Facts

In a tense 4-Ball competition at BMCC, opponent Sandwich hit a lovely 30-yard pitch shot from the fairway to within 5 feet on the 12th hole. He approached his ball on the green, and announced that he had played the wrong ball (Foremost’s), at which point he correctly observed he was disqualified for the hole.

He then walked deliberately back into the fairway and adjacent rough, and after locating and confirming the identity of his ball, proceeded to play another pitch shot into the green. As the remaining players attempted to finish the hole, Sandwich approached the green and began lining up his putt to continue play.

“You are out of the hole. Pick up your fr’n ball”, said F politely. Sandwich said, “I’m just playing for fun” as he continued to putt, not missing a step in his infamous putting routine. The other 3 players, exhausted at this point, agreed to concede to each other short putts for bogey 5s. The only player who putted out on the green was Sandwich, who had been DQ’d.

F, who was in a cart heading through the tunnel with opponent RM, declared he would be making a “request for ruling” (R20.1b) on the completed hole. “On what basis?”, asked RM. “The putts were conceded and the hole was halved”, he added.

F said he didn’t think Sandwich could complete the hole, playing “for fun” during the competition, after he had been politely asked to cease play. F suggested, therefore, the F/TS team had won the hole due to the illegal participation of a DQ’d player on the RM/Sandwich team.

F hit his tee ball on 13, and while his partner and opponents teed off, he made a call to the Committee for a ruling in which he carefully and accurately explained the facts. The issues he posed were whether a player who had been disqualified on a hole could continue to play the hole, and if not, whether such participation disqualified the “team” for the hole. The Committee promised to examine the rules and call back with a ruling.

As F completed his call, opponent RM commandeered the golf cart and left F at the tee box. F had hit his tee ball in the left rough. He walked down the fairway, made a single pass through the rough, and didn’t see his ball. RM/Sandwich immediately declared F’s ball was “lost” as the allocated three-minute search period had elapsed. When F said he had just begun his search, they insisted that F’s time on the telephone with the Committee should count against the three minute search.

The Committee dutifully called back prior to the 16th hole and said the RM/Sandwich “team” had indeed lost the hole as the player had been DQ’d on the hole for playing a “wrong ball” (R.6.3) and a partner was liable for his partner’s actions (R.23.5). F thought there was more to the story than this, but as the Committee had issued its Ruling, F gingerly advised a stunned RM/ Sandwich team that the status of the bet needed to be adjusted as they had lost the 12th hole per a Ruling by the Committee.

RM asked if a Committee Ruling could be appealed, and F said he would be happy to review that particular issue at a later date.

Issues

1) In four-ball, is a partner disqualified on a hole when his partner plays the wrong ball?

2) In four-ball, does a team suffer loss of hole when a partner who is disqualified on the hole continues to play the hole “for fun”.

3) Does the three-minute search include time spent on the telephone when a player has not started his search?

4) May a Committee Ruling, if incorrect, be appealed?

Rulings

As much as F hates ruling against himself in his 2022 debut opinion, he finds that he must in this particular case (although this will certainly be the last time F is in error!):

(1) Although in Match Play a player is, indeed, DQ’d for the hole if he plays a “wrong ball” (R6.3c), this violation is explicitly not one which by Rule applies to the partner (R23.8). The “team” is not disqualified.

(2) The question F asked, however, is whether a player who is DQ’d on a hole may continue play on the hole “for fun”, and whether his continued participation on the hole might disqualify the team. (F certainly couldn’t remember a “continued play” factual scenario by a DQ’d player at any Ryder Cup).

The general rule is, however, that a player may continue play on a hole, the result of which has been decided (R5.5a). (On this hole it had been decided as to Sandwich).

An exception to this general rule of a right to continue play would apply if the DQ’d player’s continued play in some way was deemed “to help” the play of his partner (R23.8a(2), in which case, the same penalty incurred by the player would apply to his partner. For instance, continuing play and hitting a shot from a similar location or distance as one’s partner might be considered “help”. Players under R23 four-ball play are also governed by Rules 1-20.

Nevertheless, F’s “request for a ruling”, in addition to not alleging “help” under R23), did not specifically allege “undue delay” (R5.6), or any other violations of standards of player conduct such as “not distracting” others, or maintaining a “prompt pace” of play (R1.2), although each of these standards of player conduct were perhaps evident in Sandwich’s continued play. Therefore, on the basis of the facts as presented to the Committee by F, and on the specific issue he presented (continued participation), the Committee should have found and ruled there was no “team” disqualification.

(3) Timing applied to a “search” doesn’t commence until a player arrives in the suspected area of his ball and begins his search (R18.2). A short delay for “certain reasons”, such as requesting a ruling from the Committee, is not “undue delay”(R5.6).

(4) While an incorrect Committee Ruling can be corrected “if possible” in a timely manner, it will stand “if it is too late to do so” (R20.2d).

F is delighted to revisit the Committee Ruling although, of course, it is too late to revisit any dollars exchanged.

As usual, all comments or corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,

F