Live Not On Evil
(R’s 20.1a; 20.1c; 18.2; 18.3; 1.3b(1); 4.3b(6); 10.2b; and Def “Known or Virtual Certainty”)
As Foremost was getting his oil changed, the service attendant reported exciting news … that the mileage on F’s Jeep Wrangler – 21212 – was a palindrome, only the second mileage palindrome this gentleman had ever witnessed in his long oil service career! He was so excited that he threw in a 10% price discount on the oil change, at which point F promised to refer him to other customers, or at least get him on their radar.
Further inspired by this exchange, F determined that he needed to catch up on a few Rules issues, as summer’s-end club tournaments had ushered in an onslaught of thought-provoking Rule incidents and questions from F Readers.
- Facts — Ball In a Rut
In intense Four-Ball Stroke Play competition (somewhere, F gathered, in the mountains near Linville) Reader EC and his Partner found the Partner ball in a bit of a wash-out rut below a drainage pipe (See, picture attached). Although the area was not marked as Ground Under Repair, and while EC and Partner felt they should be entitled to relief, they quickly determined they would be unable to expeditiously locate a Committee member for a Ruling. After all, they were in a golf cart, not a racecar, and the Rules of Golf require that players avoid “unreasonable delay”, and play on, if a Rules Official is “not available in a reasonable time”. R20.1a.
With an abundance of caution, and mindful of pace of play, the Partner proceeded to play from the rut, which didn’t work out very well for the Partner or the team on that particular hole. (EC apparently didn’t help on that hole either).
“What could we have done?”, asked EC.
Ruling
Upon reviewing the photo evidence, F agreed the situation appeared to warrant relief, and he comforted EC by offering that in match play, his four-ball opponents would have been able to simply agree to allow relief.
As this competition was stroke play, however, and in order to protect the field, EC and Partner were required to obtain a Ruling before taking relief. Nevertheless, there is an alternative recourse in stroke play when a competitor is unable to locate a Committee member for an on-the-spot Ruling.
In the case at hand, the Partner could have elected to play-out the hole with two balls. The correct procedure to follow when playing two balls is for a Player , before making a stroke, to notify a fellow player which ball he wants to use should the Rules allow. After play, he then must notify the Committee of this election and his score on both balls on the hole before he turns in his scorecard (this timely notification must take place even if the player gets the same score with both balls, subject to disqualification). R20.1(c).
2) Facts -Match Interference Alleged in Heated Locker Room
The 7th Hole at BMCC is a long and demanding Par 4 bordered in its entirety on the right side by the swift and treacherous waters of Richland Creek. This hole has the #1 hole handicap rating, as errant drives or approach shots often meet a watery grave.
In Match Play competition, playing from the blue tees, Reader AL sliced a powerful drive which quickly crossed Richland Creek on a flightpath towards West Tyne Blvd. It disappeared from sight beyond some overhanging branches …perhaps landing in the Creek, or perhaps landing in the large grassy area between the Creek and West Tyne Blvd, or perhaps carrying onto or over West Tyne Blvd. AL stated he really didn’t know where the ball had gone, no one else was able to follow the flight of the ball either. AL immediately placed a tee in the ground to replay a ball under penalty of stroke and distance.
If only so simple…
Player Sandwich, who was in another match in the same grouping interrupted his play.
“Everything to the right of the red line is in the Penalty Area (PA), so you can drop a ball where it crossed the red line”. AL contemplated this information, picked up his tee, and walked forward up the creek-line, eventually deciding and suggesting that, in retrospect, he might want to look for his ball in the PA area between the Creek and the road.
AL’s opponent, Reader SS, was somewhat miffed at his point that Sandwich had interjected himself into his match and influenced his opponent’s play. (This prompted the later locker room conversation). SS was in good shape in the middle of the fairway, and wanted to move the match on!
In an effort to be helpful (and save time, as AL was walking instead of riding), SS advised AL that he could drop a ball into a relief area at the red line and play a “Provisional Ball (PB)” in from that point, which he could use if he was unable to find his ball somewhere ahead in the PA spanning the Creek and the border area. (“He couldn’t have reached the green from a drop there anyway”, SS confided, ” and I had a pop on the hole).
This exchange prompted Sandwich to again re-enter the discussion. He told AL that while a drop from the PA under penalty of one stroke was indeed available, AL could not utilize a drop and then play it as a PB. SS couldn’t believe Sandwich was back in his match!
Issue
What was the correct course of play for AL?
Ruling
Poor AL was a victim of poor Rules advice from both his opponent, SS, and his playing companion, Sandwich!
