BMCC Assistant Pro, DA, perhaps making his first appearance on these pages, stopped Foremost in the hallway simply to advise him that Scottish Day had come and gone without a single Rules question or controversy!

“Nothing?”, asked F.

“Nothing” was the response. “Perhaps a few minor inquiries about ‘casual water’, but the field seemed to resolve this issue on its own, since virtually the entire course was under casual water.”

As a Rules commentator F was frankly disappointed, of course, to hear this news. How, he wondered, could 80 drunken, Scottish-clad golfers not encounter a single Rules issue — playing under the New Rules of Golf (Rules which are baffling even to the professionals, by the way) –in a deluge–on a course undergoing massive bunker renovations? Not a single pony-tail pulled; not a single leg-o-lamb tossed; not a single bottle of Scotch cracked over a bagpipe-blaring chieftan’s head! How disappointing! F wonders if the hot-blooded ladies of these clans should not be admitted into this competition to show the gentlemen what it means to wear a skirt for the clan!

Anyway, as we pick up the next morrow, F and his opponent Reader WT, both completely sober and wearing pants, had just walked off the same course, a course still soggy, but recovering nicely under sunny skies and cold, blustery winds. Unfortunately, unlike the afore-mentioned Scottish love fest, rules issues and tempers had arisen.

1. Facts

On the short dog-leg Par 4 15th hole, WT’s approach shot fell short and left into a greenside bunker. The ball lay 3 inches below the surface in a crevice of the sand washed out by the extensive rains. WT asked F if he was entitled to free relief. F asked WT what provision of the Rules might entitle him to free relief, as F was unaware of any such Rule.

WT answered that the bunker ‘’clearly had not been raked since the rains” and that “golf was clearly not intended to be played under such conditions”, and that “irrespective of the Rules”, this was a “maintenance issue” and he should “clearly be entitled to free relief in the interest of fairness, equity, and the spirit of the game.” And on and on….

F finally cut him off and reminded him that, heretofore, they had been playing the billy bunkers (with still-exposed gravel) as GUR, and playing the bunkers with sand and rakes in them as “in play”, and that as this bunker clearly had sand and rakes in place, his ball was in play. F proposed to WT that he might take an “Unplayable” and drop elsewhere in the bunker under penalty of one stroke, or drop outside of the bunker under penalty of two strokes using the exciting new “Extra Relief” option for balls unplayable in a bunker. WT glared menacingly at F at this point, as a Black Watch might glare at a Highlander, and declared he was taking a free drop no matter what F thought.

Issue

Was WT entitled to free relief in this instance?

Ruling

After consultation with the Committee, F finds that WT was correct in his expectation of free relief for his ball in the crevice of a bunker.

Upon conclusion of the round, F sought out and asked the Committee whether any Local Rules were in effect as to the bunkers which were undergoing extensive renovation. The answer was that Players were required to play the few bunkers available to play, but that they had the option to drop away from the bunkers under renovation or in disrepair as the grounds crew had not been keeping up with bunker maintenance during the bunker reconstructions. Considering this answer somewhat vague, F pursued the inquiry. He noted he was unaware that a comprehensive Local Rule was in effect, and inquired as to why it had not been published and posted or otherwise communicated as recommended by the USGA. The Committee responded that players in the Scottish had indeed been verbally advised of the Local Rules concerning bunkers and that these Local Rules had, in fact, been written, published, and posted under a laminated sheet by the first tee, although this sheet had apparently blown away at some time during the storms.

Given this information, F apologized for his impertinence, and admitted that it was he who had screwed up, and that it was his fault for not checking the Local Rule before play, as the renovation work was obvious. Clearly, he and WT should not have embarked on their competition without a clear understanding of the bunker relief options.

So, although F still hasn’t seen the governing Local Rule language, it most likely incorporated two permissible concepts. Although free relief from an abnormal course condition in a bunker under R16-1 generally requires a drop back in the bunker (or a drop under penalty outside of the bunker), Model Local Rule E-1 allows the Committee to declare other “drop zones” under R14-3, when warranted, from areas of abnormal course conditions. Thus, by Local Rule the Committee could have allowed free relief for a drop outside of the bunker if so desired. (Players will not find this relief option in their rule book as the New Rules for players do not include the Model Local Rules!).

