Facts

The format was team match play with points awarded by hole for low ball, low total, and trash including birdies. Opponents JS and DS were using the flagstick to measure the greenie for closest to the pin. DS claimed victory as his ball was measured at 1 flagstick , plus, extending the flag a second time to his ball lying by the red paint of the flag, while JS’s measurement was one flag, plus, extending the flag a second time to the ball lying beyond the red stripe next to the white paint. His victory was short-lived as JS astutely pointed out that the flag was held upside down in the latter measurement (with the flag starting at the hole instead of extending away from the hole), which when reversed clearly indicated that the ball at the white paint was closer than the ball at the red paint). Whew! F was glad this argument was finally concluded. F hates controversy! JS’s ball was determined to be closer to the pin.

With F already in the hole with a rare sandy for par, JS’s partner, TH, attempted a long putt from a gnarly lie just off the back of the green. The putt failed to crest a small ridge running through the green falling maybe 12-14 feet short of the hole. The ball came to rest 3 or 4 feet above and on an almost direct line with the marked ball of JS, who had the greenie apparently locked up and a 9-footer for birdie.

F, who had momentarily lost track of the game, abruptly conceded TH’s 12-footer (thinking it was for 4 and that it might show JS the line). F’s astonished partner, DS, was not pleased and reminded F the putt he had conceded was for par. F admitted he had screwed up, but stated a concession could not be withdrawn. As he spoke TH putted anyway. F immediately called TH for a violation of R2, stating that one cannot go ahead and putt after a concession when it might show one’s partner the line.

TH was not at all pleased that F called him for an infraction. JS grinned slightly, and asked F who he was going to play with since he’d never get in another TH game. (Some Readers may know that TH graciously facilitates some weekend games). F asked JS why he was grinning since the penalty was assessed against him, as he stood to benefit from the advantage bestowed upon him by virtue of his partner showing him the line. Now JS was displeased.

“What is the penalty,” he inquired.

“I think it’s LOH,” said F. F was correct. Under Dec2-4/6 (citing R1-4), JS loses the hole in equity.

F’s Scoring: TH’s conceded putt was good for a 3, tying low ball. F awarded 2 points to his team -a point each for low total and the sandy. JS wanted to know about his greenie, which by the way, would have included 4 carryover greenies. With the 4 greenies, TH and JS would have won the hole with 2 points, instead of losing the hole by 2 points as determined by F.

As the players exited the 16th green ( now with all three members of the group displeased) TH quietly and diplomatically approached F and reminded him that under Note 1 to R2-5 (which he was now reading aloud from his phone app), a Player could disregard the breach of an opponent so long as there is no agreement to waive a rule. F thanked him for this reminder (an awkward moment….F feeling momentarily as Comey says he felt when Trump allegedly encouraged him not to prosecute Flynn).

The facts in this case are tough indeed. JS had hit his shot 9 feet from the hole and was simply awaiting his turn to strike a birdie putt.

Issues

1)Does a Player get to finish the hole if he has lost it by virtue of Dec2-4/6?

2)If a Player has lost a hole, can he win trash?

3) Does the greenie revert to DS, since once JS was deemed to have lost the hole, DS’s ball remained in closest proximity?

Ruling

Since the ROG do not directly address certain weekend golf issues (like carryover greenies), F knows he is treading on uncertain ground. He welcomes the challenge.

Unlike the DACA debate , where the “no fault of one’s own” argument receives some sympathy, there is often no “innocent partner” defense in golf. (Readers might remember a similar result recently when WT bemoaned a team penalty assessment occasioned by F’s innocent breach of the 14-club rule).

Accordingly, F concludes that LOH means that player forfeits his score for the hole and any attendant benefits of that score, including greenies and trash. Certainly, it is likely JS would have, at least, two-putted from 9 feet (par needed for greenie). But such assurance, as Readers know too well , is not a guarantee in the game of golf.

F concludes, therefore, that his scoring was correct with a 2-point award to the F/DS team. In so doing he rejects the argument that the greenie “reverted” to the next closest ball by virtue of the LOH, as the “next closest ball” can never define a greenie.

Commentary

In efforts to make the game simpler, more fun, and more congenial to the masses, golf rules drafters missed an excellent opportunity inspired by our system of higher education — crying rooms. These are badly needed! F knows of several courses engaged in major clubhouse renovations… why not? And financing could be provided by offering endowed naming rights…

As usual, all comments or corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,
F