I. Facts

In a three-ball match play outing at BMCC, Players EC, Sandwich, and Foremost were engaged in their usual, spirited competition as they teed off on the Par-Five 17th Hole. Sandwich pushed his drive right. All watched as it glanced through the branches of a large hackberry tree and disappeared from sight.

The players began their search for Sandwich’s ball, which had clearly nestled somewhere in a vast brown and crusty Bermuda rough. After a diligent search approaching the 3-minute time limitation, F and EC found the ball just beyond the tree, and F was able to retire his kitchen-timer back to his bag. One had to look almost straight down to see the ball! Sandwich, at the time, was well-ahead of EC and F, as he had hoped that his ball had escaped through the branches unimpeded.

EC and F maneuvered their own golf cart into a respectful position next to the ball and summoned Sandwich back. He returned, racing both his golf cart and his mouth at full throttle, with such recklessness and abandonment that F and EC were unable to forewarn him the location of his ball, despite pointing and frantically waving their arms for him to stop. Indeed, their efforts were in vain as he ran it over.

Sandwich had clearly moved his ball. A brief discussion ensued as to whether he had incurred a penalty as a result, and what to do, as upon closer examination, the ball was now firmly pressed into the turf. F advised Sandwich that a player may now (under the New Rules 2019), without penalty, replace his ball if it is accidentally moved during a fair search, even if the player himself is the cause of the movement. (Rs 7.4 and 9.4, Exception 2). Sandwich was visibly relieved to hear he would receive a pardon!

EC was listening quietly to this exchange, however, and upon its seeming conclusion, offered an objection. If this was the Rule, he suggested, then this was no “search” as the ball had already been found, and Sandwich had simply run over his ball as a result of his own inexcusable negligence. EC concluded, therefore, that Sandwich should receive the one-stroke penalty for moving his ball (R9.4b).

Despite F’s utmost conciliatory efforts, Sandwich and EC remained at an impasse, and resolved to seek a Ruling from the Committee as to the “fair search” question. F decided to stick with the pardon in his own match with Sandwich (perhaps because, unlike EC, he was not spotting Sandwich a stroke on the hole).

Sandwich played on. He quickly picked up his ball and dropped it from knee-height. F advised him then, graciously, that he thought the Rule required that he “replace” the ball rather than “drop” (R7.4). Without any acknowledgement or thanks for this cautionary advice, Sandwich picked up the ball and placed it atop the crusty rough.

F had a bit of a problem with what he considered a favorable position for this replacement, and advised Sandwich that, in replacing, he should attempt to replace it in its original spot. F advised him that, in his opinion, the ball should be nestled in the grass.

Sandwich placed the ball again atop the rough, though he made quite a show of bending, grunting, and deliberation in his placement. EC jumped into the conversation at this point and said that “despite the histrionics” this second placement was ”woefully insufficient”, as the ball in its original position could not be seen from even a short distance, which was why Sandwich had run over it in the first place.

“Well what am I supposed to do?”, Sandwich whined, ignoring the generous and helpful eye-witness testimony of his opponents. He continued on as before, placing and replacing, and never managing to get the ball below the crusted surface of the grass.

“It’s getting dark!”, said EC.

“I’ve got this”, said Sandwich. addressing F and EC. (Actually, the language he used was, probably, a little more directed, heated, and colorful, although it is not relevant to the golf issue at hand). He then pulled out what looked like a 3-wood, and played a fine shot from the exceptional teed-up lie he had created for himself in the Bermuda rough… a true Patrick Reed-ish moment!

F called a penalty. EC concurred. Sandwich glared in response, and served notice that he would be seeking a second Ruling from the Committee.

Issues

(1) Did Sandwich move his ball in the conduct of a fair and reasonable search, thus entitling himself to free relief?

(2) If so, was he required to recreate a similar lie… one in which the ball was nestled down in the Bermuda rough?

Rulings

Several members of the Committee happened to be in the pro shop as the players entered, leaving behind the gathering dusk. After cordially welcoming the group, and upon hearing of requests for Rulings, one Committee member sprinted to the bag room, one picked up the phone, and the other said he had to sort socks.

