Introduction

Unlike some of our justices and their expansive reading of our Constitution, in which these justices are proud to find constitutional rights “in penumbras…of emanations”*, Foremost interprets the laws established in the ROG as a “strict constructionist.” In other words, he turns first to the text itself so that his rulings depend not on various outcome-oriented rationales and conclusions which, however twisted, F suspects might be pleasing to a high percentage of his Readers, but rather he tries to follow the actual text where possible to eliminate the introduction of heated passions and ugly politics which, just as they divide our fair society, would only contaminate the game of golf if introduced into any interpretation of the Rules.

Thus, when Readers claim a F ruling is cruel or unmerciful (Reader Rev CS once made an eloquent Biblical plea advancing a case for the quality of mercy on these pages… F regrets that he cannot recall the particular scripture cited), F can answer fairly that he simply follows the texts. If Readers, or golfers in general, don’t like the Rules, they are free to petition the governing bodies to change the Rules, which in fact many apparently did, as new Rules have been adopted which will become effective January 1, 2019.

(F’s above-stated philosophy, I might add, is one that our Club Champion, DT, will certainly adopt, as he has indicated a preference for strict constructionists on his Committee as opposed to those who, rather than await having appropriate elected bodies change the law, would simply impose their personal political preferences in order to derive what they may perceive is a just and popular outcome).

Occasionally, however, and notwithstanding the pure motives of F’s textual scholarship and discipline, long-time Readers will confirm that there are occasions where F simply doesn’t know what he is talking about. While it would be easy to blame the drafters of the Rules for this confusion, F is willing to bear all responsibility for his own mistakes, as every true student of the ROG knows these Rules are straight-forward and easy to understand.

The following scenario, frankly, left F scratching his head.

Facts

In spirited four-ball competition, Team A and Team B quickly decide they don’t like each other. F won’t bother the Reader with any particulars of this dislike, other than to say that as the match evolved, their feelings grew much akin to the feelings Democrats and Republicans have for one another… at least the discordant status of this relationship is what F reads and hears about from the media, of whom all would agree are reliable sources.

Early in the match, Team A suspects that a player on Team B has a bag which seems to over-flowing with golf clubs. On the 5th hole, they send their caddy over to surreptitiously count clubs, and sure enough, this player has 17 clubs in his bag. Team A considers this information and decides to say nothing at this time. They consider that this information might be of some use at a later point in the match.

At the turn, the Committee approaches the group as they are preparing to tee off on the back nine. “I hear we have a Rules issue here”, he says. The players on both teams are dumbstruck, as none of them have said a word to the Committee.

(On his own volition, and without any authorization from either player on Team A, the Team A caddy had reported to the Committee that a player on Team B had too many clubs in his bag.)

Upon personal inspection, the Committee quickly confirmed the club count, and announced that Team B was in violation the 14-club rule, and that he was adjusting the match two holes to their detriment as called for in R4-4. F hears from reliable sources that Team B did not take this news very well. The offending player blamed his son for slipping the extra clubs in his bag, and finding that this argument gained no traction, railed at the Caddy for reporting the infraction, and at the general injustice of this Rule, specifically citing lack of “mens rea” (the same Legal and Academic defense advanced by Reader NZ in support of Reader CS noted above, which was also debunked on these pages). F’s source said this entire scene reminded him of the spectacle Reader WT created upon finding his team in violation of this Rule (See F post, “Never Again!”), although no one threw or broke any clubs like WT, perhaps only because this particular episode occurred under the shadow of the Clubhouse.

Issue

Was it the business of the Committee to stick its nose into this match? Was this ruling proper?

Ruling

F is in great sympathy with Team B. Under R2-5, a Committee can consider a claim in match play when it is made by a player, it is timely, and the player notifies the opponent of the claim. Obviously, none of the foregoing requirements were complied with so as to constitute a valid claim.

Note 1 to the Rule does state that a player is not obligated to assert a Rule, provided he and his opponent do not agree to waive the Rule, in which case both are disqualified. This rule is easy to understand in the context of a single violation (ie, a player does not recognize or acknowledge that he caused his ball to move). This single incident clearly is one that a player could not hold in his back pocket and spring upon on an opponent at a later and critical point of the match. The principle seems to be that a player cannot waive a violation and then use it later. The enforcement of the violation must be “timely”, which under the Rule is before the player’s tee off on the next hole.

In contrast, violation of the 14-club rule present a more difficult factual situation as the violation continues from hole to hole unless recognized and cited by the player or his opponent.

Given the facts as relayed to F, and despite the failure of a valid “claim”as required by the Rule, F finds that the Committee’s ruling in its assessment of the penalty was proper.

The Rules seem to be a little hazy on the issue of whether a Committee should intercede in an a match based upon it’s own observations. For instance, if the Committee observes an improper drop at a WH, and this drop is not at issue between the players, F finds no authority suggesting the Committee should intervene.

The case at hand, however, involved more than independent observation…it was a reported infraction. In stroke play, where spectators reported a player had reported an incorrect score and made a 5 instead of a 4, the Committee confirmed the error and DQ’d the player (Dec 6-6d/5). Further, testimony of those not a part of the competition may be considered in evaluating questions of fact (Dec 34-3/9). There are no hard and fast rules to be used in evaluating testimony, but the Committee should act in a timely matter so the competition may continue in an orderly manner (Ibid.)

Accordingly, F finds that the Committee acted appropriately based upon its discovery and confirmation of the fact of the violation as reported, despite the lack of a valid claim or dispute between the parties.

The injustice of this finding, as the Reader may discern, is that Team A benefitted from a violation they had previously waived. One may alter the facts ever so slightly and arrive at a totally different result. Suppose Team A, needing the two hole penalty, had pounced with the claim on the 18th hole, and the Committee learned they had had knowledge of the violation as early as the 5th hole. In this case, F believes the proper ruling would be for the Committee to disqualify Team A for withholding information contrary to the spirit of the game (See Dec 9/12, where a decision was made to withhold information as to the state of the match).

Commentary

In his attempt to rely on the text of the Rules, F clearly weighed the broad powers and discretion of the Committee in imposing a penalty based upon the fact of a reported violation, over the clear text stating a Committee can only consider a valid claim. (So, in retrospect, a savvy Reader might suggest F plucked this Ruling from a penumbra of emanations…)

Fortunately, F presides only over a lower court. He promises his Readers he will appeal his own decision, and submit this question to a higher court, and report its findings forthwith. He anticipates that this Ruling, like Roe v Wade**, may be ripe for reversal.

As usual all comments and corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,
F

*Justice William O. Douglas, majority opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965, identifying a right to privacy not specifically cited, but emanating from the Bill of Rights

** Roe v Wade. This 7-2 1973 decision held that a woman has a right to an abortion extending from the 14th Amendment and a right of privacy.