Foremost well remembers the first post-matrimonial advice he was ever given related to golf. An older gentleman, a close family friend, engaged F at his wedding reception with two suggestions:

First, he said, offer to help clean the new china and make sure that in doing so, you drop and break the nicest gift, the finest piece … you will never have to fool with that stuff again.

Second, he said, let your bride know that as a devoted husband, you plan to cut back on your regular weekend games and only play 18 holes on Saturday and Sunday instead of your regular 36 per day. “This will be your last chance for playing both days.”

F fondly remembers this sage and ancient advice as he has watched another “regular-play” strategy emerge … this from some of F’s younger Readers. Here is how it works (it took F a while to figure it out!):

The players (each with a handful of snotty-nosed kids and a frazzled wife) return home from the “big” “match”. Each of the four players, win or lose, waves a handful of crisp, $100 bills in the air with an exuberant claim of another easy victory! Any resentment or anger over frequent play vanishes! The wife is soon pushing the player out the door! “Don’t you need to play tomorrow?”

What a scam! Brilliant! Why didn’t F think of this one?

I. Provisional Language -Facts

(1) The Wuhan virus, of course, now has many players walking and carrying their bags … yes, even F.

The 7th hole at BMCC is a par 4 bordered on the right in its entirety by the Penalty Area (PA) of Richland Creek. F hit a big, powerful, ugly, slice. He was relieved to see the ball clear the creek, as a treed and grassy expanse lay on the opposite shore and F believed that he might have a chance to find his ball and play from the that side of the creek.

F started off to search for his ball in the PA. He would need to cross the forty-foot bridge by the teeing area, walk 200 yards down the opposite bank, then return to the teeing area over the same bridge, as the crossing stones upstream were underwater. This would be, at least, a 10-15 minute effort to walk back and forth, assuming F exercised his rights for his 3-minute search, and gave proper deliberation to his forthcoming shot.

“You need to hit a provisional”, said opponent BzM, sensing F was about to cut into his afternoon.

“I believe that suggestion is a penalty”, said F’s partner RM. “You can’t give my partner advice.”

“I’m pretty sure that ball is OB”, responded BzM. “I saw it heading over West Tyne Road”.

(2)

On the 11th hole this same day, RM hit a drive which disappeared over the trees in the direction of Enquirer Avenue and OB. RM appeared unconcerned as he picked up his tee.

“Do you think you should consider whether to hit a provisional?”, said opponent JS, clearly making an effort to try to phrase his question so that it could not be construed as advice.

I. Issue

Is it “advice” to recommend provisional play?

I. Ruling

A recommendation to play a “provisional” is often simply an observation by one of the players in the group that a ball might be OB. It saves the linguistic step of first saying, “that ball just flew over West Tyne Road”.

Nevertheless, F finds that the specific wording one uses to present this option is important and could give rise to the General Penalty for giving “Advice”. (R10.2). “You need to play a provisional” is a “verbal comment … (on) how to play a hole”. (Def. “Advice”), whereas, “you might want to play a provisional” seems to be an option for play under the Rules, which is not “Advice” as defined. (Ibid).

II. Lines and Stakes — Facts

The 8th hole at BMCC is a par 5 characterized by an elevated green, which is fronted by a severe slope extending down to a small, tributary creek regularly marked as a Penalty Area (PA).

Player HC’s approach shot had cleared the creek. He was seeking free relief from an Abnormal Course Condition (ACC), in this case an “Animal Hole”, which relief is allowed anywhere on the course, except when the ACC is in a PA (R16.1a(2)).

Two factual questions caused some hesitation as to whether this situation warranted free relief:

(1) Was the ball actually “in” the animal hole?

(2) Was the ball outside of the edge of the PA?

Although the margins of this PA are generally marked with a line of red paint, no markings were found this day on this PA, or any other PA for that matter, as the course has been operating with reduced staffing and essential maintenance only due to the Wuhan. The players could not agree as to whether the animal hole would have been beyond the painted edge of the PA. “It would have been close”, said HC.

Two red stakes were visible some distance away (by the bridge in one direction and then further down the creek). Observing a straight line between the stakes, there was no disagreement. The ball was beyond and outside the PA.

II. Issue

Is the edge of the PA determined by observable stakes when regularly painted lines are absent?

II. Ruling

As a general rule, a player cannot take advantage of the Committee’s failure to define the edge of a PA. (The old Decision on this point ruled that a player whose ball was clearly in a lake, could not claim “casual water” because his ball was beyond the stakes marking the Water Hazard).

F finds that the usual diligence of the Committee in marking edges to PAs has been relaxed due to constraints related to virus conditions, and therefore, that the stakes alone cannot be determinative.

The edge of the PA may be defined by lines, stakes, or physical features (Def. “PA”). When the edge is not clearly defined by the Committee, the edge is defined by “physical features … where the ground slopes down to define the depression that can hold water”. Ibid. The definition further states, when the edge is defined by lines or physical features, stakes may show where the PA is, “but otherwise have no meaning”. Ibid.

In the absence of the normal placement of painted lines marking the edge of this PA, F finds that the edge should be located by physical features. Player BF played in and witnessed this event, and upon interrogation, testified that the ball was below a break in the general slope towards the creek, in a distinct and separate depression of the creek bed.

Accordingly, F finds that the ball and animal hole were within the edges of the PA, despite their position relative to the stakes, and that HC was not entitled to free relief from the ACC.

Of course, many Readers may now wonder if the ball was even “in” the animal hole. Well paraphrasing player WJC, that depends what the definition of “in” is.

An “animal hole” also includes any track or trail leading to the hole, or any depression or irregularity of surface caused by digging. (Def. “Animal Hole”). F finds that under this definition, and the visual evidence provided, the ball was in an animal hole, giving rise to free relief, but for the unfortunate circumstance of the PA.

As usual, all comments or corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,

F