Foremost went to bed wondering how in the world he could have been dumb enough to take the Rams against Tom Brady. But it wasn’t the football game that jarred him awake in the middle of the night; rather, from the depths of his subconsciousness it somehow occurred to him that he had given an erroneous Rule 9 ruling in play at BMCC:

1. Facts

Player SB had laced a tremendous iron-shot into the par three 2nd hole at BMCC. His ball had just rolled through the green, and had caught a short slope down and back up into patch of spotty rough. He faced a short down-hill punch shot back into the slope angling up to the green. As he began to take his stance, the ball rolled forward towards the green. SB asked what he should do. He stated that he had not caused his ball to move, and that it had moved on its own volition.

F had observed the incident and he entirely agreed with SB’s declaration that he had not caused the ball to move. Furthermore, F noted that the standard for determining the cause of a ball moving had changed under the new Rules. Whereby under the old Rules the standard was “the most likely cause” (51%), the new Rules incorporate the newly-articulated “knowledge or virtual certainty (kvc) standard” (95%) before the player must accept the blame and conclude that he was the cause of the movement. (R9.3; Def. “Knowledge or Virtual Certainty”).

F advised SB that there was no penalty since he didn’t “cause” the movement under the rules, but that he must replace the ball before playing. SB placed the ball back in its perch in the rough, and nicely got up and down for a par…no doubt aided by his preferred lie, compliments of F.

F was pleased with his input in the resolution of this issue.

2. Facts

A ball at rest moved again in Phoenix. After taking one-stroke penalty relief upon hitting his 3rd shot into the Penalty Area on the Par 4 14th hole and lying 4, Ricky Fowler watched as his now “placed” ball (he had attempted two drops in the right way) rolled back into the Penalty Area. He had to take additional penalty relief from the Penalty Area dropping again and laying 5. From this point, and showing unbelievable composure, he got up and down for a triple-bogey 7.

Clearly Fowler’s ball was “at rest” after its initial placement. Since it was moved by “natural forces” (wind, gravity), he was required to play it from its “new spot”, which unfortunately, now lay in the Penalty Area.

(So, if you are keeping score, that was 3 in the PA, dropping then placing 4, dropping again and now 5 after taking relief again from PA after ball rolls back in PA, then chip onto pg in 6, then 17foot putt for a routine 7).

This ruling was, also, obvious to F, who thought nothing more about that ruling or result. He was just happy to see Fowler hang on and win the tournament!

The Aftermath

Scenarios One and Two must have clashed in the recesses of F’s mind in the night. He awoke with a start thinking of R9. He knew he had screwed up the SB ruling in Scenario One above. If RF had to accept the consequences of his ball rolling into a new spot after being moved by “natural forces”, so did SB. Indeed, while F was correct that there was no penalty for a ball moved by natural forces, he had incorrectly advised SB to replace the ball, as a ball moved by natural forces must be played from its “new spot”. (R9.3) * F could only hope that his erroneous ruling didn’t impact the Reader TH game since his group had won the pot!

In continuation of this theme the next morning, Reader JB pointed F to the fine Geoff Shackleford blog which offered further analysis of the Fowler incident, including a quoted tweet from professional golfer, Bob Estes, who suggested the Fowler ruling made no sense in the context of the new Rules. He asked, why should one not be able to replace a ball moved by natural forces in the General Area, when one can replace a ball moved by natural forces on the putting green under the new Rules. (Actually, BE wasn’t quite correct in his analogy… replacement isn’t always allowed on the putting green. A player can replace a ball moved by natural forces on the putting green only, but only if it has been “lifted and replaced”. R13.1d(2)). **

A thought on the Estes suggestion – F remembers hitting a ball years ago above the rock cliff adjacent to and overlooking H#8 at the GCT. After the rest of the group hit, they hopped in their carts, and road over the bridge to the hole. Several minutes had elapsed. As they approached the putting green, F’s ball dislodged from some unknown spot in the woods above the cliff, and rolled off the cliff and onto the putting green next to the hole. Under the Estes rule, F would have had to walk up the cliff and replace… at an unknown spot. This illustration perhaps suggests why replacement of a ball at rest is limited to the putting green. The General Area contains bushes, trees, cliffs, and an unlimited assortment of seen and unseen natural features which might make the accurate location and recreation of the lie impossible, whereas the putting green is a visible, consistent surface where replacement can be accurately accomplished. This Rule does make sense, even if RF’s ball rolled off a shaved bank that looked like a putting green!

As usual, all comments or questions are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,

F

*F should have consulted his own book where this situation was handled correctly. See, “Don’t Be A Club Short!”, Hole 11, Scenario One

** Ibid, Hole 3, Scenario Four

f