As exciting as college football was this past weekend with the App State Hail Mary or, perhaps, Vandy’s stirring come-back victory over NIU, the PGA Fortinet Tournament finish had to steal the stage for drama.

Foremost has never seen anything like this at this level. In case you missed it. Danny Willet 3-putt from a relatively flat-looking 3’7” to hand a golf tournament to Max Homa. He missed first for the win, and then missed the 5 foot come-backer for a play-off, all after Homa miraculously pitched in for his birdie to force the winning putt attempt.

And in other exciting links action:

I. Facts

One of OEI’s fine golfers, Reader ML , had a pretty good round going recently as his play concluded on the short Par 3 17th Hole in Men’s Competition. (Yes, OEI assigns golfers on its s… list (just kidding – I think) to start on the oft-diabolical Par 4 18th Hole which requires a precision drive and precise 2nd shot to avoid a big number. (It plays regularly as a pick-up par 7 for Foremost, which is beside the point, but explains why play was finishing this day on Hole 17).

Mountain golf poses challenges golfers don’t regularly face in other settings, one being the challenge of steep, grassy slopes along green-sides. In this stroke play competition, ML was on such a steep downslope above the 17th green facing a short chip to the pin. As he approached his ball and began to take a stance, the ball moved and rolled a few inches down the hill.

ML determined that he had not caused the ball to move. Nevertheless, the ball had moved so he replaced it. He then chipped onto the green leaving the ball four feet below the hole. As he moved in confidently to finish up for his par, the ball rolled over again. ML announced that he had not caused the ball to move this time either (indeed, the green had been aerated and the ball had possibly been sitting upon a groove ridge), so he marked and replaced his ball, and stroked it in for a par.

“Darn”, he exclaimed. “The ball rolled over on me twice. Did I proceed correctly?”

Fortunately, F was on hand to try to offer some assistance.

Ruling

In both instances, the ball was either caused to move by the player himself, ML, or by “natural forces”. A player is treated as having caused the ball to move only if it is “known or virtually certain” (the “kvc” standard) that he was the cause. (R9.2b(2)). As defined, “kvc” means “more than just possible or probable…but 95%likely”. In the absence of any observations or considerations suggesting otherwise, ML is vindicated in making the determination that he did not cause his ball to move in either instance. He, thus, avoided penalty strokes under R 9.4b for causing his ball to move.

If, however, a ball is moved by natural forces in the General Area, a player must play the ball where it comes to rest. In other words, if one isn’t going to call a penalty on himself for causing the ball to move, he must play it where it lies and not replace it. ML was, accordingly, subject to the General Penalty, for moving and replacing his ball on the slope and playing from a Wrong Place (R9.3).

On the Putting Green, a player is always entitled to his spot once he has marked and lifted his ball. This rule applies if the ball is accidentally moved by the player, or if moved by natural forces. ML had never marked or lifted his ball on the putting green, however, as he had intended to simply brush it in for his par. It had moved as he had set up to make his stroke. In this case, as the ball was moved by natural forces, and as ML had not previously marked or lifted his ball, he was not allowed or required to replace it, and by doing so he again played from the Wrong Place, and was again subject to the General Penalty. (R9.3).

F is pleased to offer these clarifications.

II. Facts

In a friendly Four Ball competition at HCC, F and partner, JSu, were already two down to the formidable team of TD and BC as TD faced a 10-foot uphill putt to win the 6th hole. (In other words, F was beginning to feel that it would be a good time to call a penalty).

Of course, Readers know F never thinks that way, but nevertheless, a clear violation occurred. After TD took his stance, and as he lined up his putt, BC stood behind him and said, “right edge”. Almost instantaneously, TD stroked the ball into the cup for his par and the win. BC was absolutely correct. It was a right- edge line, and TD executed a well-stroked putt.

F reluctantly called a violation. He noted that TD had failed to back off his stance after the read, and that BC had remained on the line of the putt during the stroke.

Although BC mildly disputed the fact that he had remained on the line, the fact that TD had not backed off his stance after the read was not under dispute. After a bit of artful, lawyerly equivocation, which was getting him nowhere with F, TD acknowledged the penalty, and sadly informed his partner that due to the penalty stroke he had incurred, their team had halved rather than won the hole.

Ruling

F is an idiot.

Yes, the violation was clear. Under R10.2b(4), once a player takes a stance with a caddie (or partner) standing behind him in a location on an extension of the line of play, he is subject to penalty unless he backs off his stance and resumes it only after the partner has moved out this location.

Unfortunately F, perhaps feeling a bit smug after this ‘gotcha’ moment, didn’t realize that the penalty for a violation of R10.2 is the General Penalty, Loss of Hole in Match Play. F and his partner should have won the hole, rather than accept and allow TD to score the hole as tied!

Of course, this little scoring error proved decisive down the stretch! It sure would help to know the Rules!

As usual, all comments or corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,

F