Facts

Foremost played a blind uphill second shot into the Par 5 17th Hole at HCC from a lie right of the cart path on a slope descending into a creek-side Penalty Area. He was riding in the golf cart with opponent TD in a tight match with two holes to play. They approached the balls in the fairway, as all players had hit their second shots.

Upon arriving at the first ball in the fairway, TD quickly grabbed an iron and was beginning to take his stance. F considered for a second that he was also playing a Titleist, and that the ball TD was preparing to hit might be his. Without saying anything, F approached and marked, lifted, and examined the ball, confirming the ball was not his. Indeed, it was TD’s ball as F’s ball was, in fact, some twenty yards up the fairway.

“I wanted to make sure that wasn’t my ball”, said F, placing the ball back in its original position.

TD was taken aback and flustered by F’s precipitous action and had to take moment to compose himself. He then yanked his approach shot into the steep grassy bank bordering the green eliminating any realistic chance at par. He immediately blamed his miscue on F.

“How can anyone wearing a d… ”F” on his hat, claiming to know anything at all about the Rules, reach down and pick up an opponent’s ball when he is about to make his stroke?”

The rant continued.

“….I’ve played Augusta, Pebble Beach, St.Andrews, and places all over the world with some pretty good golfers, and I’ve never seen this kind of sh.. in my lifetime. ….I’d already selected a club and addressed the d… ball. …that was a bush-league move
….Would Tiger pick up Phil’s ball as he was preparing to make his stroke?”

F conceded that the timing might have been a little awkward, in retrospect, but insisted that he had a right to confirm the identity of the ball if there was any reasonable doubt.

“I’d already confirmed the identity”, said TD.

“I wanted to make an independent confirmation”, said F.

“Why?”, said TD, beginning to sound like a lawyer. “If I play the wrong ball, I lose the hole anyway.”

“That’s irrelevant”, F replied.

“Well I’m calling a penalty on you for touching and messin’ with my ball”, said TD.

Issues

-May a player touch another player’s ball for identification?
-Must the player announce his intention to lift a ball, and offer his opponent or other players an opportunity to observe the lifting?
-Is it significant that the timing of the action to identify might have been late or inappropriate, as the opponent stated he was preparing to make his stroke?

Ruling

A player may lift a ball to identify it if “the ball cannot be identified as it lies.” This action may only be taken if the lifting or rotating is “reasonably necessary” to identify the ball. R7.3. Although F could see that the ball was a Titleist, rotation or lifting was necessary for him to confirm that his signature “F” marking his ball, or his patented “leaping man” logo were not underlying the position of his ball.

In what F deems the worst rule change of the New Rules 2019, the right to identify a ball by lifting no longer requires that a player announce his intention to his opponent, or offer said opponent an opportunity to observe the lifting. F suspects that the Rules drafters were most considerate of the professional game, with deference to speed of play and the ideal that golf is a game played by gentleman, a rule which makes the most sense in the professional game where balls are most frequently seen in flight and found in the fairway or on a pristine course uncontaminated by lost balls from every-day play.

F would offer the observation that the drive in the amateur game often finds the ball in woods or in the rough, and that players in practice may now touch and rotate every ball to confirm its identity. Isn’t it always “reasonable” to confirm the identity of a ball in the rough? Accordingly, in light of his own blind shot, F finds that his lifting for identification purposes with no declaration of his intention was appropriate under the New Rule.

While F’s timing in lifting the ball as TD prepared his stroke might have been awkward, such timing was not, in and of itself, an infraction. A player has an absolute right to identify his ball where the action is reasonable. Certainly golf is a game played by gentleman, and gamesmanship cannot be tolerated. The Committee, upon a claim and review, could disqualify a player for “serious misconduct” ….actions taken “contrary to the spirit of the game” (R1.2) although no such charge was leveled by TD against F. (Although TD did question why F was messing with his ball on the next to last hole of a close match). Nevertheless, F finds that his motivation was innocent, and any suggestion to the contrary was unwarranted.

If there are any questions concerning this Ruling, F would note that it has been confirmed (albeit somewhat reluctantly) by a higher authority.

TD graciously accepted this verdict, although he said he would be offering F only “cheap gin” in the future.

As usual, all comments or corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,
F