Poor Robert Karlsson. The UBS Hong Kong Open was his for the taking. Or to give. While outside of golf it is generally better to give than take, in golf, well, not so much. This marks the second week in a row that a tournament was blown, or in the case of Mickelson last week, almost blown, with a bad last hole.

How does a professional golfer play 71 holes of almost flawless golf and then make a doule-bogey on the very last hole? In the case of Karlsson, par would have beaten and bogey would have tied a man who bogeyed the last hole himself. The answer can be summed up in one word: human.

You actually don't have to search hard for similar stories; the most dramatic last hole collapses are well documented: Van de Velde at the British, Mickelson at the US, and Weir at the Canadian come to mind without even having to do a Google. And one that escaped the radar, Montgomerie at the same US Open as Mickelson. (A bigger collapse if you ask me, because of what that win would have meant to his overall career, at this point in his career.) And I'd add Norman and the Masters to the list but that was a last round, not last hole, collapse. But the explanation is the same: human.

Some scenarios boil down to a single putt even. Green, Hoch. Or a chip: T.C. Chen. (What unfortunate initials he has; how could he not have be tagged "Two Chip Chen"?) All of these men are as human as you and me, only the scales are different. How many times have you been on a career best – or even just good - round, only to blow the last hole? Had a birdie putt that you would have made if it were for triple, but missed?Why did you do that? You're human.

I am a bit of a PGATour.com hound and enjoy following my favourite players' scorecards. That is interesting learning in itself as I have found players don't have to be in the lead or have a tournament win in the balance to screw up the last hole. Or two. Or three. I've seen many a player miss the cut because they bogeyed the last three holes. Why does this happen? They're human.

But there's another reason, too.

Change of game plan.

Karlsson at the Hong Kong is a classic example, actually. He reportedly said that his game plan all week long was to play the golf course and not the players. Play as well as I can, and we'll see how I do, he said. Don't worry what anyone else is doing. But that changed on the last hole when, as the TV announcers like to say, it became a match play scenario between Karlsson and Jimenez to take the title. It is important to state right now that it is never a match play scenario unless either a) you decide to play it that way or b) you're actually playing match play! As soon as Karlsson started playing Jimenez and not the 18th hole it was all over for him.

According to his original game plan, Karlsson never would have flirted with the pin – and thus his club choice that came up short - in such a circumstance except that he feared Jimenez birdying and taking the title from him. And as it is better to give than take, he gave Jimenez the trophy rather than have it taken from him. A solid game plan got him to a position to win, and a change of game plan led to a change of result. Now, you could ask, why did he change his game plan? That answer, too, is easy. He's human.

Clive Scarff is a teaching professional and author of the Hit Down Dammit! series of books and CD-Roms.More information can be found at www.hitdowndammit.com.