In recent Covid Tour, Four-Ball action at BMCC, Foremost encountered a couple of situations in which actions by a player may have led to a penalty for his unwitting, unsuspecting, and innocent partner.

(1)Facts – A Fish Story

A flash flood left player JS with an unusual lie recently as he found a fish interfering with his swing path on the 4th hole at BMCC.

“It’s dead”, said RM, who was on his knees with his head tilted, apparently listening for breathing or a heartbeat.

JS’s partner, SN, quickly reached down to remove the fish, and in doing so, lost his grip on the fish, which slipped and fell on JS’s ball causing it to hop and roll over.

A rules discussion ensued:

Issue(s)

1)What was the status of the dead fish under the ROG?

2) May a partner, or opponent (for that matter), assist in the removal of a fish?

3) Did SN incur a penalty when he accidentally dropped the fish and caused JS’s ball to move?

Ruling

The dead fish in this instance was a “Loose Impediment” (“LI”) from which JS was entitled to free relief. (See Def, “LI”, a “natural” object, including “dead animals”). The Rules are not at all restrictive as to the “means and methods” of the removal of a LI, and anyone can offer their assistance. (Int. 15.1a/1). (Readers may remember the example of the gallery once jumping in to assist Tiger in removing a boulder which was deemed a LI).

If, however, during the removal of a LI (other than during a search (R7.4) or on the putting green (R13.1d(1)), a player accidentally causes a ball to move, he incurs a one stroke penalty. (R15.1b).This penalty is incurred by any player who causes the ball to move, friend or foe, even if he is simply trying to help.

Unfortunately for JS, however, the penalty in this situation is assessed against him even though it was, in fact, his partner, SN, who caused the ball to move. In Four Ball, if a partner takes an action “concerning” a player’s ball, and causes the player’s ball to move, the player is responsible for the action of his partner and incurs the penalty. (R23.5b). So in this situation JS, the innocent bystander, gets the penalty.

(One should note here that the Rules make a distinction in the removal of LIs and Movable Obstructions (“artificial” items; See Def.) which might be involved in accidentally causing a ball to move. If the floodwaters had deposited a tennis shoe, for instance, behind JS’s ball (a MO), and SN had picked up and accidentally dropped the tennis shoe on JS’s ball causing the ball to move, there would have been no penalty. (R9.4b).)

(2) Facts – Mistaken Identity

In other Four Ball competition, on the decisive 18th hole, F and opponent RM find 3 balls in tight, 8-foot triangle in the center of the fairway (a rare occurrence!). F immediately identifies his own ball, which is marked with a large, handsome, red “F”.

RM peers closely at the 2nd ball and asks F if he can lift it for purposes of identification. (Of course, he no longer needed to ask, but he did).

F says, “Why? It’s a Titleist 2”.

RM says, “Yes, but my ball has my own individualized markings”.

“Then, go ahead”, F answers.

RM lifts the ball, inspects it, and announces it is not his ball, but instead, the ball of his partner, EC, who is in the rough helping WT look for his ball. RM replaced the ball.

F immediately calls a penalty, as RM lifted the ball without first marking it. (R7.3).

Issue

Does RM incur the one-stroke penalty for failing to mark a ball before lifting during the identification process (R7.3), or does EC (his partner) incur the penalty since it was his ball that was involved, and a player is responsible for the actions of his partner? (See, R23.5, discussed above).

Ruling

F agonized over this decision. If R23.5 applied, then EC at this point would arrive at his ball in the middle of the 18th fairway, only to be told that he lay 2 instead of 1, by virtue of an action by his partner. F did not think the conversation informing EC of this penalty would go well. (He was, in fact, correct in this assumption).

Although the action taken by RM clearly affected his partner’s ball (EC’s), F finds that R23.5 does not apply in this situation, as the action taken by RM was an action taken to identify “a” ball, rather than an action taken “concerning” “the” ball of his partner. F sees a distinction in an action taken during the search and identification process, as opposed to an action taken once a ball has been identified. Accordingly, F finds that the one-stroke penalty should have been assessed against RM … for violating the procedure required when lifting a ball for identification.

As usual, all comments or corrections are welcome! (In fact, F is appealing this Case #2 Ruling).

Respectfully submitted,

F

*Note: We all need to be resourceful during these trying times. Thanks to RM for the picture he sent in bragging about his dinner: