If Foremost was asked to nominate the single hole at BMCC hosting the most frequent Rules infractions, he would easily select the short Par 3 Hole #6. The hole from the forward gentlemen’s tees generally plays only 130 to 150 yards based on tee and pin placement, but is situated where misfires often bring disastrous results whether short, left, or right. (The short miss, though tragic, leaves the ball in a creek bed, which rarely presents rules problems as it is simply played as an ordinary Penalty Area with well- known and commonly practiced relief options. The rules problems, from F’s general observations over many years, arise on misses left and right).

Misses Left

The Hole on the left is bordered by the Penalty Area of Richland Creek. A pull, a slight draw, a sudden gust of wind….with all too much frequency contribute to a player begging his ball to sit down, just before it takes a final roll off the putting surface, picking up speed as it descends a steep 8-10 foot slope past a Red line into a PA of dense grass, reeds, and water.

Upon F’s humble observation over the years, questionable rules play is found often with the drop relief players take under the Lateral Relief option (R17d(3)) which, as our Readers know, must be within two club-lengths of the “reference point” (where the ball last crossed the red line) and no “nearer” to the hole.

Certainly, depending upon the pin position and a proper selection of the reference point, a “no nearer” drop may be impossible, or it may require a drop hugging the line, perhaps leaving no leeway for a stance, or leaving a stance which would require one to place a foot in the water. Certainly a drop “within two club-lengths…and no nearer” does not allow a drop always permitting a stance or closer to the top of the embankment (yes, a point selected on occasion)a location which presents a more realistic opportunity for an up and down chip to salvage a bogey.

(The trick here for the BMCC regular is to act like he knows exactly what he is doing, then drop and chip quickly. A liberal measurement for the drop relief area rarely suffers a rebuke, even from F!)

(With a “no nearer” lateral drop often impossible, it is surprising that F has on few occasions, if ever, seen a player take “back-on-the-line” relief (R17d(2)), from the reference point to the teeing area or adjacent grounds across the bridge by the 7th tee. Yes, this relief would be awkward and somewhat time-consuming, as it would require a trip across the bridge and back, but it would be the proper choice in many instances based on a proper selection of the reference point).

Missing Right

The Hole on the right offers a bit of safety in a small, sloped landing area short of a bunker, although balls striking this landing area often bounce right across a cart path into an area of of undergrowth and tall, leafy flowering trees and shrubs. These shrubs are spaced just far enough apart in places to allow a limited search and one may, on occasion, find his ball, if not in a bush, in a trodden area offering play.

Unfortunately, simply finding the ball in a bush after a search in this area may offer no play solution at all as penalty relief options for a ball that is “unplayable” are: 1) stroke and distance 2) two club-lengths, no nearer to the hole, or 3) back-on-the line. (R19.2).The latter two options often will not work here as two club-lengths, no nearer, may still leave the ball in dense undergrowth or a bush, and back on the line relief may be unavailable or limited due to thickening shrubbery and a chain link boundary fence.

Despite the unsuitability of options two and three above, F has to say that he rarely, if ever, has seen a player take stroke and distance relief (back to the tee), from the right side, on this Hole #6, although this option often appears the only option available. In other words, play from the right of Hole #6 often results in an x on the BMCC scorecard.

Facts

In stimulating Four-Ball competition against RGC and JB, F and his partner, RM, both almost hit the right side of the green. Unfortunately, both balls hopped across the cart path into the bushes. F suggested they both declare and play “provisional” balls, which they did after announcing their intention to the opposition which was up ahead on the senior tees.

Play proceeded. With their “provisional “ balls on the putting green, F and RM both miraculously found their original balls in trodden areas between the bushes. F was able to chip under some branches to the front of the green, from where he was able to two-putt for a bogey 4 to tie the hole.

RGC completed the hole and called a penalty on the F team.

“On what basis”, said F.

“I don’t think you can take a ‘provisional’ unless your original ball is out-of-bounds”, said RGC. “ Furthermore, you failed to declare a provisional ball”.

