The world breathed a sigh of relief when he announced that he would not retaliate. The response would not have been “proportional”, he explained later, and the evidence had not fully supported the conclusion that the opposition had even been at fault. Nevertheless, Foremost issued a stern warning to all opponents that he would remain ever-vigilant.

Facts

The Par-5 6th hole at OEI presents a daunting challenge off the tee box. The striking feature of the shot is the elevation change as the ball descends from an elevated tee box, beyond a plateau, and over a rocky cliff to a landing area guarded by Penalty Areas left and right. Swirling winds make the shot extremely difficult. Foremost was delighted when his drive soared down the middle of the fairway. He watched as the ball finally dropped out of sight, as if struck by a drone.

His ball had plugged leaving a 2-inch hole, but it had somehow escaped, rolling a couple of inches beyond the plug mark, leaving F a swing path obstructed by the raised indentation of the plug mark. Opponents TR and JH, who were tired of talking about Vandy baseball and lamenting the state of the the South Carolina program, walked over to view F’s predicament.

One suggested politely, “Are we playing lift, clean, and place?”

The other said, “The New Rules are more lenient. Can’t a player improve his lie now for a ball in the fairway?”

F thought he saw a couple of faint smiles.

Issues

May a player step on, or otherwise smooth irregularities in the surface interfering with a stroke?

Under what conditions may players agree to play under the LCP Rule?

Ruling

One of the most common and abused rules of golf, in F’s opinion, is the agreement by players among themselves to play the Local Rule “Preferred Lies” (Model Rule 3-E, aka, “Lift, Clean, and Place”) without any such directive or authorization from the Committee. If the Committee has not advised, or posted that the Local Rule is in effect, then it simply is not in effect. Players don’t get a vote!

(F thinks Committees in general could be a little more helpful in this regard in everyday play….they are great at letting everyone know that carts are on the cart paths, for instance, but not whether the Local Rule is in effect. Of course, the flipside of this suggestion, as F was once sternly reminded by Committee Reader KW, is that the Committee is not required to post a negative … even for F’s benefit! In other words, it is not the Committee’s job to say that the “young tree” rule is NOT in effect, or that the Local Rule authorizing “Preferred Lies” is NOT in effect, etc.) So the bottom-line, F suspects, is that the player should play the ball down, or inquire if there is any question as to whether the LR has been adopted for that particular day.)

The day at OEI was spectacular, with the sun shining, and the carts off the paths. There had been zero discussion about LCP on the first tee, and no inquiries made to the Committee.

Accordingly, F was required to play the course as he found it, and to refrain from actions which might improve the “Conditions Affecting the Stroke”, specifically by altering (stepping on) the surface of the ground to improve the area of his intended swing (Rs 8.1 and 8.1a).

Certainly F would have been entitled to relief if his ball had remained “embedded” (R16.3b) which by definition requires that the ball be lying in its own pitch-mark with at least part of the ball below the level of the ground.

Furthermore, as to embedded balls, there has been some question as to whether a player under the New Rules is entitled to relief for a ball embedded in a Penalty Area …. one can now ground his club in a Penalty Area, right? Nope…. relief for an embedded ball is only available in the General Area.

As usual, all comments or questions are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,
F