Sandwich Steals a Partner!

Sandwich Steals a Partner!

I. Facts

In four-ball competition at BMCC, Foremost was a little slow out of the gate, but his partner RMcN had held off opponents Sandwich and SH with a bogey/par start.

“Ok, we are one up”, said F to RMcN as the players proceeded to the third hole teeing area.

“Oh no”, said Sandwich. “RMcN is my partner and you and SH are two down.”

Well, F was flabbergasted with this announcement, as he distinctly remembered he had tossed the balls and assigned the teams. He had never had a partner stolen after the commencement of a round, and was prepared to debate the issue, but before he could get in a word, RMcN quickly teed off (his usual custom) and Sandwich had begun his deliberate teeing routine (his usual custom). SH was acting a bit shell-shocked as if he’d just unexpectedly lost an election or something, but he was apparently content with the new teams, so F just shut up (not his usual custom) and played on, although he was more than a little miffed that he had gone from one up after two holes to two down!

The match seesawed back and forth all day, with F finally winning the contest for the F/SH team on the 18th hole with a net par. “It’s unfair to have to give you a stroke on 18”, said Sandwich somewhat ungraciously, forgetting that until most recently, he had historically been the recipient of numerous strokes. F had, indeed, earned his stroke stipend!

As the dollars were about to be exchanged in the locker room, RMcN balked. “You know I was your partner with the original ball toss”, he told F, addressing all the players. “I demand we take another look at the scorecard, and see if I won as F’s partner.” Hmm, F thought he had been correct about the ball toss!

Mild-mannered SH perked up and entered the discussion at this point, having concluded in his own mind that an adjustment to the partnership pairings at this point would surely result in his owing dollars instead of receiving dollars. “That’s ridiculous”, he said, glaring at RMcN.

Fortunately, lawyer ML was at the table listening. He scratched his chin, took a slow sip of his drink, and solemnly opined that the parties had apparently “ratified” the new partnerships by their continued play and by their “mutual reliance” on the new partnerships after the second hole although, he ventured further, that if the partnership error had been revisited before the turn, as opposed to on the back nine, or at the end of the match, he might have been persuaded to rule otherwise. F listened carefully (pondering the rationale behind the 9-hole debate cut-off point), but with deference to ML’s reputation as an esteemed civil litigator, F concurred with the verdict, as off the top of his head, he could not think of a Rule of Golf referencing the mid-round theft of a partner.

RMcN reached for his wallet. He said he couldn’t believe F would turn over a matter of such importance to a dang lawyer. Sometimes, it is hard being F.

A Digression

As an afterthought, the concept of switching partners led F to consider the current NIL controversy in college athletics and the practice of players signing up with or switching to schools for cash (like Sandwich). F reads that boosters of some schools are forming “collectives” to administer NIL payments.

While F acknowledges that there may be many Readers on this board who certainly know more about the NIL subject than F, this reservation has never discouraged F in the past from addressing a subject. As to “collectives”, F suggests:

– the idea of “collectives” (Texas Tech, SMU, Clemson and others), that donors can make a tax-deductible gift to the collective, which will then make a tax-deductible gift to a charity, which will then strike an NIL deal with a player to pay the player a monthly sum as authorized and directed by the collective …. Really? Certainly this idea isn’t going to get past Biden’s 87,000 new IRS agents, is it?*

1. F doesn’t think a charity can be established to benefit a specific player(s), like a football team, and laundering dollars through a charity for the express purpose of paying football players doesn’t seem like it should work.

2. Colleges will ultimately fight the deductibility to “collectives”, as they don’t want to compete with the collective for their donor dollars. Colleges may find that donors would rather give to the football collective to benefit football players rather than to the general athletic fund, or other general funds where the donor has no say in how his dollars are spent.

3. Women and Title IX sports will hate the collectives and fight the deductibility as, despite the lip service to the contrary, all the initial “collective” dollars are going to Men’s teams rather than to Women’s. The problem is, universities will have no management control over the “collective” (as the “collective” must be a distinct entity apart from the university) and the university administration will be unable to direct that “collective” funds be established to benefit all sports and all athletes, male and female. (F can only imagine the panic in university development and athletic admin offices if and when they start losing donated dollars to “collectives” run by donors! What if the funding priorities of the donors don’t align with the funding priorities of the Universities? Imagine that!)

*(If there is an IRS opinion letter pre-authorizing the structure of these “collectives”, F certainly hasn’t read about it yet).

The NIL landscape may be more fun than the action on the field this year, and it will certainly encompass all college sports. For instance, will college golfers awarded an NIL deal ever again be able to participate in Amateur golf? I read the USGA is considering this issue, and so there is much more to come on the NIL front….but back to the ROG…

II. Facts

Reader SS wanted to know if his opponent could measure the distance for his one-club relief from a sprinkler head with his driver, then put the driver back in his bag and chip onto the green with an iron.

Ruling

Under the New Rules (2019), in determining the size of a relief area, one club or two-club relief, as appropriate, must be measured by the longest club in the player’s bag, excluding the putter (“excluding the putter” was added so that players could not extend a relief area to their advantage by using a long putter). (R16.1b and Def. “Club Length”).The purpose of the new rule is to provide consistency in establishing the measurement of a relief area for a player, a distance which will apply to this player for the entire round based on the longest club in his bag, excluding a putter (which longest club is usually a driver). In addition, the New Rules provide that it isn’t actually necessary to stretch out the driver each time if the measurement is eye-balled within the driver’s length ( in the player’s “reasonable judgment” R1.3 b(2)), although placing the driver at the point of nearest complete relief and marking the distance with tees is considered a good practice.

The club used in establishing the relief area is simply for measurement, and the player can select any club to make his stroke.

As usual, all comments and corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,

F


4 thoughts on “Sandwich Steals a Partner!

  1. Bummer! As a former long putter guy, this is not fair. It’s a “club” and(without the benefit of having actually READ the rule) how can a Rule that provides relief determined by the length of a “club” not provide relief under the stated circumstances?
    I would guess the poor decision
    In the case in question must have been rendered by a Democrat.
    Just trying to be fair here.

  2. Tate – I have to say, this is the first time I’ve ever heard of someone arguing / debating to be your partner.

Comments are closed.

Comments are closed.