I. Facts

Recently returned from a relaxing month in Florida, opponent JB was regaling fellow players in a Four-Ball competition with an epic story of his and the lovely PB’s monumental bingo winnings in Florida. As he stepped to the 8th tee at BMCC, he might have been still reciting bingo glories as he unleashed a long, fluid, powerful swing which, unfortunately, struck the ground about ten inches behind the ball.

F was instantly reminded of player LR back in his prime, who played so fast, others would often, quite unintentionally, still be talking during his backswing. Swift apologies would follow, usually accompanied with an offer to LR to rehit the shot. He would always decline the offer, saying he never had a performance issue when others were talking, but it did bother the heck out of him when he swung while he was still talking himself, which was often the case.

Again, such seemed to be the case here as JB’s swing struck dirt, with the ground impact causing the ball to plop forward a couple of inches off the tee. After a rather intense moment of embarrassed group silence, Foremost asked JB, hopefully, if that had been a practice swing. JB gamely confessed that it had been a “whiff”. He picked up the ball, reteed, and boomed a long drive down the center of the fairway. “I lie two”, he said.

F said he might have to look into that.

Ruling

JB was correct. After a ball is put in play in the teeing area after a stroke in the teeing area (such as a missed ball), the player may play the ball as it lies, or lift and move the ball (without penalty) and play from anywhere in the teeing area from a tee or from the ground. (Note: if the ball is reteed and not played “as is”, the tee must be in the teeing area ( See Def. behind the tee markers).

II. Facts

F and partner, JSp, were one down at the turn to opponents JB and RGC, in a solid but otherwise rather uneventful competition, when a quite unexpected Rules question and minor controversy arose at the 9 and 1/2 Hole refreshment room. As the players descended the steps into room, a lady was talking animatedly, and loudly, into her cell phone. RGC stepped past her, politely touching his finger to his lips and whispering, “That’s a No,No” referencing her cell phone usage on club grounds. That could and should have been the end of it.

Instead, the lady followed RGC into the room and berated him at the counter. “That is not against the Rules, and that phone call is none of your business”, she exclaimed. “I had an important matter to discuss with my daughter!”

“I’m sorry”, said RGC without backing down, “but it is a Rule”.

The debate might have continued had not the delivery of F’s hot dog intervened, a hot dog smothered in onions and relish. “That looks really good!”, said the lady to F, who had never considered that he might have to confront a Rules violation in the 9 and 1/2 room. The lady looked happy to be able to change the subject. RGC, who had remained polite yet stern during the conversation, said later it was probably bad timing on the lady’s part that she had caught him after a double bogey on nine.

Regardless, the 9 and 1/2 confrontation seemed to inspire opponents JB and RCG, who on the heels of a couple of splendid pars quickly jumped to +2 in the match after the 11th hole. JB had saved par on H10 with a 20 yard bunker shot which clanked off the pin for a tap-in par, and RGC celebrated his recent 89th birthday by reaching the long and difficult par 4 11th in regulation, which he two-putt for an easy par. F and partner, JSp, we’re down 2 holes and clearly on the ropes. Of course, they were not done fighting… Vandy guys.

Matters took a turn for the worse, however, on the par 4 12th Hole. In with bogeys, F and JSp could only watch as JB and RCG lined up their putts for par from 8 and 5 feet. The putts were on the same line although JB decided RGC’s marker could be left as placed as he would be aiming just above it. He barely missed his putt for par.

At this point, as RGC stood over his own putt for par, F sidled up to JB and whispered that he would be calling a penalty on RGC for standing directly behind JB’s line as he had putted during his putt. As they spoke, RGC calmly knocked in his 5-footer for a seeming par to win the hole.

F then, most reluctantly, advised RGC that he had called an infraction. RGC did not dispute the fact that he had stood behind his partner’s line during his putt, but argued that a penalty, if any, would apply to JB who was putting, rather than to himself on the succeeding putt. F wasn’t completely sure of the Rule on this point, but said he expected the penalty would fall on the team since the competition was Four-Ball.

“Well, that’s okay”, said JB., encouraging RGC. “If you got a penalty stroke and we didn’t win the hole, we tied the hole and are still two up, so let’s just kick their ass.”

“No”, said F. “I’m saying you lost the hole. You went from three up with a seeming win, to one up after the penalty which I fear is loss of hole.”

This pronouncement was greeted with much disfavor, and a joint decision was made on the 13th Hole teebox to call the pro shop to request an on-course ruling as to the fact of a penalty, how it would be assessed, and the status of this important Match.

Minutes later a calvacade of golf carts arrived on the scene with not one, not two, but three professionals all intent on properly disposing of the issues at hand. F carefully laid out the facts, and after some deliberation by the Committee, an on-course Ruling was issued: F was correct on all counts; his opponents had lost the Hole; the Match stood with the opponents, plus one. (F appreciated the fact that changing the Match from -3 to -1, with only six holes to play, had to stand as one of his most impactful violation calls of the year! Of course, F modestly refrained from any public declaration of this accomplishment).

RGC observed that this on-course ruling was “terribly unjust and unfair” and he gave notice of his intent to Appeal.

Rulings:

1. “The Club prohibits the audible use of mobile electronic devices throughout the clubhouse and its grounds, except in designated areas…”

2. R23.8 (Four-Ball) – “In addition to the limitations in R10.2b(4), a player must not stand on or close to an extension of the line of play behind the ball while their partner is making a stroke to gain information for their (the player’s) next stroke. The penalty for a breach of R23.8 is the General Penalty” (Loss of Hole in Match Play).

(Note: the line of play is defined as the line where the player intends their ball to go after a stroke, including … a reasonable distance … on either side of the line (See, Def.). Since JB intended that his putt go in the hole, RCG is correct that he could have stood and watched JB’s putt on a line beyond the hole). RCG noted, finally, that he had probably violated this Rule countless times over many decades, and that if this was in fact a violation, it was going to take him a long to go back and adjust some of those old bets.

F thanks the Committee for their rapid above-and-beyond course response and prompt consideration of these important Rules questions! Well-done!

Therefore, upon review F hereby finds that the course ruling of the Committee is affirmed and RCG’s Appeal is denied. He was absolutely correct, however, in properly stating the cell phone rule!

As usual, all comments or corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,

F