PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

In the realm of often-arcane golf rules, there was another case a week or so ago that underlined how difficult the subject can be.

One of my friends, if read this point, will no doubt ask my why I focus on such a subject.  There is no good answer just as they is no good answer for the question about why Sir Edmund Hillary decided to climb Mt. Everest so many years ago.

His answer:  “Because it’s there.”

That’s my answer, too:  I focus on golf rules “because they are there.”

The new rules issue arose in the World Golf Championship Dell Technologies Match Play tournament for professional golfers, which was held at Austin Country Club in Texas a week or so ago.

There was a match between two players – Dustin Johnson and Kevin Na – who now will no doubt remember the rules issue that arose for a long time, though both have said they hold no grudges.

What happened was this:

• Johnson had about a 10-foot for par on the 12^th hole, but missed by inches.

• Then, he quickly raked the putt,“apparently” not waiting for Na formally to concede the short one.

• Na called him on it, saying that the putt had to be conceded audibly with such words as “it’s good” before Johnson could pick it up.

• Johnson said he thought Na had done so.

The produced a tense exchange at the end of the hole, with both caddies listening intently as Johnson insisted that the putt was so short — the Shot-Link system had it at 13 inches, but it looked even closer — it never crossed his mind that it wouldn’t be conceded by Na.

Still, Johnson tersely apologized and began walking to the next tee.  Na then affirmed that they had halved the whole — or, in other words, that he would not enforce any sort of penalty on Johnson for the quick-rake before a concession.

Of course, that wasn’t the end of it.

After the round, tournament rules officials met with both players and asked them to recount what happened.

Put simply, the officials’ concern was this:  If Johnson picked up the short putt without the concession and, if Na had then said he would not call the penalty, both players could have been disqualified for violating the rules.

Golf rule 3-2(b) specifies that “a concession is only made when it is clearly communicated.”  If the audible concession had not occurred, Johnson would have been at fault.  And, if Na had decided not to try to enforce the penalty, he would have been at fault.

In talking with rules officials, Johnson maintained that he had heard Na concede the putt, and it turned out that officials chose to believe him.  That meant the incident was over; no penalties and no disqualifications.

The headline on the blog calls golf rules arcane.  I even had trouble above recounting what happened.

But, the situation called to my mind what has happened when I have served as a starter at Oregon Golf Association match play tournaments.  On the first tee, after giving general instructions to the players, I always call on a rules official to add to my comments..

Invariably, one of the statements is this:

If you are going to concede a putt (which is within match play rules, not stroke play rules), make sure you do so audibly so everyone can hear it, especially the other player and any referee supervising the match.

If that had occurred in the Johnson-Na case, there would have been no controversy.