I hate
to say, but I was unable to witness the incident with Alison Lee at the Solheim
Cup as I was in the middle of running a championship, but after hearing the
incident and some of the uproar I want to clarify the situation as it is really
pretty clear.
Alison
Lee believed that her short putt was conceded based on something she heard, so
she lifted her ball. Her opponents Hull and specifically Pettersen denied
conceding the opponent and this was confirmed by referee Dan Maselli. So Lee was penalized one stroke, which
resulted in her side losing the hole and eventually the match.
Rule
2-4 specifies that a concession cannot be declined or withdrawn, but in this
case a concession was never made.
Because a concession was never made, Lee was not authorized to lift her
ball without marking it and therefore incurs the one-stroke penalty under Rule
20-1. This exact type situation is
covered in Decision 2-4/3.
In the
Decision, an opponent made a statement which the player interpreted as a
concession and lifted the ball. The opponent
then stated the stroke was not conceded.
The ruling given is that if the opponent’s statement could have
reasonably led the player to believe the stroke was conceded, there would be no
penalty and the ball must be replaced.
However, if the statement could not have reasonably led the player to
believe the stroke was conceded, the player incurs a penalty stroke under Rule
20-1.
In the
Solheim incident, Pettersen and Hull were adamant that nothing was stated that
could have led Lee to believe a concession was made and the referee did not
hear anything resembling a concession either, so Lee incurred the penalty. While a lot has been made out of the
sportsmanship behind the concession denial the simple fact is that Lee should
never have lifted the ball without being sure it had been conceded.
