The Livingston field breathed a sigh of relief as contestants reviewed the brackets and found that Foremost and his formidable partner, WT, would not be in the competition. Although he is generally not one to point fingers, F would have to lay the blame for this sad and noteworthy development exclusively on WT, who had volunteered to handle the registration.

An explanation is in order. WT claimed that he had logged into the registration site precisely at the appointed time, and that while he was the 10th respondent at time of log-in, he was 21st on the waiting list by the time he hit the “Submit” button. Apparently the log-in site failed to acknowledge his attempt to enter the name, F.

(New Readers should be advised that WT has an “aka” of “Sandwich” on this board, as at times, in the not too distant past, one would have had ample time to eat a sandwich during his putting routine. Apparently, this moniker fits his computer skills as well!)

Okay, F is just having a little fun here with WT, as he knows well that many members didn’t successfully navigate the footrace in the registration process. He is happy to report from his numerous sources that the course was in perhaps its best shape ever, that the weather was perfect, and that there might have even been a couple of rules incidents worthy of F’s consideration.

In fact, F’s phone was ringing off the hook! Since F was not a participant or witness to any of the events, the Reader will understand, and hopefully excuse, the possibility that F has failed to meet his usual meticulous standards of factual accuracy in reporting the events as the occurred.

I. Facts

The team of RM/JS was concluding an important, 9-hole flight match on the Par 5, 8th hole. Opponent DW faced a 15-30 inch putt (accounts of the actual distance vary widely) for a 6 and a halve.

DW’s partner, AJ, had encountered some difficulties on the hole according to reports. Nevertheless, he gamely holed a long putt.

“What did you have?”, asked RM.

“I think I had a 6”, said AJ.

“Well then I guess that makes you good”, replied RM, addressing DW and quickly conceding his putt. Before lifting his ball, however, DW asked RM to confirm that he was, indeed, conceding the putt.

With the halve, the RM/JS team had secured a one-up victory (scored 6-4 with a point for winning the match).

As they approached the nearby scoring tent, however, JS turned to his partner, RM, and said, “You know, I think AJ had a 7 instead of a 6”. They mentioned this recalculation to AJ, who upon reflection, confirmed that he had indeed scored a 7 on the hole.

RM solemnly added, at this point, that this misinformation had caused his team to concede the putt for the halve. Apparently, AJ and DW were astonished that RM/JS would take this position, due to the trifling distance of the putt and the confirmed concession. Friendly discussion ensued.

As the parties approached the scoring tent, the parties agreed that the hole would stand as halved, since the disputed point didn’t change the outcome of the match … only the margin of victory, which would have been 2-up v 1-up (scored 7-3 v 6-4).

RM/JS turned in the official scorecard (scored 6-4) as AJ/DW proceeded to their next and concluding match. RM/JS really weren’t in the hunt to win their flight, but out of an abundance of caution, and to protect the field, they mentioned the incident and their qualms about its resolution to a Committee member at the scoring tent, who raised his eyebrow, and promised to relay the incident to the full Committee.

Several holes into the final match, the Committee sought out and informed the AJ/DW team that the misinformation in the preceding match was, indeed, an infraction resulting in the penalty of LOH (R3.2d(1)), and that their team points were being adjusted accordingly to reflect this LOH and the 7-3 match result.

The AJ/DW team protested this shocking and unexpected decision vigorously, particularly as they ended up losing their flight by a single point … the difference in a loss v the halve. They cited the concession, twice conferred, and the agreement between the parties as to the match score.

The Committee subsequently convened a powwow of the the involved parties to confirm the details and timing of the misinformation and concession. The USGA was consulted to hear the facts from the contestants and to weigh in on the ruling. (Apparently, F was nowhere to be found). The verdict stood! F understands the match results were being conveyed electronically due to Covid, and that the original 6-4 match result, as submitted, was never actually posted.

Adding insult to injury, the flight winner of the flight mentioned herein won the Shoot-Out and the Livingston, prompting one of the chastened, but good-natured contestants to wryly proclaim (per unconfirmed reports), “the jv team just won the Livingston!”

F’s Ruling

F warns his Readers (who should not be shocked by this admission) that he may have exercised some poetic license in relaying the “facts” of this incident, and he apologizes in advance for any errors or omissions!

With this qualification out of the way, F has to say he finds this case wrongly decided.

The incident happened on the final hole of the match. Before turning in the score card, the parties discussed the possible violation (they claimed the really didn’t know the rule), and jointly agreed to submit a 6-4 match result.

With RM/JS then tasked with the job of turning in the scorecard, AJ/DW proceeded to their next match.

Once presented the scorecard, and the facts of the incident on the last hole, and the agreement between the respective teams as to the match score, F finds that the Committee had two options:

1) Disqualify both teams for agreeing to waive a rule. (R20.1b(1)).

Certainly, the RM/JS team could have simply ignored the violation (R3.2d(4)). Once they discussed a possible violation with their opponents, however, and all parties were aware of the issue and the penalty, then the “waiving the rules” question would seem to be in play.

Players can, however, agree to an outcome for a hole, even if turns out to be wrong, so long as they did not deliberately agree to ignore a rule or penalty they “knew” applied. (R20.1b(1)). Rules ignorance is, therefore, a defense of this charge, and certainly the Committee can be excused for not invoking the DQ penalty of R1.3b(1).

2) The second Committee option F sees relates to its consideration of the rules issue in the first place. After the final hole of a match, but before the match is ‘final”, a party may “request a ruling”. (R20.1b(2)). If a “request” isn’t made, or the request isn’t “timely”, a ruling should not be given by the Committee even if the rule was applied in the wrong way. (Ibid).

F finds that a “request for ruling”, while timely (as the initial result was not posted), was never made in accordance with the mandates of the above-cited rule, and therefore, the Committee should have posted the 6-4 card as submitted. An essential requirement of a “request for a ruling” is that the opponent be notified that the request is being made, or that it will be made at a future time (if the Committee is not available). No such notice was given to the AJ/DW team , who heard of the ruling request and decision, for the first time, in the middle of their following match!

F thinks that the 6-4 card, as agreed upon by the parties, should have stood in the absence of a proper “request for ruling”.

(Note: F concedes the “notification of opponents” requirement is generally discussed in the context of disputes from “earlier” holes. For example, a player must notify an opponent that he intends to request a ruling as to a disputed issue before the players tee off on the next hole. F believes this same mandate would apply to a dispute from the ending hole as well, particularly as the parties had just agreed to the match score).

II. Facts

F hears Reader CS didn’t want to be mentioned in a blog! Darn!

On the Par 4 7th hole, CS ran his 14-foot birdie putt 2 and 1/2 feet past the hole and marked. Opponent BS left his birdie putt about 10 inches short. CS conceded the putt, noting that BS had scored a 4, net 3, to win the hole.

With this observation, he dropped his ball by his marker, and tapped in his putt for a par. At this point, CS realized (or someone told him) that he also had a stroke on the hole.

F finds that CS committed two violations: dropping and rolling his ball into place, rather than replacing (R14.2b(2); and, failing to lift his marker before putting (R14.1a). As these were both violations related to marking, the “bargain rule” of R1.3c(4) would have applied limiting the penalty to one stroke….unfortunately, just enough to lose the hole!

F understands that all parties smiled about this misunderstanding, and nothing was said further, and there was no verbal conspiracy or agreement to waive any Rules as discussed above. As noted above, a party may simply choose to ignore an opponent’s violation!

CS certainly must appreciate his contribution to an understanding of the ROG, particularly since the identities of players on these pages remain undisclosed!

As usual, all comments or corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,

F