1. Facts
From the cavernous front bunker guarding the difficult 11th hole at BMCC, Foremost feathered a splendid blast shot to six feet below the hole. He faced a manageable uphill putt for par, net birdie, to possibly win the hole against the formidable JS/RM team which was three holes up in a hotly-contested four-ball match. As F emerged from the bunker his partner, Sandwich, was engrossed in his own meaningless 10-foot putt for a bogie five.

(Long-time Readers might be aware that Sandwich has a reputation for being somewhat single-minded and deliberate on the putting green).

Before F could get to his ball, Sandwich, his face a profile of stony determination and concentration, reached over with his putter and dismissively slapped F’s ball back to him without an attempt to mark its spot. Opponents JS and RM were stunned, as was F, as F’s putt was the only one that mattered.

“What did you do that for?”, F asked gently.

“I thought you were out of the hole”, said Sandwich. “What took you so long in the bunker?”, he asked.

“I was raking it”, said F.

The JS/RM team struggled to suppress their smiles at the situation as it was clear F had fallen victim to the “Sandwich Trance”. After huddling together and mumbling something, perhaps reminding themselves they were three holes up, they then politely invited F to replace his ball and attempt his putt. Although F sensed a terrible rules infraction at this point, he really wanted to putt since, match notwithstanding, he couldn’t remember making a par in the last hour or two.

Consequently, after perhaps making a brief, passing remark about a “possible” violation, F replaced his ball and sunk his putt. RM topped F’s putt with a side-hill 5-footer for his par, and all declared the hole was halved.

The incident quickly faded in the minds of the contestants. The match squared after Hole #16, however, and the JS/RM team stated that, under the circumstances, they might wish to revisit the halved scoring result of the 11th hole.

The status of the match , at this point, became a point of some debate.

Issues

May a player, without penalty, replace his ball, estimating its prior location, after it has been mistakingly removed without marking by his own partner, who has had an honest mental lapse as to the number of strokes taken by said player?

Can a team hold a possible rules violation and penalty assessment on a prior hole as an “insurance card” to be played only if needed?

Rulings

(1) In Match Play a partner may take any action concerning a partner’s ball that the partner may take. (R23.5a). Accordingly, when Sandwich deliberately raked F’s ball (essentially lifting it without marking), the effect was as if F had lifted his own ball without marking, resulting in a one-stroke penalty for F. (R9.4b). Ignorance by Sandwich is not an excuse for failure to mark a ball. Innocence and lack of complicity by F, also, offer no reprieve. The correct course of action would have been for F to replace his ball adding a penalty stroke, in this case resulting in a bogie five.

(2) There are no “insurance cards” for a score-keeping rules adjustments during a match if, with full knowledge of the facts, the players tee off on the ensuing hole having resolved the issue or having reserved a claim for a ruling. (R20.1b(2)). The JS/RM effort to resurrect the 11th hole episode and scoring on the 17th fairway was untimely as the scoring issue had been previously agreed upon.

Conclusion

Needless to say, while F is fairly certain that his above-mentioned rulings address the surface issues of this unfortunate incident he is , also, keenly aware that his astute Readers are probably uncomfortable and dismayed with F’s own pitiful silence and conduct on the 11th hole.

Isn’t there another issue here that should be addressed?

Yes, of course! F knew that his dumb-ass partner had broken a rule and that a penalty was warranted against F! And yes, of course JS and RM knew that this penalty should have been assessed!

Accordingly, and without regurgitating the selfish or noble intentions of all parties involved in over-looking this awkward incident (all wished to spare Sandwich any further embarrassment), F finds that all parties should have been disqualified for agreeing to waive a Rule (R 1.3). The result, in hindsight, is that this match was null and void, and all prize money should be returned. This seems fair.

(F now accepts Venmo).

As usual, all comments or corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,
F