Undeterred, the players retired to the locker room and, upon mutual agreement, asked distinguished member and golfer, BC, if he would be so kind to sit as a Committee to settle a couple of disputes. BC solemnly agreed, immediately grasping the critical importance of the issues at hand.

(1) As to the first issue, BC quickly agreed with Sandwich that his action in moving his ball was in the course of a fair search. “A player has the right to find and identify his ball” he stated, with impressive command of the Rule. Sandwich smiled. EC shrugged and graciously accepted this verdict, although he muttered later that he had felt like a Republican at a Schiff hearing, as he was never afforded an opportunity to present his own testimony as to the actual circumstances, or the actual conduct of Sandwich during the “search”.

F could not argue with this verdict either, although he recalled an Interpretation which concluded that a player was found not to be engaged in a fair search, when he had accidentally kicked his ball walking to it, and had truthfully expected the ball to be far ahead in a different location. This action was found to be conduct “before” the search. At least Sandwich was in the correct zip code when he ran over his ball! (See, Int. 9.4b/2, meaning of “Trying to Find”).

(2) Sandwich did not fare so well on the second issue. A player is required to replace a ball that is moved… “on its the original spot (which if not known must be estimated) (See Rule 14.2)”. (R7.4).

BC scratched his chin as he pondered this issue, and began by saying that he would have to give great weight to the factual testimony of F, given his sterling reputation (at least, F thinks he heard him say this). BC then took a slow and deep sip of his beverage (F is confident he got this part right), and asked Sandwich how in the hell he could hit a ball out of that rough with a 3-wood, when he couldn’t even see the ball during the search? Sandwich’s face fell as he determined this line of inquiry was not going to go his way.

BC was correct. When a player replaces his ball under or against “any growing or attached natural object” (i.e., grass), the “spot” must include “its vertical location relative to the ground”. (R14.2c). By failing to replace his ball as required, Sandwich played from a “Wrong Place” (See, Def) suffering the General Penalty, Loss of Hole, in both of his matches.

II. A De Novo 19th Hole Ruling

Long-time Readers of these pages are aware that F has issued a couple of Rulings to recommend 19th Hole duties and responsibilities.

The first of these Rulings, upon prior and mutual agreement of the players, states that the Winner(s) shall buy the Loser(s) a post-round beverage. This is a time-honored tradition in golf, and reflects the fact that golf is a game played and enjoyed in a spirit of camaraderie, in which the participants bury the hatchet and share the fellowship of the day after the round.

Players soon realized, however, that the effect of this agreement was that the initial wager had to be of sufficient size to cover the cost of the drink. (Reader TS once raised a fit about this very issue as he questioned a $11.23 drink order by F when TS had only won $8.00. This instance included the sad spectacle of TS demanding a printed drink receipt to argue his case, perhaps the first and only such demand in the 100-year history of BMCC.)

Although the size of the wager has never been codified (understandably), F was required to issue a second ruling on this same general subject, after certain Losers (specifically, I think, the Yank and EC) followed their loss one day by ordering a premier bottle of aged Scotch, and one of the finest bottles of Red Wine from the Club’s cellar. To avoid this type of inequity, F issued a second Ruling defining a “drink” as whatever would fit in a single-glass serving from single-service selections.

This background, and these two time-tested Rulings, set the stage for a recent occurrence at BMCC. Reader RM, who was a Loser this particular day ordered a double Tanqueray Tonic. In keeping with custom, Winner F graciously instructed the server to place this order on his tab, at which point RM instructed the server to make his drink “to go” claiming, with a bit of a grin, that he had important engagements elsewhere. With this abrupt and barely-disguised announcement, RM abandoned his partner, JS, to bear alone a full recap of the day’s events by F and WT.

As this conduct by RM clearly negated the spirit and intention of the custom…that players share a moment of good fellowship… F finds that, henceforth, a Winner is not required to buy a drink for a Loser, if the loser-beneficiary has no intention of hanging around, and is ordering his beverage “to go”. F is glad to submit this New Rule.

As usual, all comments or questions are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,

F