I. Facts

A light, but cold and steady rain, drummed continuously on the players as they reached the Par 5 Hole #8 at BMCC in a four-ball match that at this point had been shortened to nine holes, by mutual agreement. The match was all square.

The green at Hole # 8 is elevated and fronted by a sharply sloping bank which descends into a small creek. Players often see an approach shot fall just short of the green, only to trickle 10-15 feet back into the Penalty Area and the creek.

Foremost’s partner, RMn, hit an approach shot that was short all the way. F walked ahead, however, and saw the ball rested at least on the slope. He was delighted to be able to inform his partner that his ball was not in the water.

The players crossed the bridge and neared the green. In fact, upon inspection, RMn’s ball had just cleared the PA and was residing in a muddy pitch-mark in the grassy slope. A small controversy ensued.

RMn politely asked opponent, Sandwich, for drop relief for an embedded ball, a request which was vigorously denied.

“Certainly, we agreed to play lift, clean, and place”, said Sandwich, “but by Local Rule, this relief applies only to balls lying in the fairway, not to balls lying in the rough”. Sandwich was adamant in his position and authoritative in his delivery.

F pondered the matter, and upon Sandwich ceding the floor, advised the players that, in his opinion, one could take free relief from an embedded ball anywhere on the course, as long as the ball wasn’t in a Bunker or Penalty Area. He observed that the “Embedded Ball” Rule had nothing to do with a Local Rule for “Lift, Clean, and Place”.

Sandwich’s partner, WH, didn’t seem convinced by F’s argument, and pulled his cell phone to obtain a Ruling from the pro shop. The Committee quickly confirmed F’s embedded ball advice was correct.

Nevertheless Sandwich, who can be a bit stubborn, refused to abandon his opposition to free relief. “I’m not sure this ball is even embedded”, he argued after the phone call was terminated. “Yes, it’s in a pitch-mark indentation, but it resides in the depression rather loosely and, in any case, it’s not in there very deeply.”

The players circled the ball again. F noted that 3/4 of the ball, at least, was below the surface line, although he had to agree that, curiously, no mud seemed attached to the ball.

Sandwich persisted. “Did anyone actually see the ball plug here? Perhaps the ball simply rolled back into this depression.”

Of course, no one had actually seen the ball plug, as this particular area by the creek is below any sight line from the fairway. Debate ensued as to whether a golf ball could roll back into a depression the size of a golf ball.

At this point Sandwich’s partner, WH, noticed the following foursome, hands on their hips, waiting and watching this creek debate from the fairway behind. Sandwich, was still arguing that the ball could have rolled back into this pitch-mark, although no one had noted the presence of any other pitch-mark in the immediate vicinity.

The cold rain fell harder. A chill wind blew. Play on the course had been delayed.

WH stepped into the conversation at his point with a belated, but somewhat welcome, observation. “I saw it plug”, he said, a comment which ended any dispute as to whether the ball rolled into this particular hole. Sandwich raised his eyes at this surprising testimony from his own partner, as did F.

RMn, needing no further encouragement, took relief and hit a lovely chip shot up the hill, which he followed with a nice putt for par to tie the hole. WH hadn’t expected this recovery.

At the conclusion of the hole, Sandwich stated that he must “reluctantly” request a Ruling on the entire episode based on two questions: first, whether the ball was “Embedded”, as defined, as no one seemed to know the definition, and; second, whether the procedures RMn used to put his embedded ball back into play were appropriate — specifically, whether he was allowed to clean his ball, and place it on a perch of grass akin to a tee, instead of a location in a patch of mud as it had initially resided. (Sandwich did acknowledge that RMn had placed the ball only after two dropped balls rolled out of the Relief Area and back into the PA).

Ruling

An “Embedded Ball” is a ball that is found in its “own pitch-mark” and a ball which lies, in part, beneath the surface of the ground. (See Def.) A player may take relief from an “embedded ball” anywhere within the General Area (R16.3a), provided no Local Rule has been adopted restricting embedded ball relief to areas mown at fairway height, or less (R16.3b). No such LR is in effect at BMCC.

RMn followed permissible procedures under R14 in lifting, cleaning , and dropping his ball into a “relief area” measured as one club-length from a spot behind the indentation, in the General Area, and no closer to the hole. He was allowed to place his ball at the spot his second unsuccessful drop hit the ground, even if this new grassy perch-lie was dissimilar to the muddy terrain lie where his ball had first embedded.

A player can, also, claim his ball is embedded in “its own pitch-mark” in a circumstance where no one actually saw it plug in the hole or spin back into the hole in which it is found (Int. 16.3a(2)/1). For instance, a player may make a “reasonable” judgement that his ball is in its own pitch-mark if he has seen it bounce forward and spin backwards, and there are no other pitch-marks in the immediate vicinity. The Interpretation says it would not be reasonable, however, to suggest that a ball seen bounding over a hill might land in its own pitch-mark.

The real difficulty in determining whether a ball is embedded is if the player can’t really tell from observation alone if the ball lies, in part, below the surface of the ground. In such a situation, he is entitled to inspect the position of his ball by lifting it (R16.4). If the ball was in fact embedded, he receives no penalty for failing to mark, and for lifting and cleaning, and proceeding with embedded ball relief under R16.3. If, however, he determines in his inspection that the ball is not embedded, he is penalized in the event he failed to mark his ball or he cleaned it after lifting before replacing.

Finally, one should note that a player is no longer required to ask an opponent to consent to his taking of relief for an Embedded Ball… a thought to remember particularly if the opponent is Sandwich… although a factual confirmation of whether the ball was in its own pitch-mark was certainly appropriate. Fortunately, in this case, WH, an esteemed golfer with impeccable credentials, saw the ball plug in the pitch-mark in which it was found.

Or did he? F wonders. It sure was cold out there…

II. Facts

New Reader BoOg relayed the following incident to F. He and an opponent were both walking and playing light with carry bags in a match play competition. His opponent started the match with 6 clubs, but replaced a club at the turn, proceeding with 6 clubs.

Issue

May a player add or replace a club after a Match has started?

Ruling

A player may add or replace a club during a round so long as he doesn’t start the round with more than 14 clubs, or at any time have more than 14 clubs during the round. R4.1b. The only restriction concerning adding or replacing clubs within the 14-club limit is that the player could be subject to penalty for unreasonably delaying play in certain circumstances in making the addition (i.e., an extended visit in the pro shop or bag room). (R4.1b(4)).

BoOg stated he was somewhat confused as a New Reader in determining the names of the players. As an example, he specifically asked who the hell Sandwich was. F advised that his well- known and time-proven policy is to keep the actual identity of individual players mentioned in these Rulings in strictest confidence.

As usual, all comments or corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,
F