(Def. “Nearest Point of Relief”; Rs 12,20,24,27), but first:

New Rule!

Does the Reader find the spectacle of the professional golfer consulting his greens notebook a little over-the –top?

Continuing in their efforts to make the Rules of Golf easier and more comprehensible to the general golfing public, the USGA and the R&A jointly proposed a rule to be effective in 2019 which would address “greens-reading materials.” The concern was that current elaborate greens-reading materials lessen the skill, ability, and judgement of players on the greens placing emphasis instead on technology and professionally-produced topographical greens pamphlets.

Breath-taking in its simplicity, this new proposal (liberally quoted and paraphrased here from a Golf Digest article) calls for a “minimum slope indication limit” to be used only in areas of a 4 percent slope (2.29) degrees, and hand-written notes with a “maximum scale limit” of 3/8 inch to 5 yards (1:480) to keep publications to pocket size…Got it?

Foremost is delighted to have an easy and manageable Rule on this subject, although he admits he has lost sleep contemplating his new-rule inspired opponent, Sandwich, on the putting green supplementing his already belabored putting routine with hand-written notes.

This Rule and its enforcement should be lots of fun…like enforcement of the anchoring rule with the long, chest- putters!

Other Matters:

1. A Drop Controversy

Facts

F observed from across the fairway as opponent, BF, took relief from a cart path, an immovable obstruction (R24). After obtaining stance relief, and using his driver to simulate addressing the ball, BF placed a tee at this point, and then using the driver again, measured one club-length where he placed another tee, dropping his ball inside this point. He then grabbed a wedge and hit the ball on the green.

F briefly considered that this was a friendly game, and that he was playing as an invited guest of Reader HC at the lovely Mountaintop Club, and that perhaps he should keep his mouth shut…. but, nah… he approached BF and called a penalty, stating that BF had failed to follow the correct procedure in determining his nearest point of relief, by failing to use the club he might use but for the condition. F advised BF that he had therefore played from a “wrong place” resulting in LOH under R20-7(b).

BF strenuously argued against F’s recitation of the facts. He said that while he had, indeed, used his driver to mark the spot of a ball at address, he had held the driver not by the grip to utilize its full length, but rather, he had held it somewhere down the shaft to approximate the length of a wedge. He then argued that he had dropped his ball well within the one club length marked by the measurement of the second tee. Finally, he noted that his drop was appropriately no closer to the hole.

F was unsympathetic with this defense.

Issue

By virtue of using an incorrect drop procedure, did BF incur a penalty and lose the hole?

Ruling

F was absolutely correct in his observation that BF had failed to follow the correct procedure in determining his “nearest point of relief.” Indeed, the Note to the definition states that to “determine” this point, the player “should” use the club he would have used to simulate the address position, direction of play and swing for such a stroke. (See, Def. “Nearest Point of Relief”).

However, if the ensuing drop “satisfies the requirements” of the drop, in that it is within one club-length of the correct nearest point of relief, and is no closer to the hole, there is no penalty. (Dec. 24-2b/2).

From his vantage point, F could not conclude the dropped ball did not satisfy these requirements, and even he had to acknowledge that BF had appeared to short-arm his driver in simulating his address.

Based on BF’s passionate and uncontroverted testimony, and with due consideration to his matrimonial status, F had to conclude no violation had occurred.

2. Blissful Ignorance or Slyly Calculating? May the Reader Decide

(1) The Measured Drop

Facts

An opponent wishes to drop as far from the LWH as possible as it remains in his line of play. He measures two club-lengths from a Lateral Water Hazard and marks the spot with a tee. He then drops his ball and it strikes the course beyond the marker before rolling back just inside the marker. He then plays the ball from the point where it ultimately came to rest.

Issue

Has a violation occurred?

Ruling

Yes. The ball must first strike the part of the course where the rule requires it to be dropped. If not so properly dropped, the player must correct the error under R20-6, or he loses the hole under R20-7 (“wrong place”). R20-2b.

(But note, no re-drop is required if the dropped ball first strikes where the Rule requires and comes to rest within two club-lengths of the spot of the strike (R20-2c (vi)).

(2) Placing and Replacing

Facts

Occasionally one encounters a player facing a short putt who marks the ball to the side and who then replaces it in front of the marker (often generously).

Ruling

If one really wishes to pursue this issue (in the fourth flight over a two-footer), the penalty is loss of hole in match play or two strokes in strokes play- for placing a ball other than “on the spot from which it was lifted or moved.” (R20-3a).

3) Identifying the Ball

“Yep, it’s mine!” This is easily the most common vacation violation. The player lifts his ball in the rough (or the muddy ball in the fairway), cleans (with a subtle thumb wipe), and replaces (remarkably, somewhat perched up in the fairway or rough!)

Players must follow a 5-step procedure to lift for identification (R12-2) or LOH in match play:

(1) announce intention to opponent
(2) mark
(3) lift, giving opponent opportunity to observe
(4) replace, giving opponent opportunity to observe
(5) don’t clean beyond what’s necessary to ID

Summer golf! Club tournaments! New opponents. Friendly games. Cowardly F bites his tongue. More coming…

As usual, all comments or corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,
F