Facts

“Walk-out” week started with the high school students.

A whole bunch of them just walked out of class one day. The education establishment was thrilled! Prominent universities immediately announced that any subsequent disciplinary action against these students resulting from the walk-out would not effect their college admissions. The students, ever-mindful of admissions, could see where the wind was blowing on this issue and immediately began posturing for news outlets hoping their resistance would be documented. Some of the walk-outers in our fair city even disrespected a few police officers and danced on a police car. Students are smart and they know what it will take to stand out from other applicants!

Teachers also led pre-first and grade school students on this same walk-out, offering them a like opportunity to bolster their college resumes. Parents really appreciated teachers taking this lead and indoctrinating their children on this major issue. Afterwards, stories quietly surfaced that a local second-grader had proposed a walk-out over illegal immigration. Another kindergarten student had suggested a walk-out over the pace of the FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation and the Uranium One deal. Both were required to sit in the corner and miss recess. Anyway…

The walk-out movement then spread to Hollywood. Matt Damon announced he was going to do a walk-out and move to Australia. He said he feared for the safety of his family in America, apparently confusing California and Hollywood with America.

Then the Brits kicked out a bunch of Russians diplomats, and JeffSessions fired Andrew McCabe, both actions resulting in people having to walk-out.

So, the way Foremost sees it, the only guys who were rational this week, agreeing to sit down and work things out, were DonaldTrump and Kim Jong Un.

Locally, a less-publicized, but highly dramatic walk-out was staged at the BMCC pro shop where RM and JS, acting like they were in kindergarten, defiantly walked out of a meeting between F and the Committee, wherein F was carefully explaining a factual situation and politely asking for a ruling, albeit one which might have affected the outcome of the afternoon purse.

Facts

The sides were engaged in stroke-play completion with points for low ball, low total, and birdies. The competition was close as the competitors reached the 16th hole, a picturesque, island-green Par 3 . F’s partner, SN, teed off first. His eight-iron was well- hit and flew the green into the Water Hazard. RM immediately announced that SN had teed off at least 6 inches in front of the teeing area. All confirmed this observation. F hit next and found the right bunker. The other side followed with JS yanking one into the WH left. RM found the back of the green. SN played again, this time from the teeing area, and found the right bunker.

Issue (1)

What does SN lie in the bunker? (Remember his first shot had found the WH).

Facts (2)

F mistakenly hit SN’s ball out of the bunker. The ball rolled to the back of the green just beyond RM’s ball. F realized his mistake and played his correct ball out of the bunker leaving it just short of the hole. SN drops another ball in the bunker at the place from which it was played.

Issue (2)

What does F now lie on the green?

Facts (3)

RM is lining up his putt. He asks if the ball first hit by F (SN’s ball), which is at the back of the green next to RM’s own ball, is in play. F replies that this ball was a wrong ball, and is not in play. RM rolls it to F who is now standing just beyond the hole. The ball meanders at a perfect speed 25 feet or so on its journey, breaking first right and then left, and then just missing the edge of the cup as it stops at F’s feet just beyond the hole. F thanks him for returning the ball, and calls a penalty, stating RM had just shown himself the line.

RM states that he didn’t intend to show himself the line. F responds that RM’s intent had to be irrelevant as he had rolled a ball directly on the line of his putt, at a perfect speed, confirming the subtle breaks on his line of play.

With no further response, RM putted and watched his twisting , turning putt stop on the lip of the cup. “That’s a three”, he said. “I wish I’d made the d… thing.”

“If you’d taken just a little more time, and lined up your roll, you might have”, said F, who advised the group that he was making an official protest and would seek a ruling from the Committee.

After the round, F immediately sought out the Committee. He carefully and accurately stated the facts as set forth herein-above. RM and JS listened, and were satisfied that F had stated the facts accurately. They then haughtily walked out prior to any ruling.

F and the Committee quickly identified R16-1d prohibiting players from “testing” a putting green. The penalty for this infraction is 2 strokes.

Issue (3)

Should RM be penalized for rolling a ball by the cup on the direct line line of his upcoming putt?

Ruling (1)

In stroke play, a player who plays outside the teeing area incurs a 2 stroke penalty. The stroke played outside the teeing area doesn’t count. (R11-4b; and see, Dec 11-4b/6, where a player hit the ball out of bounds instead of into a WH, finding that where the ball came to rest is irrelevant).

Therefore, after the penalty, SN was hitting 3 from within the teeing area and lay 3 in the bunker. (In match play, there is no penalty, but the other side could have asked him to replay the shot from within the teeing area. R11-4a).

Ruling (2)

A “wrong ball” is a ball other than the player’s ball in play and includes another player’s ball. (See, Def). F played a wrong ball by playing SN’s ball out of the bunker. F incurred a two stroke penalty and was hitting four out of the bunker with his own ball. R15-3.

Upon finding that F had played his ball, SN was supposed to “place” rather than “drop”. R15-3. By subsequently playing after a drop he played from a “wrong place” and incurred a two-stroke penalty under R20-7 and was laying 5 hitting 6 out of the bunker. (1 shot and 4 penalty strokes!). This was not a “serious breach”, however, requiring later disqualification; no “significant advantage” was gained by his drop.(See, R20-7, Note 1).

Ruling (3)

In his factual presentation to the Committee of the RM roll-back, F stated that the action may have been spontaneous upon RM’s realization that this second ball was not in play. On the other hand, F pointed out that RM had rolled the ball to F who was standing by the hole, rather than to SN who was standing at the side of the green. Why, F asked, would RM return SN’s ball to F rather than to SN, its rightful owner, if not to determine the line of his upcoming putt?

The Committee gravely weighed this testimony and ruled that there should be no penalty, as a R16-1d violation required an “intent” to test the putting surface. The Committee stated it could not find obvious intent to test the surface based on this recital of the facts. A finding of intent is, of course, a factual determination, and the Committee is charged with weighing the “manner and apparent purpose” of the action. Dec16-1d/2.

F graciously accepted this factual determination (reserving the argument that he knew RM better than the Committee), and he reported this finding to the JS/RM team who, as noted previously, had earlier stormed out of the Committee meeting as the possible infraction was discussed.

Final Commentary

Although the parties had agreed this format was a stroke-play competition, since both high and low balls were counted, this agreement was incorrect. Stroke play consists of sides playing a stipulated round; in match play the game is played by holes. R2-1. This was a competition scored by the hole; therefore, match play rules should have been in effect. F regrets his collusion in the decision to play under stroke play rules.

As usual, all comments or corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,
F