Ollie On Not Conceding Tiger's Putt: "Rules are the rules"
Apparently in Captain Jose Maria Olazabal's eyes, the rules forbid a player from conceding a putt! 
At today's London press conference, Ollie said that he will not captain in 2014, that he's received congratulatory messages from the likes of Rafael Nadal and the King of Spain and that three of his four cart drivers are in line for Captaincies (The Mechanic was not mentioned after McGinley, Clarke and Bjorn!).
But most curious of all was Olazabal's rationale for insisting Francesco Molinari finish the final match even after (A) the Cup had been retained (B) the chaotic setting was not conducive to proper golf and (C) young Molinari had the class to recognize this:
"I said to Francesco 'you have to half this match'. There's a huge difference between tying and winning the cup. I know some people might think Francesco should have given Tiger that short putt, but at the end of the day the rules are the rules. It was important to finish the match."
Yes, the rules say you have to finish all of the matches, but that does not preclude a player from conceding a putt. Or maybe those famous concessions from the past violated Captain Ollie's Merely Retaining The Cup Is For Losers.
Imagine an American captain saying "rules are rules" in an identical situation?
Fleet Street couldn't file those "Ugly American" columns fast enough!
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 10:34 AM
Reader Comments (126)
The U.S. team did wrong in '99. Most everybody would admit this. The European Team repeated the same mistake after Kaymer holed the winning putt.
Ollie missed a chance to show great sportsmanship. That's fine, he was well within his right to do so. I am sure he couldn't care less what I think but I do not think I am alone.
And to make an excuse that the rules say you must finish... that's such a weak cop out... further commenting on one's character. If Olly was to come out and say, look, in hindsight my judgement was offcolor and I wish to offer an apology to RC fans for not taking what would have obviously been a classy move.... then I think this would go away. I'm inpartial to who wins the Ryder Cup... but now both Seve (GRHS) and Olly have shown that winning is put above everything else... including integrity and respect( I was already lead to believe that Seve wasn't the greatest sport either. So please no more Spanish Captains... although I must admit that I do love the Mechanic dearly lol!
I'll take the Ryder cup opinions of Olazabal over mister "high level amateur" forty any day of the week. 2 green jackets, a wheelbarrow of Ryder cup points, and a WIN as a captain.
Tell us some of your sectional qualifying war stories maybe?
i quit reading all this crap.
Molinari could have conceded at anytime if it was his turn---
What was Ollie gonna do, ground him? Not let him have a drink with the boys?
Ollie would have came off looking like an ass if he had scolded the Italian. Even the change rattler would have laughed it off had ''orders'' been disobeyed.
A sad ending to a great competition. Phil applauding Roses putt, Lee laughing with Kuch about the putt out-- the joke being ~even Lee could make that one! When guys are walking off laughing together--some of yall take all this far too seriously.... from the ''conspiracies''about Rory being late to god only knows.... all these guys were drinking together while some of you were getting ready to write letters to the commish.
And Geoff...you are getting the last laugh... over 80 posts about ''nothing''...a concession....a lack of a putt or stroke....good comedy...Seinfeld would be proud.
I sincerely wish that Tiger had buried the putt for the W so this hand wringing could have been avoided (and I think it would have been).
The initial quotes I read seemed to indicate that Tiger wasn't that bent about it, but I didn't hear the tone in which he delivered them.
As other have said, 1993 seems analogous, and I don't recall a lot of angst about that.
I agree with those expressing disappointment with Kaymer (though to equate his action to Brookline is silly, his match was over, Leonard's wasn't't). A shame, perhaps, that Olly was with Molinari, rather than Kaymer since I'm pretty sure that, when one of the earlier matches finished and the European golfer turned to his team mates, Olly was seen reminding him to shake his opponent's hand.
As to the suggestion that the Captain's Agreement should have been ignored, that's also silly. These were exactly he circumstances the agreement covered. If it should have been ignored here it was an utter waste of time.
KLG: I think it should have been conceded to any player, period. But not to have conceded it to Tiger, in particular, just adds a little more sourness to it... simply because he is the greatest ever. And I think that if that had been Arny up there rather than Tiger, no European Caption would have had the gaul to not concede. That's part of the point here, it was ignorant not to concede and let the RC end 14-14.. especially considering that the odds were againt Moliinari anyway. Man you guys just don't get what sportsmanship is all about.
