Facts

Format: 9-point threesome stroke play

The moppy-headed one, JB, was displeased with his bogey 6 on the Par 5 14th hole at BMCC, but at the same time proud of his effort to protect his fellow competitors when in doubt over a Rule. He wanted to make sure they understood and appreciated his sacrifice.

His bogey, he noted, was a direct result of the bothersome and untimely interference by one of the club professionals. “Why didn’t she just move on?”

According to JB, he was lying two in the middle of the fairway, with a wedge in his hand, in perfect position to make par or birdie. The pro was in a cart and heading back to the clubhouse and had stopped to watch on the cart path. (F had seen her and it was clear to him that she had pulled over as a common courtesy so as not to disturb play). JB went on to say that he was distracted by her presence, and as a result, had accidentally stepped on his ball before making his shot. The ball had embedded somewhat in the turf. JB considered this circumstance and concluded he was entitled to relief, knowing that a ball accidentally moved during a “search” may be replaced … or, he wondered, should it be dropped?

The pro remained on the cart path unmoving. Under her watchful eyes, and unsure whether a drop or placement was required, JB decided to just play the darn ball as it lay embedded, chunking it in front of the green and eventually making his bogey. Despite superb play from Foremost and fellow threesome competitor, RGC, the six was good enough for a tie on the hole. JB railed that his bogey was the fault of the pro.

F patiently listened to this explanation with great sympathy, but decided he needed to call a penalty.

Ruling

F was proud of JB’s effort to gamely persevere in his play despite the distraction caused by the roaming pro. Observation by a club professional generally does cause an added degree of discomfort in the casual golfer, although JB is a disciplined and seasoned veteran, and not a golfer one might suspect of such a concentration lapse.

Furthermore, F was heartened by JB’s selfless decision to “damn the consequences” and play the embedded ball as it lay when the possibility of free relief was an option to which he felt entitled. When in doubt, he had reasoned, play the ball as it lies!

Nevertheless, F must rule that the “search” discussion was misplaced, and the option for “replacing” a ball accidentally moved during a search was not available. JB wasn’t searching for anything. The ball had been found and was lying in front of him in the middle of the fairway. He confessed that he had stepped on his ball due to the distraction caused by the pro, and F finds that “distraction” around a previously found ball is not an element of a search. (Accordingly, R7.4 did not apply and JB would not have been allowed to remove and “replace” his embedded ball with free relief).

Instead, F finds that by stepping on his ball and moving it into a different position (embedded), he was subject to a one-stroke penalty and required to replace it in its original spot (R9.4). By failing to replace a ball he had moved, he played from a Wrong Place and was subject to the two-stroke General Penalty, (R14.7a).

F finds that JB did not tie the hole, but in the interest of world peace, he will concede that this entire sordid sequence was clearly the pro’s fault.

As usual, all corrections or comments are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,
F