Facts

Thanks to the handicap system, Foremost and Reader EC were engaged in a tense competition against a couple of long-knocking young challengers in Readers BF and SM.

Before putting, F reached down and rotated his ball for alignment. As he did so, it occurred to him that he should have marked his ball before rotating, but then he realized at this same instance that his putter head was on the ground effectively marking the ball, and thus, he was confident he was not in violation of a Rule.

Opponent SM begged to differ with F’s unspoken conclusion, immediately asking F if he had marked his ball before rotating. F, having already considered the issue internally, hastily replied that the ball was marked, as his club head was besides the ball on the ground. SM did not dispute that the club head was indeed on the ground, but asked specifically if the club head did not have to be next to the ball.

F replied that the “marking” rule was rather generous. For instance, citing a new “Interpretation” he remembered, he noted that a player could place his marker in front of the ball instead of behind or next to the ball as required by the actual language of the text.

SM pondered this answer, and let the matter pass…at the time.

F received this email the following day from SM (who was perhaps still smarting from a narrow one hole defeat and minor monetary contribution to F):

Subject: "Right" or wrong 14.1-a?

F,

Enjoyed the golf yesterday, good playing.

Obviously the result is final, but I can’t shake this feeling that I missed a golden opportunity to call a penalty on the mighty Foremost. At the time I didn’t bother to reference language of the new rules (and maybe was a little intimidated by your authoritative response) but in reading 14.1-a this morning I should have stuck with my gut that your club was not “right behind or right next to the ball” on #11 green when you rotated the ball to align the putt.

There’s obviously some room for interpretation in that rule considering the frame of reference. Mars is right next to the earth in our solar system. And a hydrogen atom is right next to oxygen in a drop of water. But I can’t imagine any Committee agreeing that a putter 1ft. away would be considered right behind or next to a golf ball.

The old Decision 20-1/16 simply said it was permissible to place “a club at the side of, or behind the ball”. But the new rule 14 adds the qualifier “right”. (How do we reference the old Decisions and map them to the new rules?)

-SM

p.s. I’ve always believed that you should be able to rotate your ball without marking, much like a center on the football field before snapping.

Foremost Welcomes This Inquiry! Thank you SM!

Ruling

First, a matter of house-keeping. We no longer reference “Decisions”. They are now “Interpretations”. Many of these old Decisions were incorporated into the New Rules as they had effectively become “Rules “ in their own right. Unfortunately, these New Rules don’t draw a “map” between old Decisions and New Rules, and there is no “map” one might consult to follow this journey. One has to figure out the”map” on his own or, perhaps, read a book* or commentary where the map is drawn for the Reader.

Now to the Ruling. F is thrilled to finally be able to insert a phrase into a golf rules Ruling referencing “a hydrogen atom”. Yet, he can hardly enjoy this triumph, as the verdict he must render is not in his favor. Sadly, SM is absolutely correct. F should have been assessed a one-stroke penalty!

F has revisited Interpretation 14.1a/2, which he cited during the match. Upon this review, he was initially encouraged by the text – although the Interpretation does begin using the language “right next to”, it goes on to state that the purpose of this language is simply “to ensure the spot of a lifted ball is marked with sufficient accuracy for the player to replace it in the right spot.” F didn’t lift or “replace” anything with his rotation. Certainly, he never moved the ball from its spot! No penalty! Right?

The text continues in this generous vein – it can be marked “in any position (emphasis added) around the ball”…”any position”… This is good! But then, most cruelly, the Interpretation circles back and slams the door on F with the kicker… “so long as it is marked right next to it.” So, the drafters were serious about this “right next to” language.

F tried another angle. He briefly considered that the purpose of the rule, as noted above, was to ensure that one properly “replace” a ball that was previously “lifted”. As noted, F didn’t “lift” anything. This promising line of defense doesn’t work either, however, as R14 specifically states that rotating is the same as lifting.

So, in conclusion, the Rule is not as lenient as F suspected as to the position of the marker. SM would have indeed been successful had he pursued a “claim.”

F does, however, appreciate SM’s Rules deference ….that F’s reputation and “authoritative response” were so highly regarded that SM might have been a “little intimidated” ….

F might advise young SM to trust his instincts in the future. The proper response to a dubious ruling by F in the future, and one which is perfectly acceptable to F, may very well be… “B…S…” , followed by a second response, “Claim”.

But, nice follow-up by SM!

As usual, all comments or corrections are welcome! You will find them on the web page and they add much insightful color to these pages.

Respectfully submitted,

F

*F would recommend an excellent book which did, in fact, map the transformation of certain “Decisions” into Rules. He would suggest “Don’t Be a Club Short!” now available at Parnassus or on Amazon

.