I had to watch this entire event overseas with the heavily biased BBC coverage - whining about the US corwd continuously... and reminiscing about how WONDERFUL the UK crowds are. (as a side topic, the BBC coverage simply sucks compared to normal US coverage... really amateurish) But even THEY started to question what was going on with Olly from the fairway... then quickly shut up bercause they realized the situation was not a classy move by Olazabal.
Geoff - I have no doubt that the Americans thought the move was very unclassy.. but I started early in this blog by saying that the American media can't jump on this because they will certainly be viewed as sour grapes. But i'm independent and feel strongly that Olazabal dropped the ball big time.
Did you actually watch? The chaos around the green by the Europeans shouldn't be factored in by Ollie or Molinari?
What I think people miss here is that Tiger basically gave it away, which is consistent with his perennial lack of enthusiasm for any contest that doesn’t glorify him and him only. When the decision was made in the fairway that the hole should be contested, then as consummate professionals, they should go ahead and get the job done. If FM doesn’t give you the putt, then fine, step up and sink it like a professional should. If it was a missable putt, there’s absolutely no reason why any opponent would give it to you to lose the match, especially when the decision was already made to play on. In this case, Tiger just didn’t care enough, missed a putt that he shouldn’t have and now we all have to talk about whether the Euros are sore winners, when they were merely being professional.
And how many times do I have to repeat... I'm not American... I don't have any skin in this! And if I'm not correct, there other Europeans/British on this blog with the same perspective.
And this is not about Americans being poor losers either... they're not contesting ANYTHING... they were just unlucky and they have to live with it.
Wow if you don't get why this was a failure in sportsmanship... then there's no hope for you.
I understand it is hard to be called a poor winner... but Olly BLEW IT BIG TIME... and the Ryder Cup will NEVER BE THE SAME AGAIN.
Ok I'm out of here... can't waste anymore time chatting with squareheads. Go on and worship that small-minded Olazabal all you like! I only hope for Molinari's sake he truly saw the pettiness in his Captain's instructions.
Cheers
It was huge in 1969, and that's why Sam Snead gave Jack Nicklaus a massive bollocking after conceding Jacklin's putt.
It was huge in 1989, and that's why Curtis Strange poured every ounce of his guts into that stiffed long iron at the last to beat Woosnam and clich a tie, a while after Tom Kite had curtly snapped at BBC's Steve Ryder that YOU HAVE NOT YET WON THE RYDER CUP.
It was huge in 2012, and that's why Jose Maria Olazabal ordered Molinari to try and win the last hole after the commotion beside the green had calmed down somewhat.
But I have a feeling that we'll just have to agree to disagree on this matter.
Isn't Author suggesting that Molinari "offer" something to Woods that Woods already had? A half? That seems like a bizarre point.
I think most of the pro-Euro commenters are not really addressing the key point, which is that since the Euros themselves caused the disruption of the Woods - Molinari match, basic ettiquette suggests generosity towards Woods. I'd bet many of the Euros themselves would say that the last half point was not as well earned as the first 14.
At the same time it really didn't change anything, so I think people should move on to the more interesting question: should the Ryder Cup go back to GB&I vs. USA? Or really GB&NI (UK) vs. USA. Given that the non-UK players have been pretty much dead weight since Garcia fell off, the UK by itself might just be a stronger team....
2008: UK players +2 (8-6); rest of Europe -7 (3.5-10.5); USA wins by 5 (16.5-11.5).
2010: UK players +3.5 (9.25-5.75); rest of Europe -2.5 (5.25-7.75); Europe wins by 1 (14.5-13.5).
2012: UK players +5 (11.5-6.5); rest of Europe -4 (3-7); Europe wins by 1 (14.5-13.5) [obviously if Molinari doesn't get the cheap half point the rest of Europe went 2.5-7.5 and was -5]
Over the last three Ryder Cups the UK players have scored 28.75 points and had 18.25 points scored against them. The non-UK players have scored 11.75 points and had 25.25 points scored against them. I would think you could haul out the Ross Fishers and the Jamie Donaldsons and the Richie Ramseys and do just as well.
