Facts

Foremost and his partner, WT, won a nail-biter in the opening match of BMCC’s member/ member Livingstone Tournament closing out their opponents in the esteemed Royal Lytham Flight on the 9th hole for a dramatic 6-4 victory. (The scoring system was a ten point game with one point for a hole victory, a half point for a tie, and a bonus point to the match winner).

Apparently, the weight and pressure of the tournament was too much even for the golf cart as it crawled back to the scorer tent after match 1, as a worn and weary steed staggers home after a heated battle. By the time this team finally reached the tent other players had already departed to their respective tees for Match 2. As the team submitted the results of Match 1, the staff quickly summoned a new cart. After effecting the exchange WT and F raced to their starting hole, Tee 2, and quickly hit as the competition had commenced elsewhere. They were the first team off #2, with their opponents playing from the forward tees and another group (B) present and waiting impatiently for their group (A) to hit. There was hardly any time even for an exchange of pleasantries or customary well-wishes.

Despite the frantic start, F and WT got off to a good start winning hole #2 for a point and halving hole #3 for a 1/2 point. After two perfect drives on hole #4 (the 3rd hole of the match), and with his partner WT already safely on the putting surface in regulation, F reached into his bag for his wedge. The first thing he noted was an 8-iron that wasn’t his. He pulled the club and noted it bore the name tag of an opponent from the previous match.

F summoned his opponents , JR and WC, and with a sinking feeling advised them of this discovery and that he was calling the Committee by phone to determine if a violation of R4 (max 14 clubs) had occurred and, if so, the extent of any penalty. (F alone with his better ball had obtained the win on hole 2 and the halve on hole 3).

“Where did the club come from?”, asked WT.

“Obviously, it was placed in the bag by the opponent”, said F, “or placed in there by their forecaddie E.”

“Are you kidding me,” said WT. “Are you saying we could be penalized because the other team put a club in our bag? How in the h… were we supposed to count clubs between our match. We didn’t have time to scratch our a… That’s the stupidest, b… rule I’ve ever heard of. Why did you even mention it, you idiot? If I’d known that Rule, I would have taken the d… club and thrown it in Richland Creek and not said a word. Why are you always calling rules s… on our team?”

F listened to this diatribe silently. He held a glimmer of hope that a ruling would come back that no violation had occurred as he had clearly started the day’s “competition” with 14 clubs, and only this particular match with 15 clubs in his bags.

F recalled a previous 14-club rule violation in a similar tournament with a similar nine-hole format, but that incident had occurred in the first match of the second day of the competition and was the result of a bag room error. The issue, F knew well, was whether each 9-hole match constituted its own”stipulated round” which by definition is “18 unless a smaller number is authorized by the Committee.” Certainly, the question is not one of intent and whether the player selected the extra club for the round. The violation is simply for “starting” a “stipulated round” with more than 14 clubs.

The teams halved hole #4 each earning a half point. A Committee member approached the group on the #5 tee. He advised the group to play on, that the Committee was considering a ruling, and that they would discuss the issue with the group “at lunch.” F suggested this wasn’t a satisfactory response, as the opponents needed to know the status of the match, and that he would respectfully urge the Committee to render a ruling with all due haste.

Shortly thereafter, as the group finished hole #5, a second Committee member approached. (The Committee had been hard at work on the issue.) He advised that the Committee had ruled (after a confirming phone call to the USGA and a hasty internal review meeting by the USGA staff) that each nine hole match was its own “stipulated round” and that there was indeed a LOH penalty capped at two holes. (See, Dec 4-4a/2, where a player was allowed to exchange clubs after the first 18- hole round of a 36- hole competition as each 18-hole match was deemed its own ”stipulated round.”).

Since the violation was discovered on hole #4 (the 3rd hole of the competition, F and WT would lose their 1/2 points for holes #3 and #4 with a full one point awarded to their opponents for each of these holes. (In other words, instead of leading 2-1, F and WT were now trailing 2-1 after 3 holes. F suggested the penalty should , perhaps, be loss of only one hole since the stipulated round was a nine -hole competition. This plea fell on deaf ears.

WT was listening to this exchange intently, his brow furrowed, his face darkening. Momentarily, he brightened! He advised the Committee that he had also made a par on the preceding hole, and that therefore the halve should stand at least for hole #4!

“Uh, we thought of that”, said the Committee. “Unfortunately, a R4 Club violation extends to the Side.” (R30-3D). He drove off.

WT went ballistic:

“You mean I get penalized? I didn’t do a d… thing! The Rules of Golf can’t be that stupid. Why would anyone want to play? This is just a weekend club tournament! Golf is supposed to be fun,” he added (placing himself firmly in the Rules reform movement).

He continued:

“I’m never going to play in a d… BMCC tournament again. They need to just say the d… rules don’t apply.”

Clubs started flying in subsequent play as the tirade continued. Opponent JR’s eyes grew large as he chomped on his cigar. His unflappable partner WC said he hadn’t seen this much passion at a sporting event since the Cubs won the World Series.

A club finally snapped after a misguided throw on hole #8 found a tree. (yes, 3 holes later…).

“Does this mean I’ve got 15 clubs?”, asked Wt, holding up 2 halves of his 4-iron. “Call it in, F!”, he taunted…

Aftermath

With the two point swing, the match flipped from a 6-4 victory to a 6-4 defeat. (Remember, another point was awarded for winning the match…effectively applying a 3 hole penalty to a two penalty hole infraction… 3 holes in a 9- hole match is tough!). The Royal Lytham flight was abuzz and in turmoil, as at the end of Day 1, three teams found themselves atop the leaderboard, and all six teams within striking distance. Players from other flights discussed the ruling, some suggesting that opponents could sabotage opponents if behind in a competition, simply by sneaking an extra club in their bag! Oops! Sorry!

In fact, F approached his cart at the staging area for early am warm-ups on the second day, and found about 30 clubs jammed in his bag. (Reader TS among others actually thought this was funny!)

Refreshed and invigorated this second day, playing with only 13 clubs, and exhibiting tremendous grace and poise in intense competition, WT* led an inspired team comeback and…but that’s another story!

Frankly, a tournament of this magnitude presents numerous rules situations! F was thrilled to be in this environment, and will try to supplement this tournament rules report in the coming days. Stay tuned! As usual, all comments or corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted
F

* Readers of these pages (who know WT) realize F exercised considerable license in his recitation of these facts and that he certainly embellished some of the more colorful language attributed to WT herein. All know WT is the consummate gentleman.

** Readers, with two email groups receiving notice of posts, some excellent response comments and discussions made by email to one group listing are being missed by all Readers. F will continue to reply either way, but please use the comment section on the blog page if you can, so all can enjoy. Love the comments! Thx, F.