1. Facts – From a Wire

In a highly competitive Four-Ball competition at the beautiful GCT in Kingston Springs, the Yank requested tree relief on the intimidating 9th Hole, a Par 4 bordered in its entirety on the right by a retaining wall descending precipitously to the ball-hungry, swirling waters of Brush Creek. The tendency, of course, is for players to play left off the tee to avoid the Penalty Area, and the Yank had done just that, overcompensating somewhat and leaving his ball in the left rough with a tree in his line of play.

Even the Yank knew he was not entitled to relief from the tree, but he insisted he was entitled to relief from the obstruction posed by the tethered guideline holding the tree in place, an obstruction clearly in his direct line of play. He pointed out his problem and assumed his appeal for relief would be quickly granted.

The Yank’s partner, the scholarly SC, solemnly and quickly agreed. Foremost’s partner, “Honorary”, an esteemed golfer in his own right, objected.

Was the Yank entitled to free relief?

Ruling

By definition, the guideline wire was indeed an “Obstruction”, as it was an”artificial object” and one not deemed “integral” to the play of the course. In this case it was an “immovable obstruction” as the guideline wire was staked and could not be removed…like an irrigation box, and unlike a rake (a “movable obstruction”) which could be tossed aside.

“Abnormal Course Conditions”, including Immovable Obstructions may give rise to free relief. Other ACCs include Animal Holes, Ground under Repair, and Temporary Water. These are the only four definitions comprising ACCs. Unfortunately for the Yank, free relief from an ACC is available only when the player’s ball “touches or is in or on” the ACC, or the ACC physically interferes with the player’s intended stance or intended swing. A player does not get relief from an ACC for his line of play unless his ball is on a putting green and the ACC interferes with his line of play. (R16.1).

While this explanation might seem on its face to close the inquiry, it does not necessarily answer the factual question of whether the staked guideline might have interfered with the Yank’s intended swing. The Reader should know that the Yank is a tall lad, formerly of national and international basketball repute, who casts a wide circumference with his golf swing. And although the picture alone may be somewhat inconclusive, F can attest that even the Yank’s lengthy follow through could not have reached the guideline wire. Sorry, Yank…no free relief.

2. Facts – From a Cart Path

The lovely Par 4 14th Hole at OEI doglegs right and is bordered on the right by a large pond, with the putting green fronted by a deep and oft-unplayable wet-bottomed gorge. Both a precise drive and second shot are required. A wooded Penalty Area descends sharply to the left of the fairway from the teeing area, a PA marked by arrows on a cart path which separate this PA from the General Area.

A player finds his ball directly in the crevice between the cart path and the grassy PA, as marked. The crevice is just deep enough to not allow the player a swing at his ball without risk of injury from the cart path. He immediately declares that since his ball is “touching the cart path” (which it clearly was), he is entitled to free relief from the cart path (an “Immovable Obstruction” in the GA, and that as he is entitled to a free drop on the fairway side of the cart path. F politely questions this pronouncement, although not too vociferously, as the player was one of his partners in the Mens Game and F was, frankly, unsure of this ruling himself. Indeed, while the player’s ball was clearly touching the cart path which resided in the General Area, it was also clearly touching the grass and ground of the PA as marked by the arrows on the cart path.

Issues

What is proper relief when a ball touches two areas of the golf course? Does the player get to make this decision?

Ruling

The General Area (GA) covers the entire area of the course except the Four Specific Areas: (1) the teeing area, (2) all penalty areas, (3) all bunkers, and (4) the putting green of the hole the player is playing. A ball is always treated as lying in only one area of the course. The single area where the ball is determined to be lying affects which Rule applies to relief options.

Where a ball touches both the GA and a specific area, the ball is treated as lying in the specific area … in this case, the Penalty Area. (R 2.2a,b,c). Note also, free relief would not be available for a ball in a PA if the Abnormal Course Condition (the cart path)had merely interfered with the swing, and not actually been touching the ball (R17.3). So yes, the player was allowed relief on the GA side of the cart path… but darn, with a penalty stroke.