In fact, AL was correct in his initial attempt to replay a drive under penalty of stroke and distance. (While he could have declared and played a Provisional Ball at this point for a ball which “might be Out of Bounds (OB)” (R18.3), he apparently never considered an OB outcome, in which case he could not declare and play a PB.) (F apologizes for this circular explanation … but F finds a player can’t declare a PB for a ball which “might be OB” if he doesn’t know the OB exists — this might be a “de novo” golf ruling by F by the way!).
By AL’s own admission, he didn’t know where the ball had gone. Contrary to the assertion of Sandwich, everything to the right of the red line by the Creek is not in the Penalty Area; West Tyne Blvd is OB.
Unless a Player can state with Known or Virtual Certainty (“KVC”) (See, Def: “more than possible or probable”, etc) that his ball is in the PA, he must play it as Lost or OB under penalty of Stroke and Distance. (R18.2). AL had already stated he didn’t have a clue where the ball had landed, and so without “KVC” that the ball was in the PA, he would have been correct in initially playing it as OB.
(Although AL had the right to conduct a search for his ball in the PA, his prior statement ‘that he had no idea where the ball had gone’, would doom the possibility that he could later state, after a futile search, that he had “KVC” that his ball had landed in the PA).
With a ball deemed to be OB (if this correct conclusion had been reached), by taking drop relief from the PA, AL would be playing from a “Wrong Place” subject to the General Penalty, Loss of Hole, in match play. (R18.2, referencing R14.7)
SS then compounded the rules misinformation from Sandwich by advising AL he could play a PB from a relief area next to the red line where the ball crossed, before searching the PA beyond for his ball. This advice was also incorrect, as Sandwich pointed out.
A player may provisionally play a second ball (from the same spot) to speed up play if his original ball might be lost “outside” a penalty area or if it might be OB. (R18.3). That’s it. Play of a Provisional Ball isn’t allowed before or during a search for a ball in a PA, even if it might speed up play!
F learned later that AL did indeed take drop relief choosing a level lie outside the PA. Although the facts as relayed to F suggest this drop was inappropriate, it was apparently agreed to by opponent, SS, which ends the matter as far a F is concerned, as there is no evidence to suggest the players conspired together to break a Rule (which would have resulted in DQ of both players. R1.3b(1)). As previously stated, no one in the group had even suggested the ball might be OB, as Sandwich had declared to the satisfaction of all that everything to the right of the red line was in the PA.
F would be remiss, however, if he did not revisit the the locker room exchange, a sordid incident where SS asked Sandwich what the hell he was doing sticking his nose into his match. Sandwich reared back with his customary Tito and told told SS he didn’t know what the hell he was talking about. All the while F, an innocent by-stander in this cross-fire, could not help but listen in!
F eventually sided with Sandwich on the interference issue, at least. As far as F knows, players can always chime on factual issues, such as the the likely crossing point of a ball into a PA, or the applicable Rule as they understand it — even if they are dead wrong! Information about Rules isn’t “Advice” (See, Def.).
(Ok, actually, the conversation was fairly tame as Readers know well these two are prominent, upstanding and civic-minded members of the Community).
3) Facts – Cigar Infractions?
A handsome and distinguished gentleman with a deified aura about him stood under the porch awning during a noon rain delay with a cigar dangling from his lips. This sight prompted Reader TM to ask F if use of a cigar during a golf competition might violate the rule prohibiting use of training aids during play.
TM noted that a Player might use a dangling cigar as a training aid, in that if pointed down from the lips at the ball, any movement of the cigar during the stroke would indicate movement of the head, which is frowned upon in putting.
F didn’t see this question coming. Wow!
Ruling
F finds that usage of a cigar while putting is not a “training aid” violation under the Rules. The cigar does not assist the player in his alignment, stance, or actual stroke as the player still has to hold his head still. While a cigar might indeed serve as a motion detector or as a reminder to keep still, it is no more a training aid than the bill of a cap, a prominent nose, or that dot that many teaching pros suggest be placed on a ball for that very purpose — to remind the player to keep his head still.
While F finds that a cigar used while putting is not a violation under this Rule, he does admit that his opinion might change if Bryson or Phil decides to start putting with a pencil, a candy cane, or an alignment rod in his mouth, which might then give give some credence to this concern.
Nevertheless, F finds that a cigar laid upon the ground next to a ball and pointing towards a target would indeed be a rule violation as a player is prohibited from using any “object” to indicate his line of play. R10.2b.
4) Facts – “Yay! I found it!”
Perhaps the OB issue isn’t as simple as it seems. A Reader reports his opponent had smacked his drive over the OB stone wall on Hole # 5 and was playing it from aside Page Rd. Sometimes exchanges with opponents just have to be a bit awkward!
As usual, all comments or corrections are welcome!
Respectfully submitted,
F