What a week! Biden forgives student loan debt! He’s now got Foremost’s mid-term vote if he will just cancel these pesky Country Club dues. This item has to be next on the Democratic buy-a-vote agenda! (What an easy sale! As most members on this Board will attest, there isn’t that much difference between a College experience and a Country Club experience anyway!)

Also, Hawaii saw the most offensive destruction on its shores since Pearl Harbor, as the Commodores routed the Rainbows 63-10! Look out Elon!

On the golf front:

I. Facts

As the players approached the putting green on the 14th Hole at BMCC, Foremost sensed a window of opportunity in an intense Four-Ball competition against seasoned veterans, RGC and JB, always formidable opponents. “Finally”, he said to himself, envisioning a win on the hole.

F and his partner, BC Jr., who was visiting his Dad from NC, were both safely on the putting green looking at routine pars. RGC, the elder, was pin-high, but his ball was perched precariously on a retaining wall with a lie akin to that of Will Zalatoris on the play-off hole in Memphis. JB was out of the hole.

RGC examined his ball and lie, and somberly asked F if he was entitled to free relief from the retaining wall.

“Unfortunately, no”, said F, quickly referencing the definition of a “Penalty Area”, noting in particular that the definition, in part, referenced any area of the course marked by a red line, including any “artificial object(s) ….within the edge” (such as a retaining wall). F added (trying to help) that BC would, however, be entitled to two club-length, no closer, lateral relief under R17.1d(3) under penalty of one stroke.

RGC did not seem at all surprised by this answer (almost as if he had been testing F) and then, went back to contemplating whether his ball was playable. He had done the math and clearly did not like the idea of a penalty stroke.

(Now, to accurately set the stage, a Player could have, perhaps, taken a stab at the ball ((it lay under a turf lip in a bit of a concrete depression)), although to do so would have required great agility and balance, as any misstep might have resulted in a 10-12 foot plunge into the dark waters of the Richland Creek pond abutting the green).

RCG stepped gingerly onto the retaining wall peering at his ball, his face locked in stony determination. BC Jr., (remember, F’s partner) had seen enough. Without saying a word he pulled his elderly Dad off the wall, and slapped his ball onto the putting green into an appropriate Relief Area. (Note that this Rule relief option allows one to drop in “any area on the course” within two club-lengths) in this case allowing a drop extending beyond the collar of the green to the putting surface).

Nevertheless, RGC was assessed a penalty stroke and he went on to complete the hole with a bogie 6. The team of F and BC won the hole with pars.

F, however, was troubled. As touching and admirable as BC Jr’s gesture was as a demonstration of father/son endearment (although perhaps BC Jr was just worried about his Dad losing the car keys with a fall into the pond) and as commendable as this act was as a demonstration of the priorities of safety and sportsmanship in golf, F concluded a penalty assessment was in order.

Issue

Did BC Jr, or the team of F and BC Jr., incur a penalty as a result of removing RGC’s ball from play, without his consultation or consent, essentially deciding his “play” option for him?

Ruling

F finds that his partner BC Jr. did, in fact, breach R 9.5b by causing opponent RGC’s ball to move without RGC’s consent or at his request. BC Jr. incurred a one-stroke penalty for this infraction, however noble.

Once the ball was inappropriately moved, R9.5a states that the player, RGC, “must” replace the ball at its original spot, subject to the General Penalty under R9.5 of playing the ball from a Wrong Place. An exception to this penalty, and the requirement to replace the ball in its original spot exists, however, when the ball was moved by the opponent “at the player’s request” as the player “intends to apply a rule to take relief”.

Since RGC never requested that his ball be moved, was he subject to the General Penalty for not replacing his ball on the retaining wall?

As much as F would like to assess his opponent the General Penalty, F finds that it was not warranted in this case. Once his ball had been scraped onto the putting surface, RGC acquiesced in this decision. As he now intended to take penalty relief, he was not required to enter the Penalty Area and replace his ball, as his Relief Area was now measured from the reference point where his ball had crossed the red line and entered the Penalty Area.

RGC dropped lying 4, and two putt for a bogey 6. BC Jr was assessed a penalty stroke as noted above and , also, completed the hole with a bogey 6.

The final question then, is whether F was subject to penalty for the action of his partner. RGC was in with a 6, and this important question determined the outcome of the hole!

R23.8a states that a penalty other than disqualification normally applies only to the partner who committed the breach and not his partner. An exception to this Rule in Match Play is when the partner’s breach has hurt the opponent’s play.

In the instance at hand, since RGC had the option to replace the ball on the retaining wall in its original spot, F finds that the play of RGC was not “hurt” in any way. He had elected to take penalty relief rather than replace his ball and attempt a shot from the retaining wall. These alternative options remained the same after the breach. Since RGC was in no way hurt by the breach of BC Jr, F respectfully finds he was not subject to penalty for the breach of his partner. His par 5 won the hole.

II. Facts

In a separate match, this time partnering with Sandwich, F again took on the elderly RGC/JB team. RGC, who had blasted his drive into the valley in the middle of the fairway on Hole #11, examined his ball closely, and as if the weight of the world had been cruelly cast upon his shoulders, earnestly approached F thusly:

“May I clean my ball”?, said RGC, pointing to his dirty looking ball.

“No”, said F.

RGC looked hurt.

“May I clean the mud off the ball if I never touch the ball?”, said RGC, trying again.

“No”, said F, although he would have liked to see this attempt.

“Do you mind if I ask Sandwich if I can clean my ball?”, said RGC, persisting.

“Yes”, said F.

As usual, all comments and corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,
F