Facts

Helicopters were in the news this past week, as eight helicopters ferried our special forces into Northern Syria where they whacked ISIS leader, al-Baghdadi, who was described by the Washington Post as an ”austere religious scholar” … a confusing description, by the way, that perhaps caused several of our Readers (Foremost included) to think immediately of our own Rev Reader CS.

And while this attack was going on in Syria, thousands of miles away in the peaceful mountains of NC, other helicopters were mounting a vicious attack on the putting green of the 15th hole at HCC, as whirlybird-shaped maple tree nutlets were dropping on the green surface in mass.

Our scenario begins on this putting green with player LD, who faced a relatively simple five-footer for a birdie and a skin. As he lined his putt up, he noticed a single whirlybird nutlet pressed firmly into the turf directly in his putting line. The nutlet seemed to be perfectly level with the surface of the putting green, so situated that it would not interfere with the roll of the ball. Nevertheless, LD decided to investigate, as was his right.

F was watching closely.

LD reached for the nutlet with his thumb and forefinger, but was unable to get a grasp. He then flicked at the nutlet a couple of times with the nail of his forefinger, and was able to pry one side into the air. Apparently concluding only then that the nutlet was embedded, he then pressed it back down, stepped away, and made the putt.

Foremost reluctantly called a penalty.

Issues

(1) Is a nutlet that has been stepped upon and pressed into the surface of the ground a “Loose Impediment”?

(2)May a player lift an embedded nutlet on a putting green?

(3) May a player avoid a penalty, if any, by replacing the embedded nutlet once it has been lifted?

Ruling

Unfortunately, F finds that helicopters knocked off F as well as al-Baghdadi.

Certainly a player is allowed to remove a “Loose Impediment” on a putting green. (R15.1a). A “Loose Impediment” is an ”unattached natural object”. A natural object is not “loose” if it is “solidly embedded in the ground (that is, cannot be picked out easily)” (See Def. “Loose Impediment”). This particular whirlybird certainly appeared to be embedded as it had clearly been stepped upon and was firmly pressed into the turf.

LD certainly had the right to confirm this visual assessment, however, as to whether or not the nutlet was “loose” and “could “be picked out easily”. When this attempt failed (by use of thumb and forefinger), he had his answer. Further efforts to extract the nutlet by prying it loose with his fingernail were excessive in F’s opinion… in other words, not undertaken ”easily”.

As is often the case, however, F was wrong. He incorrectly called a penalty for LD’s action in moving an embedded object in violation of R13.1c(2) when, in fact, this Rule always permits a player to repair “damage” to the putting surface caused by “embedded objects (such as a stone, acorn, or tee”). (See, R13.1c(2) “Repair of Damage”).

F then compounded his original misunderstanding by asking if LD could avoid his penalty by replacing the embedded nutlet. There was, of course, no penalty to begin with, so this replacement was unnecessary.

As a last ditch effort to to salvage any respectability concerning his own erroneous Ruling, F considered then that LD had perhaps violated a Rule in replacing the embedded nutlet after it had been partially lifted. Certainly, he thought, a player must not take actions to alter the surface of the ground in  his line of play (thinking of the prohibition in R8.1a(3)).

This admittedly feeble argument fails as well though, as in replacing the nutlet, LD took no action to “improve” the condition affecting his stroke. (R8.1c).

Although he mangled the Rules as respect to permitted actions  in repair of damage on the putting green, F was spot on in his understanding of Loose Impediments, an understanding which, unfortunately, was inapplicable to the case at hand!

As usual, all comments or corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,
F