

Good-good is something I'm happy to offer in a casual match with a mate, but when it is all on the line in a proper competitive match, I'm backing myself to make putts and I can't imagine a situation where I'd offer it.

In an Interclub divisional final last year I was 2-down on the 11th green with a bogey putt of 7 feet across a hill and my opponent had a 6-footer up the hill. For reasons best known to himself, he looks over and suggests we pick them both up... Ummm, okay! I ended up winning 2&1. I didn't dare ask over lunch afterwards what the f**k he was thinking.

[Jon Wiggett]

Ulrich,

so if you and your opponent have a 2" putts for the halve you would insist on putting it out? Both players having putts so short as to be unmissable are common occurrences in matchplay and it makes sense to halve with gimmies. I do agree I would not generally look at halves on putts of any length though. It is all a matter of common sense and what you feel the situation dictates at the time. It is part and parcel of matchplay and a good indicator of character.

Jon

[Ulrich Mayring]

Jon, I assume by 2" you mean 2 feet, not 2 inches

Let me rephrase good-good: "If you make me putt this ridiculous tiddler, I'll make you putt yours!"

That sounds petty, doesn't it? If he has a ridiculous tiddler, then you should give it to him, period.

Ulrich

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon, I assume by 2" you mean 2 feet, not 2 inches

Let me rephrase good-good: "If you make me putt this ridiculous tiddler, I'll make you putt yours!"

That sounds petty, doesn't it? If he has a ridiculous tiddler, then you should give it to him, period.

Ulrich

2" = 2 inches and generally you would offer 'halves' or 'good-good'. What you are saying sounds ridiculous or the more ridiculous one of one 2" putt being conceded and the other not is what you are arguing though if I am not mistaken. You cannot argue that 'halves' are stupid to give and then counter with its petty not to but in effect that is what you have done

Jon

[Ulrich Mayring]

Two inch putts are obviously to be given. If my opponent makes me putt two inches, I will still not make him putt three. That would be ridiculous. Why would I be ridiculous, just because my opponent is?

There is no place for good-good. I'll give unmissable putts, I'll see missable ones. What has the length of my own putt got to do with it?

Ulrich

[Mark Bourgeois]

There is no place for good-good. I'll give unmissable putts, I'll see missable ones. What has the length of my own putt got to do with it?

Ulrich

Ulrich, surely as long as sportsmanship exists there is room for good-good. See: Sergio's agreement with Rickie Fowler to halve the 7th earlier this year at the WGC match play.

[Carl Rogers]

Reminds me of a situation in a senior inter-club two-ball match about seven years ago.  My opponent and I were both at about two feet.  He said, "Good, good?"  I said "agreed" and picked my ball up.  He said, "Oh, I thought you knew I was just kidding."  Of course, I had no idea.  I cannot remember how the matter was resolved.  No further comment from me here.

According to Decision 2-4/3, since your oponent's statement reasonably led you to believe that your next stroke had been conceded, you should have replaced your ball without penalty and play your next stroke.

I am not sure how that squares with the rule.  My rule book says "A concession may not be declined or withdrawn".  How do you know when a "concession" is a real one or not?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Carl,

Here is Decision 2-4/3:

2-4/3
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.

[Carl Rogers]

Mark, no substitute for clear simple communication

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()