(Rules 6.3,7.4, 9.4, 12)

As golfers move into the year under the New Rules, they should familiarize themselves with the new terminology of golf. By now, most players know that “Water Hazards” are now “Penalty Areas” (See Def, “Penalty Area”) and “Bunkers” are no longer “Hazards”, but instead receive special treatment of their own under a new Rule for “Bunkers” (See Def “Bunker”; and R12). Other new terminology that has received less attention to date is the designation of a “No Play Zone” (Def, “No Play Zone”), which as one might suspect, is an area of the course from which the Committee has restricted all play.

Foremost has enjoyed watching this new terminology evolve!

In this same spirit, and in the interest of making the game of golf more enjoyable and accessible, F offers a further amendment to the Rules of Golf which would introduce yet another term. F’s new Rule would require the Committee to designate a part of the course as a “Sanctuary Zone”.

The Rules for this new Sanctuary Zone would be rather straight-forward. Each course would be required to have an “open-door” policy, under which any golfer, even those from out of state, could enter the Sanctuary Zone and at the club’s expense, receive free clubs, lessons, and hot dogs, after which period of initiation, they would be allowed to play the course with full membership privileges!

Think what this would do for the popularity of the game!

“But this isn’t fair!”, some argue. “It’s our club that we have built and maintained. Are you suggesting we let in and pay for golfers we don’t even know? Wouldn’t that be expensive? Wouldn’t this open-door policy eventually make it harder to get a tee time?”

F admitted that these arguments had some merit, but assured them that new golfers from the Sanctuary Zones would eventually blend in with the memberships, and that they would certainly pay their own dues and green fees in the future. (F decided it probably wasn’t a good time to introduce the subject of extended-family memberships).

Yet others remained skeptical. “With this Rule, wouldn’t these new golfers just show up at the richer courses …like Augusta National? Why would they show up at some “shithole course” (as one Club President specifically asked) when they would be guaranteed membership at an Augusta National or a Trump National by simply entering the respective club through its designated Sanctuary Zone?”

F easily shot down this argument as a potential negative factor. Citing numerous politicians, celebrities, college professors, and news media types who clearly know better, F countered that membership exclusivity and spending constraints really should not be an issue, and that the progressive compassion of his “open-door” policy should guide governance, fiscal concerns, and the membership of the course.

Anyway, back to the actual game of golf, F found his ball in an old-fashioned “Penalty Area” in exciting Azalea Cup competition.

Facts

F’s 6-iron into the Par 3 6th Hole fluttered in the wind and disappeared into the small creek fronting the green. F watched, feeling as Molinari must have felt the next day as his ball fluttered and dropped short, trickling into Rae’s creek.

As F approached the creek from afar, his caddie pointed and said, “There it is”, before walking off. F arrived and saw a ball barely submerged in the water.

“Are you sure that is it?”, asked F.

“Yep” was the response from afar.

F was excited for the opportunity to ground his club in a creek (with no penalty), so he tried to blast it out. The ball plopped out about a foot, and F quickly saw that it was not his ball.

“No problem”, said his caddie, now hurrying over. “It’s not a penalty to hit the wrong ball out of water. But the ball I identified was in the grass, not in the water.”

F turned to commence his search in the grass and stepped on another ball, mashing it into the ground. This one was his ball.

Issue

Did F incur a penalty for moving his ball at rest?

Ruling

Initially, F was comforted by the thought that it is no longer a penalty to accidentally move a ball during a fair search. One must simply replace it. (See R9.4b Exception 2, referencing R7.4).

F had one nagging concern however. It would indeed be a penalty to move a ball at rest that had already been identified by the player. And, isn’t a player bound by the knowledge of his caddie?

“When application of a Rule depends upon whether the player is aware of certain facts, the player’s knowledge is treated as including whatever is known by his or her caddie.” R10.3c.

Accordingly, F finds that since his ball had already been found and identified by his caddie, the Exception to R9.4b (no penalty if the ball is accidentally moved while fairly searching) did not apply. ‘‘F was able to replace his ball out of the indentation, but he was assessed a penalty stroke for moving his ball.

It then occurred to F that his caddie was wrong when he said there was no penalty for hitting a “wrong ball” out of water. That exception only applies to a ball that is “moving” in water. (See Exception, R6.3c). So, F incurred the General Penalty (2 strokes) for hitting a “wrong ball”, in addition to the 1-stroke penalty he received for causing his original ball at rest to move.

That’s a total of 3 penalty strokes if anyone is counting! F was lying 4. (Mercifully, the stroke taken playing the wrong ball didn’t count).

As usual, all comments or corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,
F