(Rs 14,15, 6, 1.3c(4))

Foremost was in a state of deep reflection as he waded into his chicken burrito bowl. How, he wondered, would he ever be able to take advantage of his Chipotle gift card in this evolving, food-delivery world of Covid? Why did he have to confirm he wanted guac every time he used the Uber delivery App? Of course he wanted guac!

Suddenly, a notification chimed on his cell phone. It was from Reader LB who had just walked off the course at BMCC. F sprang into action.

I. Facts – Touching Balls

After perfectly placed drives down the middle of the 15th fairway, LB and his partner, Reader MD, had unfortunately left their wedge shots in the right, front bunker. They found their balls actually touching, with LB’s green ball “out” for order of play.

The partners quickly concluded “that marking MD’s ball seemed futile as LB’s play would inevitably dislodge the marker”.

“Who would even find it?”, LB asked.

In addition to the marking question, the partners were concerned that the player who played second would face an ugly, excavated lie for his own shot. The clock ticked as the partners considered their options. Pace of play became an issue as a foursome gathered in the fairway behind, hands on hips.

Finally, the partners decided that MD would play first with the crevice created by the explosion of his shot indicating the spot behind which LB would replace and play his ball.

LB lifted his ball without marking, and absent-mindedly brushed the sand off it as he stood aside to watch MD play his bunker shot, a shot which, unfortunately, flew the green coming to rest just Out-of-Bounds. MD was in his pocket.

LB then replaced his ball “a few inches” behind MD’s divot, in undisturbed sand, and got up and down for a par to win the hole against their opponents’ bogey. LB contacted F to confirm their play procedure for the touching balls was in accordance with the Rules.

Ruling

Despite LB’s earnest and heart-felt claim that marking his ball would be “futile”, a bunker is not an authority-free zone, and marking is required when lifting due to interference, just as it is on the putting green.

Marking can be done in two ways: by using a ball-marker or by holding a club right next to or right behind a ball. (See Def., “Mark”). A “Ball-Marker” is an “artificial object” (See Def., “Ball-Marker”), which leads one to the necessary conclusion that LB did not properly mark his ball when he relied on MD’s divot to determine the spot at which he would replace his ball. The penalty for failing to mark a ball before lifting is one-stroke. (R14.1a).

LB’s concern that the ball-marker would be lost is misplaced. The ball-marker once placed could have then been moved “out of the way to a new spot measured from its original spot, such as by using one or more club-head lengths” (R15.3c), and then replaced.

It was, also, reported to F (F does his best to keep his facts straight) that LB lightly brushed the sand off his ball after lifting. Since one cannot clean a ball which is lifted for interfering with play, LB would have been assessed another penalty stroke. (R14.1c).

The New Rules, however, include a “Bargain Rule” which LB could have exercised at this point to restrict his penalty to one-stroke! Everyone should know the Bargain Rule! When a player commits multiple procedural breaches related to a single act (such as marking and lifting a ball), the penalty is limited to one-stroke. (R1.3c(4)).

So, did LB make a 5, including his one penalty stroke, to salvage his team a halve on the hole?

No. When a player lifts his ball in the sand, he “must re-create” his lie when the lie of the original spot is altered. R14.2d(1). By failing to re-create his original lie (or by playing a few inches behind the original spot in undisturbed sand), LB played from a “wrong place”, resulting in the General Penalty, Loss of Hole. Ibid.

F recognizes that in bunker play these days, strict adherence to the rules has been difficult in light of the absence of rakes. Most players have agreed to simply place away from disturbed areas, including footprints. Should there be a Local Rule for bunker play?

Finally, players should be aware of another pitfall in the ‘touching balls” scenario.

In addition to the “no clean” rule which applies to a ball lifted for interference (referenced above), players should be aware that, except on the putting green, only the player facing the interference has the right to request that the other player lift his ball.The other player cannot, on his own initiative, mark and lift his ball because he believes it might interfere with the player who faces the interference. R15.3b (1) and (2).

In other words, had MD and LB not been partners, LB would have had to declare interference and ask MD to mark and lift his ball. If MD had made this gesture on his own initiative, and had they not been partners, then MD would have received a penalty stroke.

Since LB and MD were partners, however, they had the right to determine their order of play (R23.6), with MD left facing the interference and having the right to require LB to mark and lift.

II. Facts – The Teeing Area

The 17th Hole at OEI is a short, uphill Par 3. The tee markers were placed at the very back of the closely-mowed section of the teeing area.

Obviously between clubs, Player BS asked if he was allowed to move and tee his ball in a higher cut of grass just behind the closely-mowed area, so long as he remained within two club-lengths of the tee markers.

(The “Teeing Area” is defined as a “rectangle that is two club-lengths deep” where the front edge is the forward-most points of the tee markers. (See, Def).

Out of an abundance of caution, BS decided to play from the tee markers!

Issue

Is the “rectangle” of the teeing area, as defined, limited to the closely-mown area, if the closely-mown area doesn’t extend two club-lengths?

Ruling

A player must start the play of a hole from the teeing area. (R6.1b). This is serious stuff! In stroke play, failure to start play from the teeing area is the General Penalty (2 strokes), which if not corrected by then playing from the teeing area, results in disqualification. (R6.1b(2)).

The teeing area is one of the five defined Areas of the Course, and one of the four defined Specific Areas. Although the picture in the Rule Book (R2.2) shows a closely-mown area, F finds no support for the proposition that the teeing area must be closely-mown, or if closely-mown, that it is limited to that area.

While another Specific Area, the “Putting Green” is by definition “specifically prepared for putting”, no such mandate is included in the definition of the “Teeing Area”.

F finds that BS could have teed up in the higher grass, so long as he teed up in the two club-length rectangle as defined. And it is too bad he didn’t stick with his first instinct… his tee ball ended up on the putting green, exactly two club-lengths directly behind the flag!

As usual, all comments or corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,

F