Facts: Ball Moves on Putting Green

Opponent TC had marked his ball and was facing a 12-foot putt for par to win the 9th hole in four-ball match play competition. He replaced his ball, and stepping in to putt said, “Did you see that? It moved.” He asked if he had incurred a penalty.

Foremost was prompt with a reply. “Did you cause it to move?”, he asked.

“No, I was just stepping in to putt,” said TC.

F quickly responded that no penalty had been incurred, but he must return the ball to its original place before putting. F cited the Local Rule adopted by BMCC in 2017 that clarified the accidental movement of a ball by a Player on the putting green. (The Local Rule was recommended by the USGA to eliminate a penalty on the putting green where the movement of the ball was accidental as opposed to an intentional action by the player).

TC replaced the ball, stepped back in, and again said the ball had moved, because this time his marking line had clearly rotated. Again, he stated he had not caused the ball to move. He replaced the ball for the second time and made the putt to win the hole.

F began to have a sinking feeling as he ate a tuna sandwich at the turn. (He had thought seriously about a hot dog before settling on the tuna fish). F checked his golf bag and pulled out his reference book “I Think That’s a Penalty” * which cites and discusses the aforementioned Local Rule on Hole #11.

F realized he had made a mistake. The Local Rule was applicable only in a circumstance in which the player may have accidentally caused the ball to move. TC had clearly stated in both cases that he had not caused the ball to move, and there had been no factual dispute on this claim from F or his partner, EC. The ball had been replaced and was “in play” and, thereafter, had simply moved on its own, whether by wind, gravity, or Act of God. The ball should have been played from its new position.

With this realization and reconsideration (and since the players had not yet teed off on the 10th hole), F advised the TC/JS team that he was very sorry, but that the Local Rule had not applied, and that since TC had twice picked up and replaced a ball that had moved on its own and was in play, he had incorrectly played from a”wrong place” in violation of R20-7, as he had placed the ball and played from a spot on the course from which the Rules did not allow. Unfortunately, F added, in match play a player loses the hole if he plays from a wrong place.

JS and TC were not happy with this information. They read the Local Rule offered by F and agreed F’s reconsidered opinion was correct. Nevertheless, they argued strenuously that it would be unfair to have TC lose the hole when he had simply listened to F in determining how to proceed under the Rules. Second, they argued this hole was “in the books” and F’s appeal was untimely as all had already walked off the green. (Even EC was somewhat sympathetic with this latter argument. He pointed out that not only were the players off the 9th green, but F had already eaten a tuna sandwich). Finally , JS/TC asserted that if F had given wrong rules information, F himself should be penalized with LOH!

Issues

1) Did the Local Rule apply?
2) Was F’s LOH claim against TC timely?
3) Was TC subject to penalty when he had relied upon Rules advice of his opponent F, which advice was subsequently found to be incorrect? 4) Should F have been penalized for giving wrong rules advice?

Rulings

1) The Local Rule states,

“Accidental Movement Of A Ball On A Putting Green: When a player’s ball lies on the putting green, there is no penalty if the ball or ball marker is accidentally moved by the player, his partner, his opponent, or any of their caddies or equipment. The result of this is a ball at rest moved and it must be replaced if accidentally moved. The ball would not be replaced if it was moved by wind”

(F would note that this Local Rule is the last rule listed on page one of the BMCC Rules of Play card, and it is the only rule not followed by a period, which leads F to wonder if words were supposed to follow ‘wind’. This inquiry, however, would not impact the situation at hand).

Since there was no factual assertion by either side that TC might have accidentally caused the ball to move, the LR did not apply, and the ball should have been played from its new position. (TC did not know why the ball moved. F would argue that an unseen Act of God, like wind and water, is not an “outside agency” as defined, requiring that the ball be replaced; R18-1).

2) F’s claim was timely as the players had not yet played from Hole #10, the next teeing ground. R2-5(i). Although stopping for a sandwich does take some time, the timeliness of a match play claim is measured by the player’s position on the course(i.e., it must be made before the next teeing ground, or before players leave the putting green if the final hole) rather than by timeliness as measured by the hands of a clock.

3) When a player and his opponent reach an agreement as to the correct procedure to follow under a rule, there is “no longer a doubtful or disputed point” and there is no basis for making a claim. Even though TC played incorrectly under the rules (play that ordinarily would be subject to LOH), the hole stands as played by virtue of the agreement between TC and F as to the proper procedure to follow. Dec 2-5/8.5. F was incorrect in his subsequent claim that TC had lost the hole.

4) It is not a penalty to give wrong advice as to the Rules of Golf, unless the player does so “knowingly”, in which case he would be subject to disqualification. Dec 9/1.

A Final Ruling

At the conclusion of this competition, as the players enjoyed refreshments in the clubhouse, F encountered Reader KBP, a team captain in the recent Scottish Day tournament at BMCC. F asked if any rules controversies had arisen in this recent competition. To no one’s surprise KBP replied in the affirmative, stating bitterly that his team had lost, primarily because the other team had demonstrated remarkably poor sportsmanship by playing the last 18 holes completely sober, which was a violation of the theme and spirit of the competition.

F listened and nodded his head in sympathy. He then began to cite R1-4, that if a point in a dispute is not covered under any rule, the decision should be made in accordance with equity…. but KBP had already walked off.

As usual, all comments or corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,
F

*Now available on Amazon.com