Further, although no specific Model Rule is suggested as circumstances may vary, under an extra relief provision, Committees may also declare as GUR “areas in bunkers where sand has been removed by the movement of water resulting in deep furrows through the sand.” F finds this option descriptive of the condition in which WT found his ball, and it suggests free relief was clearly within the intent of the Local Rule as it was articulated to him after the match.

Considering that a Local Rule was in effect, F finds that WT was justified in taking his free drop.

2. Facts

WT’s bunker woes continued as he then pushed his approach shot right into a greenside bunker guarding the Par3 16th hole. Actually, two bunkers guard the right side of this green, which bunkers are separated by a narrow, but level grassy pathway. This second bunker was clearly under repair as WT’s ball lay on a sheet of old plastic. As WT prepared to drop, back from the second bunker into a relief area on the pathway separating the bunkers, on the level lie, F politely advised him that his “reference point” for “nearest” complete relief would actually be behind the bunker.

This location was not favorable for a drop. F and WT could both see that a drop into a “relief area” at this location would require a drop inside the mogul framing the bunker on a severe downslope, and require a shot back over the bunker into a narrow green backed by Richland Creek – in other words, an impossible shot.

WT kindly thanked F for this advice, and even though his ball was clearly closer to the back mogul, he retrieved it and dropped onto the flat pathway (where the ball had entered the bunker), a point from which he easily chipped up for a kick-away par. (At least this time F didn’t have to listen to a speech).

Issue

If an entire bunker is being played as GUR, is the point of relief “nearest relief”, or the point where the ball “entered” or “last-crossed” the margin of the bunker.

Ruling

F was, indeed, correct on the second issue as a Player taking free relief from an abnormal course condition such as GUR must choose as his “reference point” the “nearest” point of complete

relief (R16). By playing from a “Wrong Place”, WT incurred the General Penalty – Loss of Hole – a penalty which was clearly well-deserved.

Caution. BMCC players know that several of the greenside bunkers under repair are framed by steeply sloping moguls. Accordingly, a correct drop during the relief process from a bunker, incorporating the Local Rule, may require a drop into a relief area on a downslope if, as a matter of fact, the ball is found lying close to the back of the bunker. (Note, however, as an alternative to this down-slope drop, players could always elect to take back-on-the line relief to a more favorable lie by adding a one-stroke penalty. (R16-1c2)).

In addition to the bunker relief issues, the Reader should note that the BMCC course now has several areas around greens where bunkers have been removed or the approaches contoured and re-landscaped. These areas at present are somewhat unfair, as a ball just rolling through an elevated green might roll another 20-30-40-feet over bare dirt waiting to be sodded. Again, the reference point for a drop is nearest relief no closer to the hole—not where the ball entered the area of GUR by the green. The Player’s best option in this scenario may simply be to play the ball as it lies off the dirt.

Final Notes

Certainly, players at BMCC during this construction process should familiarize themselves with the Local Rules re relief. F has certainly learned his lesson, and will be looking for his published copy! Specific bunkers may be added or removed from the Local Rule relief list as work progresses.

On a different and more disquieting note, F recently had to break up a quarrel between mild-mannered Readers JB and WF. Yes, JB and WF!

It seems that in their regular nine-hole match, WF had walked and played in ‘duck boots’ to combat the mud which, though practical, had clearly violated all Club and Course dress requirements, and more importantly, had “discombobulated” per JB “his sense of equilibrium” in the play of his round. JB, citing new R1.2 asked F if, in his eyes, this conduct rose to the level of “serious misconduct”, which is the new standard for disqualification from a competition. F promised to consider.

F hereby recommends this dispute be settled, if possible, in a manner certain to insure peace and harmony between the combatants—over a few tumblers of Scotch.

As usual, all comments and corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,

F