Rs 9-2; 30-3; 33-7; R2-5

Facts

The competition was fierce recently at BMCC with 4 players involved in a sixteen hole Nassau competition, and a simultaneous 3-man 9-point game. (Player EC missed the tee time and joined the group on the 3rd Hole, hence the 16- hole game).

The back 8 of the 8 hole/8 hole Nassau competition was tied heading into the 17th hole.

Foremost hit his tee ball into the trees right. A search ensued in a dense rough where one had to stand almost on top of a ball to find it. Opponents EC and WT were graciously assisting in the search.

WT soon began chanting off the elapsed minutes… one, two, three, four , five. Just as this articulated time elapsed, partner JR found F’s ball in the fairway. As F prepared to hit his shot, WT loudly exclaimed that 5 minutes had elapsed, and F’s ball was “lost”.

F asked WT if he had, in fact, timed the search. WT responded vigorously in the affirmative and walked off. WT’s partner, EC, suggested F go ahead and play the ball but F, unwilling to waive a Rule, respectfully lifted his ball to return to the tee under penalty of stoke and distance.

After hitting his tee ball again, F rejoined the group, at which time he was told WT had never timed anything and that WT had never looked at his phone or a watch. The hole concluded with an EC -6, a WT- 6, a JR -7, and F with an 8 including his penalty strokes…a tough hole!

Before teeing off on the final hole, F advised the group that he would be asking for a “Ruling” on the hole, on the basis that his opponent WT had never “timed “ the search as he had stated, and that the penalty for providing untruthful information to an opponent was Loss of Hole. WT conceded he had never really consulted a timing device, but argued that he had counted 1-100, 2-100, etc., for 5 minutes, a claim which even his own partner EC called “preposterous”.

EC said he won the hole for his Side anyway in the Nassau. F responded that the penalty applied to their Side, as EC had benefitted as well from his partner’s misinformation and F’s assessed penalty. EC stammered, “Me too?”

F insisted, instead, that yes his Side had actually won the hole and was One Up in the Nassau.

JR heartily agreed with F’s conclusion as to the match, but declared he should be awarded the winning points on the hole in the 9-point game by virtue of WT’s Loss of Hole infraction, as he was entirely innocent of WT’s perfidy or F’s continuing play, whatever the reason. He added, that perhaps WT should be reported to the Committee under an “ethics charge”.

Issue

Who won the 17th hole in the two games?

Ruling

This might be an appropriate time to distinguish a “claim” in golf under the Rules of Golf, as opposed to the handling of a “claim” during the Kavanaugh hearings in front of our Senators. Before a Committee will even consider a claim it must be “timely” and the claimant must advise his (or her) opponent, at the time, of the facts upon which the claim rests. (R2-5).

But back to golf, even though this claim was timely in its submission, it was not timely as to this particular time of day, as the Committee was on its way home (actually, it sprinted to the parking lot when advised of the particulars of this claim).

Nonetheless, Foremost finds that lying to the opponent about the “timing” of a search is not “wrong information” (R9-2b), which deals rather with failing to notify an opponent of a penalty incurred, or strokes taken. Accordingly, a penalty of Loss of Hole for “Wrong Information” was not warranted.

On the other hand, a penalty of “disqualification” might be appropriate considering the circumstances, and imposed for conduct* blatantly contrary to the spirit of the game, particularly if such conduct rises to the level of a “serious breach” of etiquette. R33-7. Additionally, one should note that disqualification of a player in a four-ball match does extend to the Side. R30-3e(i).

F, however, has no jurisdiction over a disqualification penalty, as it resides exclusively within the province of the Committee. He contemplated asking the Committee to delay its verdict, during which time the parties might be interviewed by the Greens Committee, or submit sworn testimony under penalty of perjury, or even provide relevant third-party statements as to critical character issues, such as whether WT (aka, “Sandwich”) had any credibility at all on the issue of “time”). Instead, the parties resolved all issues amicably and internally which is, of course, the best resolution in match play, and the greatest compliment to Foremost’s well-known and highly-regarded judicial modesty and temperament.

As usual, all comments or clarifications are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,
F

* New Rules Preview: the Committee will be authorized to establish a Code of Conduct governing play on a course; perhaps, “no lying” will make the list.