As the dinner line starts inching its way around the corner at the Ugly Dog, Foremost knows that prime golf season in the mountains is at hand, as the length of the dinner line generally foreshadows a rise in Rules grumblings from the area golf courses. These grumblings are, of course, pleasant at first, as the serious club competitions are only just beginning.

A Reader may or may not be surprised to hear that F was a party to, or witness to a couple of these minor squabbles.

1. Facts: Colliding Balls (Men’s Game Stroke Play)

F watched intently as his 35- foot birdie putt crested the ridge left on the Par 5 17th Hole at HCC curving sharply right towards the back-center pin placement. As F’s ball approached the cup, a ball appeared from the other direction, stopping 6 inches above the cup, deflecting F’s near-certain birdie.

“That was gonna be a birdie”, said F.

“It was going to go 8-feet past the hole”, countered WB who had just barely missed his own birdie effort. “I did you a favor”. Both players tapped in and claimed pars.

F hesitates to assign blame for this unfortunate incident as both players, in fact, thought they were “out” and entitled to putt. Clearly the balls were of a similar distance away, and it had simply not occurred to either player to ask the other for a measurement or an agreement as to whose turn it was to hit. In retrospect, F would have been facing WB who was across the green putting with his back to F, but even F should be excused in this situation, as the 17th is a large undulating green requiring intense concentration which F clearly demonstrated and for which he should be applauded.

Issues: Was there a penalty? Was the hole scored correctly?

Ruling:

As the deflection was clearly “accidental” rather than “intentional”, no penalty would arise and F’s ball would be played as it lay after the deflection. (But See, An exception to this rule would have applied if both balls had been “at rest” on the putting green before F’s stroke, in which case F would have suffered the General Penalty for striking a ball at rest (two strokes in Stroke Play). R11.1(a). F finds, however, that the exception does not apply, as while WB’s ball had been “at rest” on the putting green, it was clearly not at rest as F putted. WB’s ball had been “in motion” as both players had putted at the same time. F’s tap-in for par was therefore correct, as he was required to play the ball from where it lay after the collision with an object at rest.

WB’s tap-in par is more problematic. His ball was moved a couple of inches closer to the hole with the deflection to a distance of 4 inches v 6 inches. He tapped this ball in prior to any concession (which certainly would have been forthcoming) without repositioning his ball to its original spot at rest. In so doing, he played from a “Wrong Place” resulting in the General Penalty, two strokes. R14.7a.

(Ok, F certainly wouldn’t have called this on a teammate in a Men’s game …would he?).

2. Facts: Advice

(1) Range Finders

F suspects he has never played the 3rd Hole at HCC (a par 4) or the 11th Hole at OEI (a par 3) without a similar conversation. At HCC, as a player faces a sharply ascending second shot, someone looks at a range finder and might say, “It’s 117 yards, playing 134 yards”. At the sharply descending OEI 11th, someone stands on the tee with a range finder, and might say, “It’s 134 yards, playing 117 yards”.

Issue: Do the Rules permit range finders with distance adjustments for slope?

Ruling:

Rule 4.3 “Use of Equipment” generally prohibits equipment which might “create a potential advantage” or “reduce the need for skill or judgment”. Having said that, the Rule notes that that equipment interpreting distance is “generally allowed” and equipment measuring “elevation changes” is generally “not allowed”. R4.3(1). Further, the Rule notes that a Committee may adopt a Local Rules prohibiting distance devices.

The penalty for breach of R4.3 would be two strokes on the first violation followed be disqualification for subsequent use.

F finds that the Committee has the discretion to permit or prohibit distance devices, including those measuring slope-adjusted distances. (See, Committee Procedures, Section 8, Model Rule G-5). While the Model Rule says only that the Committee may “prohibit” distance measuring devices, F’s research indicates that the Rule, by implication, may be drafted to “permit” the usage of distance devices, including slope measurements, as well.

Players might want to check their Local Rule. Pro JK at OEI advised that while slope indicators might be prohibited in certain competitions, they were not prohibited generally in competitions at OEI as a LR, including the weekly Men’s games.

(2) “Watch Out!”

F faced a treacherous downhill 12-foot birdie putt from the greenside frog hair on the Par 5 6th Hole at HCC. As F stood over the putt, opponent AN whispered some friendly encouragement… “I imagine if you get it through the frog hair, it will get to the cup”.

F mentally registered this kindly encouragement and gently massaged his putt through the frog hair onto the green. The putt quit on him about six feet above the hole. His next putt missed and never stopped rolling, but the come-backer was graciously conceded by AN who had won the hole.

F reluctantly considered calling a penalty on AN for his unsolicited “advice” …would he?

Ruling

“Advice” is a defined term under the ROG and includes any comment given which might advise a player on how to play a hole or make a stroke. Under R10.2 the penalty for giving an opponent “advice” in Match Play is the General Penalty, Loss of Hole. AN was definitely in a problem area when he suggested F might just want to nudge his putt through the frog hair.

Public information, such as distance, is allowed, however, as is general kindly encouragement, and F must acknowledge that any fool standing over that putt would have known that it would proceed quickly downhill to the hole…yes, even F.

F finds, therefore, that the observation by AN was public information and kindly encouragement rather than prohibited advice, and that the failure of the putt was simply a result of poor execution. Further, it is too early in the competitive season to call that penalty on AN!

By the way, the barbecue wings are really good at the Dog.

As usual , all comments or corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,
F