As the self-appointed and acknowledged fact finder, F quickly dismissed the allegation of “no declaration”, since a loud declaration had been made (“We are going to hit Provisionals”), and frankly, acknowledged with a nod. He considered that his opponents had simply forgotten the declaration due to their advancing age, or that perhaps they simply hadn’t heard the declaration as, in fact, one probably does need a bullhorn to communicate with players on the brown tees due to the vast distance between the white and brown teeing areas.

Nevertheless, F recognized that RGC’s question about the availability of the “provisional” option had merit. RGC astutely pointed out that if provisional play was not allowed in this instance, then the provisional balls would have been “in play” (indeed, a player can always play stroke and distance after a shot, at which point the original ball is out of play, unless the S&D play was with a provisional ball (R18.1).) RGC concluded that since F and RM didn’t complete the hole with “provisional” balls as permitted under the Rules, they played “wrong balls” and lost the hole.

“This must be the Rule”, said RGC, who was now on a bit of a Rules roll. “Otherwise players could hit a provisional, and if it resided close to the hole, simply play it instead of looking for their original ball.”

F pondered this argument. In fact, F had to admit that as he had first contemplated the provisional option, he was thinking that stroke and distance might be the only play option if the ball was found and “unplayable”. Provisional play would certainly save time and eliminate the need for a return visit to the tee box. At some point, however, however, it had occurred to F that he would, also, be allowed to play a provisional for a ball which might be “lost”, and the F and RM balls might certainly have been lost, as they had bounded into the bushes.

Issue

Was it appropriate and within the Rules in this scenario to play “provisional” balls? Did F and RM play “wrong balls”?

Rulings

(1) In addition to playing a provisional for a ball that might be OB, a player may, also, play a provisional for a ball which might be “lost outside of a Penalty Area”. (R18.3a). F and RM’s provisional balls (admittedly an option rarely exercised on Hole #6) were entirely appropriate as their original balls might well have been lost in the bushes outside of a PA. Not only was the play of the provisional balls appropriate, it would have saved time in the event of a “lost” ball, exactly as envisioned by the Rule, and something to think about for future play of Hole #6.

RGC was correct, however, in that a provisional cannot be taken for an “unplayable” ball… one which will certainly be found, but which might just be “unplayable”. It was not the case in this instance that the balls would definitely be found.

Nevertheless, once the original balls were found within three minutes, they became “in play”, and the provisional balls had to be abandoned. (Int. 18.3c(2)/5(3)). (Note, that as the original balls had been found, had they been “unplayable”, F and RM would have had to return to the tee had they then chosen to pursue stroke and distance relief as the provisional balls on the green had already been abandoned by Rule).

(2) The Interpretations also address RGC’s concern that a player making a great shot with his provisional ball may simply choose not to look for his original ball. Let’s assume that F had knocked his provisional ball next to the hole for a tap-in 4, and then called off the search for his original ball.

Opponents RCG and JB would have had the right to continue the three-minute search for F’s original ball in hopes of finding it in a bush, even though F was not participating and had called off the search. In this case, had F proceeded to tap-in his putt before his original ball was found, RGC and JB could have cancelled the stroke and continued the search for the full three minutes, as F had played out of turn in match play (assuming his ball was nearer to the hole than their own). (Int. 18.3c(2)/2 and /3).

(3) Although F admits that he was thinking of provisional play for an “unplayable” ball (impermissible) as well as for a “lost” ball (permissible), he does not find this initial confused intent is fatal, as the required declaration of playing a “provisional” was made, and the Rules do not require a declaration of the reason for taking a provisional. Certainly, if RGC and JB felt there was no way the balls could have been lost, they could have tried to make this argument, although any fact-finder would have dismissed this argument as the balls did, in fact, bound into the bushes.

F finds, therefore, that there was no basis for a penalty assessment and the result of the hole, as halved, stands.*

As usual, all comments and corrections are welcome! From the Soul of America….

Respectfully submitted,

F

*(FWIW, RCG and JB won the match despite their “advancing age”)