Facts

Nothing is more refreshing than a frank, respectful, and spirited Rules discussion between two popular and veteran golfers, both mindful of the history and spirit of the great game of golf, and of the obligation each player has to the sportsmanship, traditions, etiquette, and Rules of play, which make golf the greatest game on earth.

In this spirit, Reader RF approached Reader WT on the practice range at BMCC and asked him why he was “so damn slow”.

Upon hearing this opening salvo, Reader”West Tyne” CC, standing only 4 feet away, turned and furiously began pounding wedge shots. Reader JS, only 8 feet away, who had been participating in every discussion heretofore, fell deaf and dumb, ducking his head to work on some clearly-manufactured alignment issues.

Only one witness remained…Foremost bravely stood in the line of fire.

To his credit, WT did not back down, and if memory serves F correctly, he told RF to “kiss his ass” and that play was slowed by the “putt it out” rule of President’s Cup qualification.

RF said this was no excuse, as WT had the whole course backed up for the second week in a row, reminding WT that he had stood on the 4th tee yelling at him only the week before. WT said he had wondered at the time who that “a-hole” was up there screaming at him.

WT said that his group played in 4 hours and 25 minutes. RF said that was “pitiful” as there was no reason not to conclude a round in under 4 hours at BMCC.

F tried to defuse the situation suggesting play might have been slowed that day by bad weather and with carts restricted to the paths. RF said the weather was perfect and play was off the paths that day. He added that he knew at least 4 people who had called the pro shop to complain about pace of play that day (a detail which pretty much summed up for F how the “no cell-phone-on-the-course” policy was working).

The jawing continued, all in good sport, although it did briefly occur to F that BMCC, with its grand history, would be the perfect setting for a duel. Imagine, thought F, WT and RF, each demanding satisfaction, stepping it off under the stately oak trees of the 18th fairway, back-to-back, pistols raised……Andrew Jackson, John Meacham stuff…. certainly a duel would give new meaning to that timeless question in golfing circles, “Who won the shoot-out?”

The moment passed. A calm and mutually-respectful truce was reached. At the insistence of the now-smiling participants, F agreed to reflect upon the situation as it might be considered under the Rules of Golf.

Intro

F hopes that his Readers will appreciate that it would probably not be a good idea for F to pick sides in this particular controversy. WT is, in fact, F’s esteemed partner on many occasions, and it would be unseemly, even mildly traitorous, for F to agree or find that WT is consistently a slow player, or that he often backs up the course… both findings which would suggest that RF was doing the membership and the human race a great service by tactfully calling these alleged facts to WT’s attention. F would have none of that!

Instead, F would like to visit the revised Rules, where great emphasis was placed in their drafting, on changes which might improve the pace of play. Several examples come to mind:

• leaving in the flagstick
• no requirement “to announce” when lifting a ball for identification, or to offer the opponent an “opportunity to observe”  the lifting
• encouragement of “ready golf” in stroke play, and by agreement “to save time” in match play
•  a new 40 second guideline for playing a stroke
• no requirement to mark a reference point in establishing a relief area
• a graduated penalty scale for prompt play enforcement
• a new local rule option for out-of-bounds ( rather than stroke and distance and walking back to the tee)
• a red stake option for penalty areas over yellow stakes (often a chance to drop across the water)
• local rule cell-phone policies
• and, of course, the new 3- minute search

Yet, despite the increased emphasis on pace of play, the issue continues to attract great attention and criticisms on the amateur, as well as the professional level. Often, involved parties have different perspectives or interests at stake….whether the players, the television network, or the committee and referees, who want to be very careful before assessing penalties with millions of dollars potentially at stake on a single shot! (Or, with generous pro shop credits at stake on the local level!)

Issues

So under the Rules, who is responsible for enforcing pace of play? Can penalties be imposed?

Ruling

As much as a player might like to penalize a fellow player for slow play, the Rules place enforcement of pace of play guidelines on the Committee. The starting point for players is R5.6 ominously titled “Unreasonable Delay; Prompt Pace of Play”. This Rule restates the obvious- that a player should prepare for his next shot, move between shots, and get to the next tee. It introduces the 40 second guideline in making a stroke. And finally, it codifies the “ready play” and “save time” possibilities in stroke and match play.

Penalty levels are then established for violations:

First violation- one stroke
Second violation- General Penalty
Third violation-Disqualification

The Rule then states the Committee (referencing Committee Procedures 5G) should adopt a Local Rule to establish a Pace of Play policy “to encourage and enforce” prompt play. The Local Rule might establish timelines for the completion of a round; it would contain procedures to monitor a particular group or player, and; it would outline a penalty structure.

If pace of play remained an issue, the Committee might even consider limiting the field, or factors involved in setting up the course…such as widening fairways, or slowing down the greens. In other words, the Committee has broad discretion in establishing and enforcing pace of play guidelines.

Personally, F thinks that RF’s penalty suggestion of 40 lashes for WT is a little harsh… but who knows what the Committee would say…

As usual, all comments or corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,
F