The word “s…hole” has received some attention lately and, upon hearing it on a couple of occasions recently on the golf course, Foremost would be remiss if he did not review its applicability to the game of golf. In this realm, F finds that the word has several distasteful, but applicable usages.

For instance, the word could apply to a bad golf hole or an entire course,i.e., the 16th at Fernvale CC is a s… hole, or alternatively, Fernvale CC is a s…hole. F rarely hears this usage, however, as generally golfers appreciate that almost all courses and holes have redeeming challenges and virtues.

Further exhibiting its versatility in golf though, the word could be used to describe one’s opponents: “What a couple of s…holes.” There are some common variations of this usage which work equally as well.

And finally, this word could be used to describe the caliber of play: “Well, that was a s…hole.” This last usage was actually verbalized recently at BMCC as the 4 contestants managed to hit 3 balls in the water and one out of bounds on the short Par 4 15th hole. F and Reader WT finally managed a 6 on the hole to close out Readers JS and RM 4-3, inspiring the afore-mentioned observation from one of the contestants.

F appreciates that our President brought this useful word back to the public consciousness.

All in all it was a splendid day to open the 2018 season! F was delighted to be back on the course after a tkr in October, and more importantly, to finish the round with his new knee. His only regret was that not a single rules issue surfaced!

Facts and Issue

Later that night, however, while preparing his Davos remarks, F received a text message from opponent RM accompanied by a picture of his handicap card. He stated that F had given him a one stroke lower handicap from the white tees, an error which effected his team’s “strategy”, thus rendering the day’s outcome “null and void.” This request was immediately seconded by his partner, JS, who in a somber Schiff-ish fashion raised an unfounded collusion issue between F and the pro shop, questioning that institution’s long-standing credibility and reputation. Not surprisingly, this aggrieved party (See, usage two above) asked for its money back.

Ruling

F has carefully considered this appeal and finds it wanting. This match was settled and closed. Bets had been paid by the losers (WT and JS, if anyone has a short memory) and drinks for all purchased by the victors (F and WT). Once the results of a match are officially announced, the results stand, unless the giving of the wrong information was intentional. See, rules scenario novel “I Think That’s a Penalty”* the “Aftermath”, citing Dec.6-2a/5.

As usual, all comments are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,
F

*”I Think That’s a Penalty”, now available through Amazon.com or Kindle