1. Facts: A Short Memory

Despite the gracious and restrained Ruling issued recently by Foremost in favor of opponent AN (an opinion , by the way, for which F was widely criticized), AN showed no such mercy for Foremost who was the principal in a somewhat confusing ball identification incident. (See, CM comment re F’s prior Ruling):

F hit a high, slicing drive which clearly landed right of the cart path on the Par 5 17th Hole at HCC. It could not be determined from the teeing area whether the ball rolled into the adjacent creek or wooded area.

F conducted a diligent search for his ball to no avail. As he almost had determined to abandon his search, he came upon a severely plugged ball covered in wet, adhesive mud just below the cart path. He carefully scraped away what dirt he could to identify the ball, and was just able to see a Titleist brand. F didn’t remember playing a Titleist, so he picked up the ball which was still covered in mud, and announced that the ball wasn’t his. He walked on a few feet continuing his search, and in the process dipped and completely cleaned the muddy ball in the creek. Upon wiping the ball clean and further examination, F realized that the ball was indeed his ball as he could now see upon it a prominent Duke Realty logo, which was without a doubt the ball he had recently found and been playing.

F returned to the spot from which he removed the plugged ball, but couldn’t find the plug indentation. Using his best judgment as to location, he then dropped his newly found ball and played a shot. AN was watching closely as F announced he had found his ball and was now lying two after a solid play back into and well down the fairway.

An incredulous AN shook his head, and said he was going to have to call a penalty on F due to numerous Rule violations which were almost too extensive to enumerate. He then decided, of course, to go ahead and enumerate them anyway, counting them one by one on his fingers.

For starters, he said F had exceeded the three-minute search by the time he had identified his ball; that F had publicly declared that the ball wasn’t his; that he had failed to mark the spot of the embedded ball; that by washing and removing the mud F had exceeded the rule limitations on identification; that F had played from a “Wrong Place”; and finally, that F’s ball was across the red line in the Penalty Area so that relief for a plugged ball was not even allowed. The list of objections seemed endless! Fortunately, he ran out of fingers.

Although these scatter-gun observations seemed a bit petty to F, he had to acknowledge each and every one of them had some merit.

Ruling

F can easily dismiss the three-minute search allegation as no timing device was referenced and F in his own opinion was within the time limitation. As has been discussed before in these pages, the unsubstantiated opinion of an opposing player would not support the weight of evidence needed for a Committee to support a Ruling of a time violation, at least without the broad consensus of the other players, which was not offered.

Further, F can dismiss the allegation that he wrongly lifted and dropped in a Penalty Area. Yes, relief for an embedded ball is available only in the General Area. (R16.3a(1)), but while the search had been conducted in and around the PA, the ball was found on a slope only about three feet below the cart path. F doesn’t remember seeing a red line there at the cart path (other than the red arrows on the path for a drop from the PA), and AN was well away on the fairway when he made this charge …certainly in no position to ascertain the location of the red line and the boundary of the PA. Accordingly, F was allowed to take relief in the GA for an embedded ball. There is no requirement to mark an embedded ball before taking relief. (R16.3b).

Finally, F finds that his initial failure to identify his ball is not fatal(R7,R14.5). As he had not substituted and played another ball, once he had properly identified his ball, he was entitled to drop into a relief area. The estimated location was appropriate, if the exact original location could not be determined. (R14.2c).

Unfortunately, and despite F’s exemplary rules compliance in so many areas, he finds that AN was correct in one important observation. While a player may lift a ball to identify it if embedded, or if necessary to identify his ball in other circumstances provided he marks his ball, cleaning of the ball is allowed only as needed for such identification. (R14.1c).The full creek immersion F gave his ball, coupled with a vigorous towel wipe, certainly exceeded this cleaning limitation although F, in truth, might have never noticed the large Duke Realty logo without the generous bath. Nevertheless, F finds he should have received a one-stroke penalty under R14.1c.

2.Facts: Cart Path Relief from a Penalty Area?

In tense Match Play on the 7th Hole at OEI, F partner JV found his drive perched atop nicely manicured rough only an inch from the cart path requiring that any shot be played with his feet on the cart path. While the players couldn’t see a red line at the bottom of the slope at the tree line, a red drop directional arrow was indicated on the cart path at JV’s feet pointing at the fairway. General discussion ensued between the players as to whether JV’s ball was in the Penalty Area.

Issues:

In the absence of a visible red line or red stakes, did the cart path arrows indicate the margin of the PA? If in the PA, was JV entitled to drop relief from the cart path, an immovable obstruction.

Ruling:

F believes the directional red arrows on a cart path are generally drawn simply to instruct a player where to drop from a lateral Penalty Area. They are not drawn as far as F knows to define the margins of the PA. In the case at hand the general opinion seemed to be that the margin was historically closer to the tree line, but since the only paint visible was on the cart path, a question did exist. A player is not entitled to take relief from an Immovable Obstruction if his ball lies in a Penalty Area. (R16.1a)… no relief from a cart path. If the ball had been deemed in the General Area (which was under debate), any relief would have entailed a drop onto the steep and slippery slope, rather than onto the flat fairway side of the cart path as directed by the red arrows.

The ever fearless JV, ended the discussion. He played his ball as it lay in complete disregard of the physical danger the cart path posed due to swing path and unsure footing. OEI members will not be surprised to hear he executed the shot perfectly, and just missed his putt for birdie.

As usual, all comments or corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,

F