(1) Facts– Yellow Balls

Foremost had decided to play a yellow ball, while his partner Sandwich, and opponents RM and JS were playing white balls. No contestant had changed his ball color for 12 holes (almost 3 hours) and F had grown quite accustomed to playing the yellow ball.

On the daunting 13th hole at BMCC, a difficult dog-leg right, F led off with a powerful drive left which he hoped would not run through the bend of the fairway. Opponents RM and JS hit, with both of their balls veering into the tree-lined right side, perhaps out of bounds. F and Sandwich, who were riding, quickly pulled away from the teeing area. They stopped some 20 yards away, as it became apparent that RM and JS had both elected to hit a provisional.

After these provisionals were played, F and S immediately headed to the tree-line to initiate the search for their opponents’ balls as a gesture of sportsmanship (a common courtesy in the game of golf) and to speed play as ZM and JS were walking. After an extensive and unselfish search, F and S found both opponents’ balls in-bounds. F advised them of the successful search, and proceeded alone across the fairway to the left side at the bend to play his own ball, the yellow one, which was in the fairway left, as it was out. He quickly did so, just missing the putting green surface.

RM and JS then walked across the fairway, and after a brief search, sheepishly advised F and Sandwich that there was another yellow ball settled in the rough some 15 yards ahead of the ball F had just played and that, unfortunately, F had played RM’s provisional ball. It seems that RM had slipped a yellow ball out as his provisional, a fact unknown to F and unannounced.

F immediately declared he was out of the hole for playing a “wrong ball”.

“Why didn’t you tell me you were playing a yellow ball”, F asked RM, in a kindly manner.

“Did you place your own identifying mark on the provisional ball?”, F continued pleasantly. (It had occurred to F that he wouldn’t have played the wrong ball if a personal identification mark had been placed on the provisional by RM).

Frankly, RM was not very sympathetic with F’s misfortune. He noted F had already pulled off in his cart when he made the switch; that he had played a Yellow Titleist while F was playing a yellow Callaway; that F always marked his balls with a large, rather obnoxious “F”; and finally, that he was on the other side of the fairway when F played the wrong ball … all true …. although he added with a smirk that his partner, JS, had put his finger to his lips as F was preparing to hit, an allegation which JS hotly denied.

Issue

Must a player announce a ball change to an opponent, or place an identification mark on a new ball? Did F have any recourse for the hidden ball trick?

Ruling

No.

A player “should” put his identifying mark on his ball (R6.3a) so that players are able to identify it during play (R7.2), although this is a recommendation and not a requirement. Further, there is no mandate that a player “announce” that he is starting a hole with a new ball of a different brand or color, although such an announcement is probably customary in some circles, as players often hold up balls to display brand and identification marks as a courtesy.

Nevertheless, a “wrong ball” includes a ball other than the player’s ball in play (See Def. “Wrong Ball”). The penalty for playing a wrong ball in Match Play is the General Penalty, Loss of Hole (R6.3). F was out of the hole.

(2) Facts- What is the Meaning of “Close To?”

Opponent RM had a 12 foot putt for birdie to win the hole. As he stood over his ball, he asked his partner, JS, to take a look at his line. JS stood behind him, voiced his concurrence with the read and, perhaps, took a step away from the line of the putt. As RM putted, F noted JS appeared to be leaning over and tilting his head back over the line.

RM putted, just missing. After the putt was made, Foremost asked everyone to “freeze” and observe their position. At that point, he advised JS that he had remained in RM’s line during the putt and that, consequently, RM was in violation of R10.2b(2) which prohibits certain “other help” on the putting green, such as a partner standing “on or close to” a player’s line of play.

F suggested that RM incurred the General Penalty, Loss of Hole, as the recipient of this “other help”. (F and Sandwich really needed to win a hole).

JS argued that he had not lined RM up, but rather had just viewed his line of play. He then stated that he had moved a couple of steps away from the line. The argument continued to the next teeing area as to how close JS actually was to this line of play. F said if “two feet”, that was probably too close, not to mention that F thought he was leaning and peering down the line. JS countered that he had said “two steps” rather than “two feet” and that his two steps probably equaled six feet.

As the players approached the next teeing area, F politely announced that he would be seeking a Ruling by the Committee as to the “on or close to” issue, as the opponents could not agree as to whether an infraction had occurred. The players then teed off on the next hole.

Ruling

R10.2b(2), referenced above, actually states that a “caddie” may not stand on or close to a player’s line. In Four-Ball play, a partner may not give any help to a player that a caddie is not allowed to give, including actions not allowed under Rule 10. (R23.5).

It quickly became apparent to F, however, the more he thought about it, that he probably wasn’t going to prevail in a factual dispute over a foot or two with the Committee which would probably be inclined to take the word of the player in a head-to- head factual dispute over whether one step or two steps were taken, particularly in light of the player’s insistence that he had stepped away from the line. F suspected the Committee would give the player the benefit of the doubt as to the “close to “ issue.

F then considered that he should have, also, raised the objection that RM had never stepped away from his line of play after JS stood in his line. If a caddie (or partner) stands in the player’s line on the putting green, there is a penalty which can be avoided only if the partner moves away from the line and the player backs away and retakes his stance.

F kicked himself. He was so preoccupied arguing the “closeness” issue, that he failed to raise the “back away” issue prior to teeing off on the subsequent hole. By the time he had mentally registered this violation, the players had already teed off. As he had not advised his opponents of this other complaint prior to the next shot on the next hole, this additional complaint would not have been “timely” for consideration by the Committee in a request for a Ruling. (R20.1b(2)).

F just needs to play better. Some days the Rules just aren’t very helpful.

As usual, all comments or corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,
F

I