I’m afraid there is such a rich thesaurus now of things that I’ve said that have been one way or another, through what alchemy I do not know, somehow misconstrued, that it would really take me too long to engage in a full global itinerary of apology to all concerned*

The Setting

It was late. Foremost had just received an urgent and important call from Reader EC in the Hamptons.

Apparently, over a table of Lobster Tacos at an exclusive Hamptons dinner party, EC had overheard a player relaying to a large gathering of captivated golfers an adverse ruling he had received in his recently-completed match.

The group was deliberating the ruling, and opinions as to its correctness and finality varied. Deftly balancing a chilled vodka martini, EC calmly listened to the recitation of the facts and opposing arguments which were eventually exhausted on all sides. It was apparent that there was no unanimity of opinion, and the player remained crestfallen. EC slowly, but confidently, stepped into the group out of the shadows. All eyes turned.

“Don’t worry, I can handle this”, he quietly told the player as the somewhat-skeptical crowd leaned in to listen. “I can get you a swift hearing and the answers to your all your questions.

Have you ever heard of Foremost?”

Facts

On the 6th hole of a match play competition, Player A accidentally deflected his ball while taking a practice swing. Unsure as to the correct procedure to follow, Player A suggested to Player B that he would play two balls and that they would determine as soon as possible from the Committee which ball would count. Player B consented to this procedure.

Player A played two balls. First, he played a ball from the same spot adding a penalty stroke and getting up and down for a bogey (including the penalty stroke). He then played a second ball from the spot of the deflection making a double bogey. Player B, also, made a bogey.

A Committee member (an assistant Pro), who had been summoned, arrived before the players teed off on the next hole. He listened to the facts and consulted his rule book. Citing R9.4 he advised the players that the play and penalty Player A had incorporated after replacing his first ball were correct, and that the hole was halved. The Players thanked the Committee for its ruling and continued the match.

After the 16th hole, with the match tied, a different Committee member (the Head Pro) approached the players and advised that the Committee had revisited its earlier decision. He advised that under R20.1b(4), a Player may not play two balls in match play, and by playing two balls Player A had lost the hole, effectively leaving Player B one-up in the match, which was where the match ended two holes later.

Player A was emotionally recalling his misfortune and asking whether a Committee could over-rule itself. He was asking whether he had any recourse under the Rules, as the competition was continuing the next day. Should the Committee revisit its ruling yet again?

F worked late into the wee hours of the morning.

Issues

Was the Ruling by the Assistant Pro correct?

If not, was it proper for the Committee to over-rule its earlier 6th hole Ruling, and issue a different Ruling much later in the match after the 16th hole?

If the final Ruling was untimely or incorrect, did the player have any recourse before the continuation of the competition from which he had been eliminated by virtue of an incorrect Ruling?

Ruling

Foremost agrees with both of the Committee rulings, in part.

The Assistant Pro was correct that under R9.4, the player should have replaced the deflected ball adding a penalty stroke.

Likewise, the Head Pro was correct in ruling that a player may not play two balls in match play, as this procedure is only available for Rules questions in stroke play. While R20 does not expressly assess the General Penalty for playing two balls in match play, F would point to R6.3c(1) which does assess the General Penalty for playing a wrong ball. The Head Pro was correct in his determination that the proper ruling, therefore, should have been the General Penalty, Loss of Hole.

The question then becomes one of timing, and whether the Committee could over-rule itself by changing the 6th hole ruling, and giving a different verdict after the 16th hole. F finds that this reversal was incorrect under R20.2b, which simply states that “The Committee’s Ruling is final”. Additionally, Committee Rule 6c(10) states that a Committee may not change a ruling after the players tee off on the next hole. And finally, Interpretation 20.1b(4)/1**,while reaffirming that a player may not play two balls in match play, states that the score with the original ball must count if the opponent has not objected to play with the second ball. Player B made no objection. (Golfers, you have to protect your own interests!)

Accordingly, F finds that the original ruling by the Assistant Pro of a halved hole should have stood, and that our Hamptons player was erroneously assessed the Loss of Hole penalty which ultimately cost him the match. Where an erroneous ruling significantly affects the results of a match, a player might ask the Committee to cancel and replay the match. Committee Rule 6c(10).

F diligently forwarded this information to EC who, most unfortunately, by this time was refereeing another spirited gathering consisting of a bevy of young adults who were ransacking his refrigerator upon his return home. F was unable to assist with any rules violations by this latter gathering, and remains unsure as to whether his research made it to our Hamptons victim before the continuation of the competition.

As usual, all comments or corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,

Foremost

*From the archives:

Three years ago, almost to the day, Foremost cited this quote by Boris Johnson ….recently elected Great Britain’s new Prime Minister! … a quote which at the time articulated Foremost’s jumbled thoughts exactly as he bravely issued golf rulings to his fair, but discriminating audience.

** Note that effective January 1, we reference “Interpretations” rather than “Decisions”