1. Facts

In a financially-significant Four-Ball match at BMCC, team HC/BF quickly conceded a two-foot putt to opponent BV who was out of the hole. BV was apparently in no hurry to lift his conceded putt as his partner, KBP (who was still very much in the hole), had a short green side bunker shot and was already preparing his play.

After KBP made his swing and with the certainty that BV’s ball might block KBP’s ball (perhaps leaving it by the hole), BF darted to the conceded putt and picked up the ball. KBP’s ball scooted by the hole, on a course which might, indeed, have caused a collision with the conceded putt.

KBP immediately called a penalty on the BF/HC team for altering the playing conditions with his ball in flight. The BF/HC team argued that BV had a duty to lift his ball once it was conceded, that the concession was extended for this specific purpose, and that their team had a right to have a ball lifted that might interfere with and assist an opponent’s shot.

The BF/HC team, also, contended that the delay by BV in lifting his ball, and the prompt play by KBF were intentional acts, timed to possibly assist the outcome of the KBP shot. KBP responded that he always played quickly, as encouraged by the Rules of Golf, and that he should be applauded for this feature of his game.

Issues

(1) Did BV have an obligation to lift his ball once his putt was conceded?
(2) Did BF have the right to lift his opponent’s conceded putt with a ball in flight?
(3) What is the status of a ball that has been conceded? Does it matter that the putt had been conceded and that the ball was, effectively, “out of play”?
(4) Does “intent” to leave a ball at rest as interference (which might assist a shot) have any bearing on these issues?

Ruling

Foremost was summoned from a long winter of inaction to address and resolve these difficult questions.

Once a putt has been conceded, any player can lift it or knock it back. (R 3.2b). The fact that no one had done so at the time KBP played his bunker shot is really immaterial, as any player can move a ball at rest on a putting green, a removed flagstick, or player equipment even if a ball is in motion. (R11.3). (In this case, there was no requirement to mark the ball at rest since the putt had been conceded). Accordingly, BF did not incur a penalty when he lifted the conceded putt even though KBP’s ball was in motion.

(F would caution, however, that equipment used to care for the course is player “equipment” only when held or carried by the player or his caddie … so beware moving that rake with a ball in motion!).

The hard part about F’s job is weighing the factual evidence in a case when F wasn’t a witness to the action, and when the testimony he receives might be incomplete or one-sided. With this reservation, F finds BF’s testimony convincing…. that “without question” KBP hurried his bunker shot to take possible “back-stopping” advantage of a ball at rest.

Intent does matter in this instance. By playing his shot “before waiting” for the conceded putt to be removed (when he was aware that a player wished to have the ball removed), the KBP/BV team incurred the General Penalty, Loss of Hole. (R15.3).

As usual, all comments or corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,
F