Facts

Opponent RM hit what appeared to be a lovely drive on the difficult Par 4 7th Hole at BMCC. The hole is bounded on the entirety of its right side by the treacherous waters of Richland Creek. A well-placed drive along the creek-side shortens the distance and offers a better approach angle into the hole.

RM’s drive looked perfect until it took a late nasty right hop and just disappeared over the embankment towards the creek. From the teeing area, players thought the ball had a chance to remain in play.

Foremost had bailed out left, but was summoned across the fairway by RM who had found his ball on a rock ledge separating earth and water. He was requesting free relief from some netting which had enveloped the ball before it reached the water. F arrived in time to hear the argument underway between RM, his opponent, and partner, Sandwich.

Sandwich: “ Of course you don’t get free relief. Clearly the ball was going to roll into the creek.”

RM: “We don’t know that. While the ball might have rolled in the water, it is equally possible that it might have stopped atop the ledge irregardless of the netting.”

F noted that the ball was clearly within the Penalty Area and advised that, as such, no free relief was warranted, unless RM wished to argue that the netting, some type of ground cover, was a Movable Obstruction. He offered further, that in his opinion the netting was fixed in the ground and not “movable”. RM said that while fixed at one edge, the netting could perhaps be rolled back, and was movable in part.

RM ultimately decided he did indeed wish to contest the “Obstruction” question, and any other possible remedies, since he would have a decent lie off a flat rock surface if such relief was allowed. He wasn’t sure F knew what he was talking about, so he called the Committee which said it would immediately visit the scene and make a Ruling. As the group was not holding up play, this course of action was acceptable to all. The Committee promptly arrived and said it was pretty sure there was no free relief since the ball was in the Penalty Area.

RM accepted the a ruling, but stated that he might like to revisit the issue, if necessary, since the Committee seemed a bit uncertain itself.

F said the ‘on-course’ Ruling would be final.

Issue

Was the Committee ‘on-course’ Ruling correct?

Ruling (by F)

F thinks his own original observation was correct.

The fact question which should have been posed to the Committee was whether the netting was ‘movable’ or ‘immovable’. (F thought the netting was immovable as one end was fixed in the ground, yet he conceded it appeared one side was loose and could have been folded off the rock). F believed this was an appropriate factual question for the Committee.

In his haste to explain the righteousness of his situation to the Committee, however, RM failed to ask for a factual ruling on the Obstruction issue. Further, he failed to extricate his ball from the netting, fold it over, or make any attempt to show the Committee the netting was ‘movable’.

By definition, an “Obstruction” is an artificial object that is either a ‘movable (MO) ’ or an ‘immovable (IMO)’). The distinction is important as a MO is movable anywhere on the ‘course’ (R15.2a), which by definition would include a Penalty Area. (ie, picture a player finding his ball behind a discarded Bud Light can in a PA; without further commentary, F suggests the player can remove and dispose of the Bud Light can).

An IMO, as opposed to a MO, is one of the defined elements of an “Abnormal Course Condition (ACC)”. A player is allowed free relief from an ACC anywhere on the course as well, except when the ball is in a Penalty Area. (R16.1(2)).

While an “Obstruction” is either a MO or an IMO, its definition leaves room for some interpretation, which F thinks might have been applicable to this case. For instance, the definition notes that part of an IMO might be a MO…”such as a gate, a door, a part of an attached cable”). So, asks F, what about the loose portion of some ground netting?

This last question, of course, is the factual question that RM should have asked the Committee. He could have tried to demonstrate that the netting could be folded back (like a swinging gate). He made no such effort, and failed to ask the correct question.

Given the visual evidence of the ball wrapped in the netting in a PA, and the Player’s failure to correctly identify the issue in the Ruling he requested, F finds the Committee’s Ruling was correct.

RM took his penalty drop and still made a dang 5 on the hole. Pretty darn good!

As usual, all comments and corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,

F