When sorrows come, they come not single spies,
But in battalia

Facts.

Foremost stepped in to attempt a 2 1/2 footer to clinch a singles match play victory. It had been a hard-fought competition, and the 2 1/2 footer was certainly no gimme as he had missed one of a somewhat similar distance to clinch the match on a prior hole (he never should have tried that one right-handed!) Nevertheless, he stood over this putt confidently. His opponent faced a 2 footer from a different angle to extend the match if F missed.

As F addressed the ball, his opponent swooped in, snatched up his marker, and replaced his ball with a flourish…it now lay directly in F’s line of sight. He hovered nearby with a wolffish grin. “I am so confident you are going to miss it”, he said, “that I’m just going to go ahead and put my ball back down.”

F wasn’t sure whether the opponent was trying to be funny, or whether he was attempting some late gamesmanship. F waited for a concession, which he suspected must be the punch-line to this action, but it was not forthcoming. The opponent was serious.

F’s temperature rose slightly. He contemplated what his response might have been had a more familiar opponent and a buddy (say, the Yank)** utilized this tactic. He considered that these words might not be appropriate in a gentleman’s game, so he contemplated his options under the Rules of Golf.

Issue.

What are a player’s options if an opponent fails to abide by the normal courtesies of the game, such as marking his ball upon request?

Ruling.

Actually, compliance with a request to mark a ball on a putting green due to interference is a requirement, not a courtesy. A player may have a ball lifted if he considers that it might interfere with his play (R22-2). (Courtesy issues, such as demonstrating discipline and sportsmanship, are addressed under the Rules in Section I, “Etiquette; Behavior on the Course.” Standing too close to a player or casting a shadow on his putting line are examples specifically cited).

A Committee May choose to take disciplinary action, such as suspension, against a player who “consistently disregards” etiquette guidelines over time. If a particular action is a “serious breach,” a Committee may impose the DQ penalty. (Ibid, ”Conclusion: Penalties for Breach”, referencing R33-7).

F’s specific redress in this particular case was to tell his opponent he wanted the ball lifted due to interference. The ball does not have to reside in the putting line to constitute interference, which can be physical or mental. Dec. 22/1).

If the opponent had continued to refuse to lift his ball, and no fisticuffs had ensued, F would have have been obliged, he suspects, to follow the “claim” procedures for match play in R2-5. A Committee would find that the opponent must lose the hole in equity for failure to lift his ball upon request. (R1-4; Dec2-3).

(Aftermath.The Reader will be relieved to know that no such confrontation ensued, nor was a claim required, and all was well… except that, unlike the Reader, this opponent was never afforded the opportunity to examine or reflect upon his actions or words).

An Opportunity to Revisit a Prior Misguided Ruling.

Upon posting his prior Ruling re the Phil Mickelson episode, F quickly discovered that had he read the entirety of R1-2, he would have learned that PM could not have saved a stroke with a “deflection”, as a “deflection” must be replaced. A couple of Readers were astute enough to politely advise F of this error. (See, R1-2, Note 2). Nice catch by these Readers, and much appreciated!

Upon further reflection of the Mickelson case, F regrets that officials were unable to impose the “jerk rule” (R3-4) for an action “affecting the rights of an other competitor.” This regret is not because F thinks PM is a jerk (although others apparently disagree), but because it would have been F’s first chance to visit the stroke-play Jerk Rule! (I think a commentator might have mentioned PM might have been subject to further penalty (DQ) if, for instance, PM’s raked putt had eliminated a fellow-competitor’s opportunity to see the line).

Finally, F would alert his Readers that corrections can be found from time to time in the Comments section. Another error, now in Comments, pertained to F’s finding that a player riding a cart might be in violation of R6-4 (one caddy rule) if different caddies assisted him in tasks such as raking bunkers and reading putts on the same hole. Higher authorities (yes, there are higher authorities than F) ruled such courtesies do not fall within the definition of a “caddy.” F was surprised, but duly notes this correction in the Comments.

F hopes his errant rulings, like his errant shots on the golf course, come as single spies, and not in battalia.

As usual, all comments and corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,
F

*Hamlet, Act IV, Scene V

** In truth, the Yank is a gentleman although, slightly out of control, he did boisterously knock F off his chair once at a Chinese restaurant in Dublin