III. Facts — From an Extended Lunch

Moppy-headed Captain JB paced anxiously on the first tee waiting for the arrival of his star player, EBC, who he had recruited to anchor his Memorial Day tournament squad, which included stalwarts RGC and SC. The funny thing, or not so funny thing, is that he had seen EBC arrive on the BMCC premises some 90 minutes prior to his team’s designated tee time. Where was he? JB says he was almost wishing Foremost had been in town.

The team was forced to tee off without EBC on the long and difficult 1st Hole Par 5. By all accounts, ECB was delivered by staff to the 2nd tee where he joined the competition. The Committee arrived with EBC and advised that he could play on, but would not be allowed to play or contribute a score for the first hole. EBC reports that he gave himself a max 7 on the first, and otherwise played spectacularly, carrying his team to a respectable finish, even recording one of his best personal rounds. He says he didn’t get much help from his teammates.

Of course, the starting time set by the Committee is an exact time (as we all read recently in the case of Garrick Higgo, who showed up a minute late for his starting time at the 2026 PGA) with the general penalty (two strokes) assessed if the player is late up to 5 minutes, with disqualification assessed if the player exceeds the 5-minute period. (R 5.3a). Fortunately, there is no breach if the Committee decides “Exceptional Circumstances” prevented the player from arriving on time. (R 5.3a, Exception 3). Readers might remember this Exception was applied after the Scottie Scheffler arrest in Louisville when starting times for the entire field were extended due to a traffic death.

F was anxious to hear whether EBC might have sought relief under the Exception or whether his particular circumstances might have excused his tardiness in the eyes of the Committee. EBC pondered this question … He said he had been engaged in a delightful lunch on the porch consisting of a hamburger, chips, with a side of fruit and a couple of Arnold Palmers. He said he probably shouldn’t have ordered the cookie, but it was really good. More importantly, he said he been engaged in a riveting discussion with Titan insiders concerning obvious performance and ownership issues.

Ruling

F finds that this Titan explanation does not meet the criteria for a penalty Exception. If the discussion had centered on more urgent or pressing issues, F might have ruled otherwise. For instance … why didn’t Diego Pavia win the Heisman? Why wasn’t he drafted? Specifically, why didn’t the Titans draft Pavia to generate some fan interest in Nashville? Will the Bulldogs regret losing Jared Curtis? Will the portal transfers fortify VU’s depleted OL? Will the Vols ever be competitive again? Will Bama finally pull the plug on their coach?, etc. Certainly, the Committee may have agreed these discussion items had merit and warranted a brief delay!

Further, F would note that under R 5.3a, a player who arrives later than 5 minutes after his starting time is disqualified. F knows from experience that the 3-some of JB, RGC, and SC could never complete the 1st Hole at BMCC in anything close to 5 minutes. The Committee gave EBC a huge break even allowing his continued competition. Perhaps the start of the cart journey to the 2nd hole fell within the 5-minute bar.

Finally, during the F investigation and discussion with EBC, he revealed that he had given a bunker lesson or two to his fellow players after a few holes , as “sand was flying everywhere with lots of pickups”. He asked if his coaching and bunker demonstrations posed a Rules problem. Yes, after a hole is completed, but before making a stroke to begin another hole, a player must not make a practice stroke (with certain exceptions for putting and chipping near the next teeing area (but be aware of local rules), and such practice stroke must not be made from a bunker. (R 5.5b). It appears that EBC would receive the GP on the hole following the practice bunker shot demonstration (R 5.5) and that if his breach helped his partners play or they participated in such extracurricular practice, said partner(s) would be subject to the same penalty (R 23.9 a (2)). F regrets that he has been unable to ascertain whether the demonstration helped others’ play, but it sounds as if it did not.

As usual, all comments or corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,

F