I would agree that Kaymer should have shaken hands with his opponent before celebrating. However, the celebration itself was, under the circumstances, understandable. Kaymer did after all hole the putt that produced one of the greatest comebacks in the history of sport. In no way should it ever be compared to the Brookline incident when the green was rushed by american team members and supporters before the european player (Ollie) had had the opportunity to try to make his putt.
I'm sorry but it is you and likely many Europeans who just don't GET the spirit of this type of rivlry. The 1/2 point meant NOTHING to those who understand the sport of rivilry steeped in hundreds of years of tradition in the UK & US. And the point is that the Europeans didn't win more than 14 points... they were conceded the last 1/2 point... probably out of disappointment/embarrassment or maybe to highlight this very point - RETENTION IS THE THEME OF THIS EVENT... not winning & losing!!!! How rude the missing concession by Olly really was in this spirit.
Weg: I'm with you... if you go back to UK golfers only you won't lose much talent (but some I think)...but then you could only have UK Captains... and then maybe some class can be brought back into the event lol! I think Hawkeye's comments above demonstrate well that mainland Europeans just don't get the concept at all... this "Ryder Cup" is a BritishCultural tradition steeped in centuries of sportsmanship. As a young boy when my family travelled to visit a "family friend" we used to have table tennis and snooker rivilries... and it was always about retaining bragging rights from the previous year's visit... not what the score was. I suppose to ask a Spanaird, Italian or Czech for that matter to understand this principle is like Shakespeare's words falling on Vietnamese ears... it just isn't there... like squeezing orange juice from a lemon. I see now that the heart of this problem lies in allowing this event ot spread into different cultures with different principles.
Weg they better do it soon before they start pushing more Spanairds to the Captain's tables lol! Funny thing is I do like Spain... but now I understand the problem. Some Europeans don't GET what this event is all about. Then again I think they do. Hawkeye, if YOU ARE CORRECT, THEN THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN A MINOR CHEER WHEN KAYMER MADE THE PUTT, AND A MASSIVE ONE WHEN TIGER CONCEDED MOLINARI'S PUTT! But instead, everyone celebrated when the retained the cup... not when they "won" the cup (and dishonourably in my opinion.) Going for the extra 1/2 point just isn't gentlemen like... at least not in the tradtion to which this event is born from.
It's frankly bonkers to argue that because it clearly mattered to the Euros that they retained the cup, it shouldn't then matter to them whether they do so outright.
Equally, while some of you may think declining to beat your oppo is a sign of sportsmanship, clearly reasonable and good people disagree. But even if you were right, it doesn't follow that this is some kind of binary analysis where players are either "classy" or classless". A moments reflection will show that it is a moral dead end if you take a "gold standard" of behaviour or action and turn it into expected behaviour. It also diminishes Jack's gesture if this is now simply the requirement not to be "classless".
Finally, if the Team US genuinely feel that the Euros behaved badly in wanting to win outright, I would suggest that might be Exhibit A in any analysis of why the hell they keep under-performing in this Cup.
The Ryder Cup is the trophy being played for- the event, and each match for that matter, is played to win- since there is no playoff the rules have stated that it takes a win to reclaim the trophy- and a tie shall retain it. Historically,when there is a large difference in final score are the remaining matches conceded? NO! So why a judgement in a close match...
Eldrick Woods even said that he felt the putt was inconsequential - and that to me show a major flaw in thinking and approach to the ryder cup. That exposes part of the weakness the Americans have in their approach to playing this type of event. Hence why the recent lack if success. Team Europe gets that each point and half point matters. regardless of who is awarded the trophy that it is a three day event of 28 points. Americans- if they were to ever reclaim the trophy- would be conceded enough to view a tied event as a win because they were awarded the trophy (keep the ryder cup) - there is a big difference between a tie and a win.
The viewpoint of only the Cup matters is shallow in perspective. The Ryder Cup is a prized possession awarded as a result of the event. Until the Americans adopt that viewpoint they will continue to and deserve to fail.
By the way I am an American - and a huge golf fan and enthusiast . Also have always said the Team Europe could send their "second string" team to beat the US- - because of the way they approach the event.
Probably Olly should have done it better, but nothing compares to Brookline -that resumes the worst sportsmanship in golf history-.
And Geoff, the final green story does not shadow the fact that the American team has had a problem, for a long time now, on how to face the competition as a team.
If you we're privileged enough to participate in an event such as the Ryder Cup- and only got to play in it once....
