I. Facts

RGC had a minor meltdown on the Par 4 15th Hole at BMCC during a highly competitive point quota Stroke Play competition against Foremost and SC. RGC and SC had both skipped their approach shots over the green left in the vicinity of the boundary wall which borders Page Rd.

SC found his ball in a muddy, pock-marked area which looked as if it had been recently scraped for a turf or seeding project. In fact, his ball was in a small declivity deep enough to prevent contact with a club. As the area was not marked as Ground Under Repair, SC asked F if he was entitled to relief, which F immediately granted noting that the disturbed area clearly should have been marked as GUR. Taking nearest, no closer relief, SC easily salvaged a bogey 5 and a point on the hole.

RGC also sought relief from F as his ball lay in miserable looking area as well, one occupied by packed dirt and clumpy tufts of grass, further impeded by the rock boundary wall only a handful of inches away. F declined free relief in this instance as there was no evidence this particular lie had been disturbed by the apparent maintenance work applicable to SC’s lie. RGC was not particularly pleased with this course ruling by F, although he quickly recognized that SC was of like mind with F.

After thoughtfully considering several approaches to his shot, RCG placed his back to the hole and tried to pop the ball between his legs towards the green. The ball struck his leg after impact, but did move a couple of feet away from the wall. “Well, that’s a penalty stroke”, he said, heatedly stabbing again at his ball which screeched well across the green, eliminating any realistic chance of a bogey and a point.

“That wasn’t a penalty”, said F, after the fact.

Rulings

(1) F was correct.

R11.1 “Ball in Motion Accidentally Hits Person or Outside Influence”

R11.1a “If a player’s ball in motion accidentally hits any person (including the player) or outside influence: There is no penalty to any player. This is true even if the ball hits the player, the opponent or any other player or any of their caddies or equipment.”

(2) F had second thoughts about his course ruling granting free relief to SC from the unmarked GUR condition. In Match Play, opponents can agree to how to decide a Rules issue, so long as they don’t agree to ignore a Rule they know applies (R20.1a). In Stroke Play, however, any such agreement between the players is not binding, although players are encouraged to help each other with the Rules. (R20.1c(1)). The issue should be submitted to the Committee.

In retrospect, and despite F’s well-respected advice, if in doubt, SC should probably have opted to play in with two balls, announcing to F and RCG which ball he wished to count if permitted by the Committee (R20.1c(3)).

Since his declaration and agreement with SC was not binding under the Rules, and despite his own improper advice, F decided to take the issue to the Committee to see if SC’s GUR relief was justified, and whether any wager amounts should be adjusted.

F described the condition to the Committee, which was unfamiliar with the conditions described by F, but which ruled that if the disturbance was natural, then no relief, but if it was a product of active disturbance, it should have been marked. (Despite the significance of this competition, and to F’s dismay, the Committee did not offer to visit and view the discussed area, which admittedly was situated on the far side of the course). The bets stood.

II. Facts

RCG recovered nicely on the following Par 3 16th Hole picturesque island green, rolling his tee ball just over the edge of the hole to two feet. Almost an ace! He was surprisingly calm in the aftermath of this splendid shot, given his outburst on the previous hole, and the exuberant praise of his playing companions.

Darn”, he said. “I bet that would have been the first hole-in-one in BMCC history on this hole with a Kirkland ball.”

As usual, all comments and corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,
F