From: Tate Rich <taterich@deltacoals.com>
Date: Monday, November 17, 2025 at 3:40 PM
Subject: Orphans

I. Facts

In a Four-Ball competition at OEI, Foremost hit a lovely iron shot into the treacherous Par 4 14th Hole. Unfortunately, the ball clipped the branches of a large tree guarding the right side approach. F thought he saw the ball ricochet and drop next to the cart path beside the green. He parked his cart by the green, and didn’t find his ball after a quick search, which was puzzling as he was pretty sure he had seen his ball drop in plain sight.

“Oh, is this your ball?”, asked opponent WB who was then standing on the far side of the green and reaching into his pocket. He tossed a ball to F and said he had picked it up by the cart path. Indeed, it was F’s ball.

F thanked WB for retrieving his ball, then said he would have to penalize him a stroke for deliberately moving his ball at rest. (R9.5b).

WB responded that he had lifted the ball only at the request of his cart mate, FF, who was F’s partner. He quoted FF thusly, “Pick it up. It must be an orphan.” This descriptive word choice certainly sounded like something eloquent author FF would say, so F knew he could not challenge the fact of the instruction.

Issue: Did WB incur a penalty stroke for moving F’s ball when he was acting upon F’s partner’s instruction?

Ruling:

Under R9.5b an exception exists as to whether an opponent is assessed a penalty stroke having deliberately moved a player’s ball …the exception is when the ball is moved “(A)t the player’s request”. Although F certainly never authorized JB to lift and pocket his ball, his partner FF clearly did provide such authorization.

Under R23.5a (Four Ball) “A player may take any action concerning the partner’s ball that the partner is allowed to take… “ (such as mark, lift, drop, and replace).

F finds that R23.5a (a player is allowed to take actions concerning his partner’s ball) is not applicable in the case at hand, and that the lifting, while unfortunate is not covered by the R9.5b exception (no penalty if “at the player’s request”).

In fact, FF had no idea that the ball at rest was F’s ball, so he was in no way authorizing an “action” related to F’s ball. He was authorizing an action related to what he thought was an orphan ball, a misconception WB apparently shared. Under the Rules, the fact that FF misidentified the ball and was, perhaps, co-negligent does not absolve WB of the violation, as he alone lifted and moved F’s ball, and in this case a player must be responsible for his own actions.

F finds that the penalty stroke against WB was rightfully imposed, and that his partner’s (FF’s) equal participation in the misconduct is excused.

II. Facts

In a fairly recent Match Play competition at the lovely GCT outside Nashville, a dispute arose at the conclusion of the short Par 4 12th Hole. Foremost is fairly certain he heard the facts correctly.

Player CS hit his drive down the center of the fairway, but inexplicably shanked his short iron approach into the dense trees and shrubbery to the right of the hole. His opponent (I believe it was the Yank) had previously dunked his second shot into the greenside bunker.

CS declared a “provisional” ball, and hit this shot within inches of the hole. The Yank immediately headed into the woods with his caddie to conduct a search for CS’s original ball.

CS discussed the matter with his own caddie and decided he had no interest in finding his ball. He rushed to the green, removed the flagstick, and tapped in his putt for a bogey five, which in all probability would at least tie the hole. As he lifted his ball from the cup, the Yank shouted, “I found it”, and he had indeed found the ball in a bush in an unplayable spot in the undergrowth, after a short search well within the three-minute time limitation.

The Yank demanded CS play his original ball as it was found within a three-minute search.

Both of these players knew the Rules. CS announced that his score with the “provisional” ball would stand as the search for the original ball had to be abandoned once he had “holed” his shot with the provisional ball.

So long as the original ball has not already been found in bounds, the score with a provisional ball that has been holed becomes the player’s score for the hole when the player lifts the ball from the hole since, in this case, lifting the ball from the hole is the same as making a stroke…

If Player B (the Yank) finds Player A’s (CS) original ball before Player a lifts the provisional ball from the hole, Player A must abandon the provisional ball and continue with the original ball. If Player A lifts the ball from the hole before Player B finds Player A’s original ball ( the score with the provisional ball stands). Clarification,R18.3c(2)(3).

The Yank replied, “That doesn’t’ matter. I have the right to cancel your tap-in shot since you played that shot out-of-turn. Therefore, I had the right to continue the search as it was my turn to play.”

If the player plays when it was the opponent’s turn to play, there is no penalty but the opponent may cancel the shot:

-this must be done promptly and before either player makes another stroke. R6.4a.

The Yank completed the hole with a bogey 5. CS maintained that he tied the hole with his 5 with the provisional ball.

Ruling

The Rules and Clarifications related to this factual situation are somewhat contradictory. The Clarification cited above by CS offers an example of a Par 3 where the player “holed” his provisional shot for an three and lifted it from the hole before the opponent found the original ball in play. Such was not the case in the situation at hand as CS had to play a subsequent tap-in shot to hole the ball.

Accordingly, it would seem that the Yank would be allowed to cancel the tap-in shot under R6.4 and continue the three-minute search as it was his turn to play. While any cancellation must be made “promptly” and before the player makes another stroke with the provisional ball (ie, “lifting the ball from the hole is the same as a stroke”; see Clar. above), reason suggests that the Yank would have the opportunity to step out of the woods, and exercise his option to cancel the tap-in played out of turn.

Clarification 18.3c(2)(2) declares otherwise. In Match Play, if the provisional ball is nearer the hole than the original ball and the player plays the provisional, yes, the Yank may cancel the stroke and have the player play in the proper order, “However, cancelling the stroke would not change the status of the original ball, which is no longer in play”.

F finds, therefore, that CS did tie the hole with his 5 playing his provisional ball. The take-away from this is, run like hell and play your provisional ball if it’s nearer the hole than your original ball and you like your chances better than with the original!

As usual, all comments or corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,

F

Note: “Bingo Blues”

The Reader may not be surprised to hear that from time to time F receives helpful comments from more knowledgeable Readers concerning his Rulings! These comments are much appreciated! In Bingo Blues, Reader TM noted F left the impression that the team will always be penalized in Four-Ball with the GP (LOH)when a player stands “on or close to” the line behind his partner’s putt. In fact, there are 3 possible outcomes:

(1) If the player merely assists his partner in “aiming”, the partner putting gets the GP

(2)If the player stands on or close to the line to “gain information” such as to learn how his upcoming putt might break, but does not help his partner aim, the player gets the GP

(3) If the player stands there and helps his partner aim, and just happens to see how his own putt might break, they both get the GP (Clarification 23.8/1).

F is certain that Example 3 above applied in his Bingo Blues case, and that the GP was well-deserved by the team, although player RGC gamely argued that his nose wasn’t directly on the line of play, and that he was merely observing the sunset.

Reader TM further noted that as a rules official assigned to a specific group he will often ask a player his reason for standing on or close to the line, and the player might get a penalty, or a polite warning, depending upon the answer.

F had this observation in mind in subsequent Four-Ball play as, in the spirit of sportsmanship, he politely warned opponent Sandwich on this very subject (as Sandwich appeared to be on or approaching “on or close to” the line of his partner’s impending putt). Sandwich almost bit his head off (he disputed that his nose was “on or close to”). So much for being the nice guy!

F