1. Facts

ToD caused a minor uproar on the first tee at HCC by arriving and playing in mousy colored Hoka sneakers rather than playing in conforming golf shoes as worn by most players in professional ranks and at upscale golf clubs. He said they were soft, well-cushioned, and extremely comfortable. Was he violating a ROG?

Ruling

Foremost was inclined to defend the sneaker accessory as a simple fashion indiscretion. A player’s shoes would fall under the definition of “Equipment” and are permitted unless they “reduce(s) the need for skill or judgement that is essential to the challenge of the game”, or are used in “an abnormal way” (R4.3a).

F had dropped the matter entirely in his own mind, until ToD dropped a a sharply breaking 20-foot putt for birdie on the 14th hole. The putt took a sharp left turn above the hole and feathered lightly into the bottom of the cup. As his team heaped praises on the skillfulness of the putt, ToD interrupted and gave credit to his shoes, noting that in addition to their superior looks and comfort level, they provided a “more stable platform” for his putting stroke.

This admission, of course, raised once again the Rules question, and F had to ask whether the “stable platform” provided by the shoes offered an unfair advantage by reducing the skill or judgment required in stroking the putt.

F pondered this question, but after watching ToD’s play the rest of the day, play which was stellar, he concluded nonetheless, that the “stable platform” did not appear with the requisite frequency to give rise to any claim of unfair advantage. No penalty.

2. Facts

In a 4-Man, 2 best ball format, player MVT had flown the green of the diabolical 13th hole, but had miraculously found his ball in the creek bed below the hole. “I have a shot!”, he exclaimed, as he worked his way down the precipitous incline to a snarky lie some 30 feet below the level of the green. F watched from the back of the green as MVT took a mighty swipe and hit a scorching line drive which crested the lip of a the green, directly on track to strike JD who, unable to see the MVT play, was on the green approaching the flagstick from the other side.

The ball did indeed viciously strike JD, squarely on the forearm, inches away from his head. It all happened so quickly. “Fore” yelled F, at JD who was already holding his injured arm.

The ball itself had bounded off JD’s arm into a greenside bunker. JD’s sacrifice for the team had prevented MTV’s ball from screeching into the far side woods where it would have certainly been lost.

Once the team determined JD was alive and would survive, MTV asked if he could drop the ball on the green, as JD’s instinctive arm reflex from the strike had knocked the ball into the bunker. JD, through gritted teeth, stated that he had not knocked the ball into the bunker intentionally, and asked MVT if he knew a lawyer.

Issue

Was MVT entitled to any relief by virtue of the fact that his ball had been deflected by a fellow player into a bunker?

Ruling

F witnessed and could confirm that the strike and deflection were accidental. JD cradled a rapidly swelling and discolored forearm to confirm this conclusion. If a ball accidentally hits the player, an opponent, “or any other player” (JD), there is no penalty on anyone and the ball is played as it lies…in this case, in the bunker. (R11.1a).

JD seemed to be in significant pain with his injury, but I’m sure he was thankful and relieved to hear he was not going to get penalized!

3. Facts

ToD’s short-iron shot into the 9th Hole was almost perfect. The ball landed where it needed to on the closely-mown incline leading to the putting surface as the pin was tightly tucked in the front of the green; the ball skipped once and crested on the lip of the putting surface, before sadly and ever-so slowly retreating back down the incline some 10-12 feet below the green.

ToD quickly selected his putter for his next shot. He lined up his putt, then paused momentarily before the stroke to walk ahead a few feet and tamp down a pitch mark (possibly his own) in his “line of play”. He putted nicely up the hill somewhere near the hole. F reluctantly called a penalty.

Ruling

A central tenet of the game of golf is to “play the course as you find it” , meaning a player cannot take action to improve a “CAS” (Condition Affecting the Stroke) including lie, area of stance, area of intended swing, line of play, or relief area for drop. (R8.1).

An action not allowed is altering the surface of the ground by pressing down the turf. (R8.1a).

With the solemn and considerable legal gravitas for which he is noted, ToD responded in his own defense that he had simply been “caring for the course”. “Actions to Care for the Course” language is found in R8.2B, and provides an exception for actions taken to improve an area where a ball might go after a shot (such as pressing down a footprint in a bunker, even though a subsequent shot might end up there). R8.2 specifically notes that it does not apply to R8.1a actions (Improving CAS) for which ToD was guilty.

ToD’s eloquent defense might have carried more weight had he not been wearing Hoka tennis shoes. He was assessed the General Penalty.

4. Facts

Reader ASt was sitting around the table listening to the post round discussion. The picture of ToDs mousy shoes must have inspired a distant memory for ASt of a round he “heard about” in Las Vegas. After a night of heavy gambling and drinking, a player on the first hole descended into a fairway bunker and puked on his own ball as he prepared to hit his shot.

Was he entitled to lift, clean, and replace his ball without penalty?

Ruling

Regarding episodes such as the one at hand, F is grateful for the participation of several rules officials on this blog, and hopes one will respond on the web page for the benefit of all Readers.

F personally weighs two arguments. First he recalls being “shat upon” himself (he apologizes for this course language, which accurately describes the event) by a gaggle of geese he had been previously been looking up at and admiring at the lovely GCT. Does the debris (for lack of a better word) from a goose, an outside influence as a product of nature equate to vomit self-inflicted by the player? Was this vomit also an outside influence?

One argument would suggest that the vomit was an outside influence affecting a ball at rest, and that the ball if moved or degraded could be lifted, cleaned, and replaced without penalty (R9.6). The player certainly did not “deliberately touch” his ball, which would have given rise to a penalty stroke.

F would rule otherwise — that the vomit was self-inflicted and caused by the player rather than an outside influence — and that the degradation of the ball at rest was simply tough luck and should be played as it lies. If the vomit did cause the ball to move, the player could lift, clean, and replace his ball with a penalty stroke. (R9.4b).

There is, also, sentiment in some circles that a rules official might grant free relief due to the medical condition of the player, and that the ball could be cleaned and replaced due to this unplanned medical accident. Perhaps one of our reader rules officials might opine on this issue.

F would make him play it as it lies, or take a penalty stroke to lift, clean, and replace. Is this Ruling correct?

As usual, all comments and corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,
F