(Rules 9.6 and 16.3; Def.s “Outside Influence”. “Abnormal Course Conditions”, “Temporary Water”, “Known or Virtually Certain”)

I. Facts – Ball Theft

In a three-ball match-play competition at OEI, opponent DS yanked his opening drive into a landscaped area between the 1st and 9th fairways — an area populated by a few trees, a few large bushes, and pine straw. As his unsuccessful search was drawing to a close, a player from a group playing #9 approached and asked if he was playing a yellow Titleist, a question to which DS answered in the affirmative.

“I’m sorry”, said the player. “I found the ball and it never occurred to me that it could have come from another hole, so I picked it up.” With this rather pathetic excuse, the player tossed the yellow ball into the #9 rough, and said, “That’s about where it was. You have a better lie now than you did when I picked it up.”

DS played back into the #1 fairway from this spot, and ultimately made par to tie the hole with the other players. Before teeing off, a discussion ensued as to what DS’s options would have been had he not found his ball. At this point DS relayed the interaction he had had with the player from #9. (Note that the DS activity had transpired in private due to the players heading in different directions due to “On the Path” rules).

Foremost promptly called a penalty on DS.

“What did I do wrong?”, asked DS.

1. Ruling

If a player knows that his ball was interfered with by an “outside influence” (See, Def.) the player is required to “replace” the ball in its original or estimated spot. By playing the ball from a spot that had resulted from a toss by an outside influence, DS played from a “wrong place,” resulting in the general penalty, LOH. (R9.6, referencing R 14.7a).

(A PGA tourney note: After a reporter stepped on his ball, Rory was required to replace his ball in a green-side rough. He received plaudits for replacing his ball twice after deciding that his his original replacement left his ball in too good a lie… one not representative of his original lie. A player must replace a ball on a lie “most similar to the original lie”, which if unknown must be estimated. (R14.2(d)).

2. Facts — A Mystery

Partner TD was clearly disgusted. “I’ve run into some pretty slick lawyers in my days, and I’ve never run into anything like this,” he mumbled.

The occasion was a tight, four-ball, Son-In-Law-opponent, match play competition at HCC. F and TD had made a couple of routine pars on the Par 5 14th hole, and assumed they had won the hole against BF and KBP, neither of whom had found their tee-balls on the hole.

“No, we made pars, too”, said KBP. BF nodded his head vigorously in agreement.

Both players had bombed their drives to the corner down the left side of the dog-leg, downhill hole. An exhaustive search was undertaken to find the balls.

“I’m sure mine hit right of the cart-path”, said BF.

“Mine was barely left of the cart-path”, said KBP, “but well inside the tree-line”.

Up and down the hillside they searched…behind trees, over the hill, in the mud. A most charitable three-minute search stretched into about ten minutes. Neither ball was found. Both players had dropped a ball and played in.

A discussion was held after KBP and BF announced their pars. They were asked to present a rationale for their “free” drops. The explanation(s) that followed were about as clear as a Joe Biden interview. Various theories were presented as to what could have happened to their balls. BF even spoke of “virtual certainty”. (Basically, he was “virtually certain” he should not be penalized).

TD’s eyes glazed over. F said he had never heard such crap in his entire life. TD said he was embarrassed.

The first argument was that the balls must have plugged, although the 4 players had spent at least 5-10 minutes (using a benevolent SIL timer) scrutinizing the soggy areas with no traces of a ball indentation.

The second argument was that a maintenance worker on a large mower had either absconded with the balls, or sliced them into particles of dust. A mower had been in operation near the location of the search originally, but the SILs noted that it had , thereafter, suspiciously relocated down the hill near the tee-box of the 15th hole.

TD quickly discounted the theft angle, promising that no HCC employees were hopping out of mowers to steal balls, regardless of how employees acted in Nashville, although he reluctantly admitted, when pressed, that a black lab had been seen on the property with golf balls in its mouth. F said he hadn’t seen the black lab on the 14th hole, and even the SILs admitted that possibility of theft by dog was unlikely.

2. Issue(s)

May a player assume his ball is embedded if he can’t find it?

May a player assume an outside influence took his ball if said outside influence was in the vicinity of the ball’s disappearance?

2. Ruling

Most reluctantly, F finds that no “free relief” was warranted in either situation and that the players should have declared their balls “Lost”, and returned to the tee box under penalty of stroke and distance.

Yes, there was a possibility that both balls had plugged, despite an inability to find any embedded balls after an intense search. The ground inside the cart path was, in fact, extremely mushy. One 10 x 5 foot strip had even been marked with white paint to indicate GUR…but no ball indentations were found.

Furthermore, buttressing the case that the balls had plugged was the observation that the steep slope left of the cart path had been recently mowed, whereby any balls, if present, would have been easy to spot.

On the other hand, by the conclusion of the search, the players had scoured an area possibly 50 feet wide and 100 yards long, as a ball finding the cart path conceivably could have rolled around the corner of the dog-leg and down the hill another 50-60 yards to a stand of dense bushes. The expansive scope of the search itself argued against a free drop in the single area where the ball “might” have plugged, and admittedly no one had witnessed a ball fall in this area.

An initial hurdle the players faced under their “Embedded Ball” claim is that the Rule authorizing relief for embedded balls makes no provision for a ball that isn’t found.

A claim for free relief would then be possible only if the player could argue that the ball disappeared in an area identified as GUR, or that the ball disappeared in an area of “temporary water”, both of which are defined “Abnormal Course Conditions”(See, Def.) giving rise to free relief.

“Temporary water”, however, does not necessarily include boggy conditions, however, unless water is seen around a player’s feet before or after he takes his stance. “It is not enough for the ground to be merely wet, muddy, or soft…” (See Def. “Temporary Water”).

In short, the only area where water was puddled or visible was the area marked as GUR. After a search that encompassed half of Macon County, it is frankly preposterous that the players could claim “with virtual certainty” (by definition, 95% likely) that their balls both found this one particular strip marked as GUR, and that the gooey mud had somehow congealed over the points of impact.

The mower-man interference claim must, also, be dismissed, as this claim likewise fails to meet the “virtual certainty” standard. There was simply no evidence that the mower-man or his mower had swiped or destroyed the balls.

Finally, it is difficult to argue a 95% certainty as to one claim, when making two factually distinct claims … by F’s math, which is admittedly questionable, two claims suggest a 50% certainty level at best.

F finds, therefore, that his opponents, in taking “free relief” drops, each played from a “wrong place” resulting in the General Penalty, Loss of Hole … a terribly sad, but just result.

As usual, all comments or corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,

F