For some reason the words sounded familiar. In a four-ball match play competition at BMCC, Foremost could only listen as opponent JB was conducting a long-winded Hakeem Jefferies-type soliloquy to a small audience on the first hole.

My partner (BC) and I “have been taken advantage of for many years”, he began, “resulting in a massive transfer of wealth” from our pockets to greedy, undeserving opponents who “have grown rich at our expense”, all the while playing with the sole intention of assuring our economic destruction. “This has got to stop, and it is going to stop …now! All we want is to be treated fairly!”

He continued in this vein for several minutes, raising issues such as age and cart path restrictions, finally arriving at his point. “I would like to suggest”, he intoned (in a manner that didn’t really sound like a mere suggestion) that we play this Match with No Tariffs ….all even, no strokes”.

Despite a century or more of universally-acknowledged and accepted tariff rules in golf, Foremost and his amiable partner, SC, conceded the issue without a fight. Yes … they blinked. The match would be played “All Even”. The moppy-haired tyrant- bully, JB, had secured his first victory before play had even commenced!

1) Wrong Ball(s)?

Facts

Despite their professed victimization, JB and BC had somehow striped their drives long and straight, right down the middle on the Par 4 3rd hole. One ball was about ten feet ahead of the other. JB played first and launched a splendid iron shot that might have rolled just over the back of the green.

BC prepared to hit his ball, but upon examination declared, “JB, you hit my ball”. BC picked up the forward ball, moved back, and played a nice shot from the spot of JB’s prior play. JB then dropped and played a second shot from the locale of the forward ball.

At this point the amiable SC, with Foremost’s full consent, noted to all that JB was disqualified on the hole as he had played a Wrong Ball. He added that he thought the disqualification would result in Loss of Hole for the JB/BC team in Four-Ball competition, an opinion which F shared. BC and JB ignored this declaration and continued their play.

The controversy deepened unexpectedly as JB approached the first ball he had played, which was found just off the back of the green. “This IS my original ball”, he stated. “It has my golden V club logo.” BC then looked at the ball he had played into the green, and announced that it, too, had a golden V club logo.

Although four pars were made on the hole with the balls ultimately played, F and SC announced that they had won the hole due to the play of a “Wrong Ball” by JB, and/or play from a “Wrong Place” by BC (R14.7), both infractions subject to the General Penalty, Loss of Hole.. This course ruling was hotly contested by the JB/BC team who argued that one of their pars had certainly survived as, despite some confusion, they had ultimately finished the hole with their correct balls.

Ruling

The initial conclusion by F and SC that they had won the hole by virtue of JB’s play of a Wrong Ball is incorrect. (See, R23.9a(2): “Only the player (not the partner) gets the general penalty for breach of R6.3c”). Accordingly, JB’s play of a “Wrong Ball” would not have subjected his partner, BC to the Loss of Hole penalty in and of itself.

Nevertheless, F concludes that the “team” loss of hole was otherwise justified. JB’s finding that the ball behind the green really was his was too late. He had already dropped and substituted a second ball which had become his ball in play (R6.3b(2)), even if he had made a mistake in agreeing that the first ball he had hit was a “wrong ball”. So, JB never finished or made a par on the hole.

Further, his conclusion that the ball behind the green was, in fact, his original ball, means that his partner, BC, had picked up his own ball in play and dropped it in a “wrong place”. Therefore, F finds that BC didn’t make a par either.

F admits that he is baffled (this is not surprising) as to which disqualification rule should apply to BC in this instance. If BC and JB had been unable to identify their respective balls (due to the same golden V logo) before playing their second shots, F suspects they would have had to declare both balls “lost” under R7, with play to proceed under R18. But this was not the case. Although JB ultimately declared that he had played his own ball on his second shot (meaning BC had dropped in error), BC was not convinced of any identification error on his part, and insisted he had correctly dropped before his second shot. This was essentially, then, a ball identification squabble between partners.

F finds, therefore, that if the partners were unable to agree even between themselves whether they had played the correct ball, and had loudly verbalized this dispute, an argument that they had completed the hole with the correct ball could not stand. F thus concludes that the decision to award the hole to the F/SC team was correct.

(2) Green Collars

Facts

Several of the green-side collars have been sodded recently at BMCC and are in rough shape. Otherwise lovely chips and putts simply don’t make it through the gnarly sod. The general relief practice F has observed for these conditions is that players allow balls actually resting atop the collar to be moved no closer to the hole, but onto the putting surface. This procedure is actually incorrect as the Local Rule allows relief from seams between the sod, but no relief from the sod itself. F confesses he has been a party to this misapplication of the Local Rule, which has not been modified to accommodate these rather extreme sod conditions.

On this subject, F and Sandwich were getting their butts kicked on the 13th hole of a four-ball competition against AO and GG. GG was 4 inches outside the sod. He decided to putt and before executing his shot carefully tamped down the sod in his line of play to level out the surface irregularities.

F reluctantly called a penalty on GG for taking a prohibited action in improving his line of play under R8.1 which concerns actions allowed or prohibited in dealing with Conditions Affecting the Stroke. The penalty is the General Penalty, Loss of Hole. GG thought he could improve the sod condition since it was clearly ground under repair.

Ruling

F was correct (See, R8.1a(4) which states a player cannot “remove or press down sand or loose soil”). Unfortunately, this hole victory was short-lived. F and Sandwich still got whupped.

As usual, all comments and corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,

F