I. Facts

The Match wasn’t going well. As the day grew late, Foremost foresaw, however, that he might chance upon a penalty violation by his opponents. Such an opportunity, indeed, presented itself at the Par 4 13th Hole at BMCC.

Opponent RM had hit a lovely bunker shot to about 4 1/2 feet from the hole with a side-hill putt for a par to win or tie the hole. F’s partner, Sandwich had left his approach putt about 5 feet from the hole only inches farther and away from RM’s ball.

With F’s longer putt unexpectedly dropping in for a par, an eager RM hastily approached the remaining marked balls. He quickly placed his ball at Sandwich’s marker which he then lifted. As he backed up to survey his putt, Sandwich advised RM that he picked up the wrong marker. RM thanked him for this advice, and replaced Sandwich’s marker. Both players then made their putts from the correct location.

F gave this matter some thought. Upon reaching the 14th Hole teeing area, F reluctantly advised his opponents that RM had committed an infraction by placing his ball, removing the marker, and therefore putting his ball “in play” at the “wrong place”, a one stroke penalty leaving F and Sandwich with the win. This reasoning sounded valid to F, although opponents RM and JS vehemently protested.

Issue

Does one commit a violation by placing and leaving an unmarked ball in the “wrong place” on the putting green?

Ruling

In assessing this penalty, F had in mind the clear dictates of R14.4 regarding a ball that has been lifted:

“If the player returns a ball to the course…with the intent for it to be in play, the ball is in play even if it (is)….replaced…in a wrong place.”

Unfortunately, the generous “Eraser Rule”, also, applies to this situation. (All F’s readers should know the Eraser Rule, including F). As long as the ball was not “played”, RM was entitled to lift his ball and correct the mistake he had made of replacing it in the wrong place. (R14.5a).

F is glad this all worked out for RM, and he would like to thank his partner, Sandwich, for alerting his opponent of the “wrong place” before he played.

II. Facts

In a recent match, under threatening skies, F arrived early for his warm-up expecting to find his cart and bag pre-loaded by the efficient BMCC bag staff in the accustomed staging area. Unfortunately, F couldn’t find his cart. After a futile search encompassing several precious warm-up minutes, an attendant suggested that, perhaps, F’s walking opponents had absconded with F’s cart and taken it to the lower practice area.

F hitched a ride to the practice area with the attendant and, sure enough, found his walking opponents with his cart, which at this point was loaded by said opponents with a bag of their clothes, their rain gear, and their umbrellas. F could barely stuff his own rain coat in the corner of the basket. Ever the gentleman, F didn’t say anything at the time, but the fact that his walking opponents had commandeered his cart, his chosen transportation mode, for their own travel and gear, and general benefit, was disturbing.

Of course F, who had now lost some of his own valuable warm-up time, then saved an additional ten minutes of walking time for his opponents by allowing them to catch a ride to the teeing area, which gave them time to purchase drinks. Guess what? F got to carry these drinks in his cart. As the players teed off and walked merrily down the fairway, F struggled to jam gear and drinks into his cart to tote for them along the cart paths.

Now this seems like a trivial complaint, but it did occur to F that he had lost any competitive advantage of his transportation selection on this bad-weather day, an advantage forfeited by hauling those additional tons of gear and related items for his opponents.

F’s misgivings were re-enforced when his opponents asked F to fetch them ice water from the refreshment center as they made the short uphill walk from the 4th Hole to the 5th Hole teeing area. F, of course, complied with this request while his opponents warmed up, when he should have been rehearsing his own tee shot. F had to find room in his cart for these beverages as well, as his opponents certainly intended for F to carry them around the course.

The indignities then persisted at the turn, as hamburgers, pizza slices, cups of tuna fish, bowls of chili, and fresh beverages found their way into F’s cart, leaving him scrambling to empty garbage and reserve room for his own modest lunch fare. Again, F’s gracious cart accommodation, with attendant storage and material management duties, consistently infringed upon F’s own timing, strategic play, and shot execution.

Additionally, it must be said, on certain occasions F’s opponents hopped into the cart with him from time to time on those occasions when a cart ride was expedient.

This is bullshit, thought F.

His opponents would have needed a train of camels to carry their gear around the golf course had he not signed up for a cart!

Issues

(1) Is there a Rules issue when walking golfers use their opponent’s golf cart to facilitate practice, and to carry their gear and refreshments?

(2) Must a player make a cart accommodation to his walking opponents, when this kindness, under muddy and rainy and tiring conditions, most certainly affects the competitive balance of a match?

Ruling

As a rule, a player is allowed to the use of only “one caddie” during a round under a general penalty of loss of hole for each hole in which he used more than one caddie. R10.3).

Although F performed numerous duties of a “caddie” in this round (such as toting and fetching stuff), he was not technically a”caddie” as defined, as he did not transport their clubs on a steady basis. Those infrequent times of providing a quick ride were provided as a “courtesy” which as referenced in the definition of “caddie” is excluded from the meaning of transporting clubs.

Of course, players also have limitations on the “equipment” they are entitled to use in a round. Unfortunately, by definition of “Equipment” and under R4, no mention is made of golf carts. These limitations generally apply to the 14-club rule and the use of conforming balls and clubs, although there is a general comment restricting “other equipment that gives artificial help (referencing artificial devices and swing aids)”, a restriction which F concludes should have applied to his golf cart under these circumstances. The bottom line is that there is no rules prohibition against using an opponent’s cart if he isn’t transporting your clubs.

Now, F finds in turn that he had no obligation, none at all, to carry his opponents’ gear. While he could have refused this service, he agreed to do so out of a sense of sportsmanship and personal generosity. In fact, had he been so inclined, he could have picked a remote spot far away from the clubhouse, and dumped his opponents’ said gear and other worldly belongings along a cart path.

But he would never do that ….or would he?

As usual, all comments or corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,
F