And someone were to ask you who won when you played ...
I would like to think that i would want to be on a WINNING TEAM...
If it were a tie ... How would you answer the question??
Seeing as though you didn't win/lose the previous event ... So you didn't really contribute to the possession of the cup...
So there is a difference in that lat point or half point
Well played Francesco Molanari
One of the sillier analyses I have seen. For a start, how do you deal with pairs matches when a GB&I player is teamed with a European? On Friday afternoon there is absolutely no way that Westwood wins a point if he isn't playing with Colsaerts who won that match single handed.
If we are going to change anything, let's get a tie break in place. So long as (some) people don't want to distinguish retaining the rophy from winning the match, the competitioin is unfair because one team only has to get 14 points and the other 14 1/2.
To answer your question, yes, I watched every second of it. I have also seen similar scenes at other Ryder Cups with matches still on the course, most recently in 2002 when, as Tiger has mentioned, he was again last and was still out there when the Euros celebrated McGinley's putt on 18, and everywhere else they happened to be standing at the time. That celebration may have been slightly more muted, maybe you were there, but I don't recall it as such. This is what is done in that case--the players still on the course either agree to halve their matches, however they stand to each other, and go in to join everyone else; or they clear the green and play to the conclusion. Again, in 1989 the Euros got to 14 and offered halves in the remaining 4 matches; the USA declined because they wanted to win all 4 to claim a tie, not a loss-and did so. The situation is pretty analogous. The concessions of Stewart and Montgomerie (who only conceded a half in his own match, not a loss) came after their teams had clinched a win, NOT a tie. You must know all this.I find it very odd, again, that the greatest player in history is supposed to be conceded a win that he hadn't yet earned, out of sportsmanship. Halve the match, finalize the score at 14.5-13.5 if it doesn't matter to you, and go on in. Why this scenario is not even considered by you I do not understand.
"Weg, [o]ne of the sillier analyses I have seen. For a start, how do you deal with pairs matches when a GB&I player is teamed with a European?"
Well obviously I was sharing the points 50/50. Over the last three Ryder Cups UK/UK teams and UK players in singles have gone 22-11-3 which means they have scored 23.5/36 = 65% of the possible points. Non-UK/non-UK teams and non-Uk players in singles have 5-16-5 which means they have scored 7.5/26 = 29% of the possible points. Teams consisting of a UK player paired with a non-UK player have gone 7-10-5 which is 9.5/22 or 43%.
I kinda doubt, despite the fine round by Colsaerts, that over those 22 matches the non-UK players (scoring 29% on their own) have been systematically outplaying the UK players (scoring 65% on their own). If you weighted those points by each player's contributions in other situations (instead of using the 50/50) the non-UK players would look even worse.
By the way, I don't really think the European Ryder Cup team would be better off with Richie Ramsey instead of Martin Kaymer or Peter Hanson. But Europe has only won the last two Cups because its UK players were able to overcome the weaker play of the non-UK players.
Finally, next time someone claims that Player X is a punk because he hasn't won a major, it seems to me the rejoinder is Montgomerie, Westwood, Garcia, Donald, Poulter, Rose and their amazing Ryder Cup performances. Donald, Poulter and Rose are (using my silly method of accounting) 14.5-4 over the last 3 Cups while their teammates have gone 26-39.5. In other words those 3 have been averaging a personal score of 2.1-.6 (net gain of 1.5 points for Europe) while their average teammate goes .9-1.4 (net loss of .5 points for Europe). Is that amazing or what? I am sure looking forward to seeing if they can keep it up (or if Dufner or Bradley can become that kind of guy for us).
The bleating about the Woods/Molinari concession just sounds like sour grapes to me. It should have either been called off on the 18th fairway or not at all.
As a side issue, why is Woods, Striker and Furyk getting all the blame for the defeat? Snedeker and Kuchar were the key failures to me - both had very winnable games and failed badly.
Brookline rankled because the line was crossed (which most Americans subsequently admitted), but the European team gave full credit for the US's comeback. Why can't you do the same this time around?
A large number of US RC spectators DO lack class, shouting 'top it', 'get wet' etc. There's no need for it, and European fans don't stoop so low. This isn't whining, it's a fact (and counterproductive from the US's POV because it just fires up the Euro boys more).