I. Facts

Under threatening skies at HCC, Reader RoRo pulled an el-foldo leaving a threesome of stalwart golfers on the first tee poised for battle. The problem faced was how to handicap a match with Reader KBP carrying a 4 handicap and playing from the #1 tees and TDa and Foremost carrying 15 handicaps and electing to play from the #3 tees, a distance difference of a full sand wedge on many of the holes.

Foremost suggested that KBP should just play the best ball of TDa and F, a suggestion which was readily embraced by TDa and KBP, the latter of whom didn’t seem terribly worried by the competition.

TDa then gravely assumed the real negotiations. (It hadn’t even occurred to F to ask for strokes). At this point, F realized exactly why TDa holds such a high position at HCC. For some reason…whether from TDa’s authority at the Club or, perhaps, by virtue of the fact that he is KBP’s father-in-law…TDa proposed, and KBP accepted, that TDa and F each receive 5 shots a side in a match play competition.

KBP said later that it wasn’t long before he figured out he would about have to make a birdie to win a hole.

Issue

Was this match correctly handicapped?

Ruling

F’s research produced a couple of results. One source declared the single partner, if a better player, might play the partners even. Another source suggested the handicaps of the partners should be averaged and then halved, a formula which would have given TDa/F about two shots a side. Anyway, a nice job by TDa who, frankly, showed little remorse in taking advantage of his SIL.

F raises this whole matter to let Sandwich know he wasn’t the only victim of a bad bet in Highlands! (See, “Birds and Birdies”).

II. Facts

There was a point in the match, however, when even TDa was a loss for words.

Hole # 7 is an uphill, winding Par 4 that is rated the #1 handicap hole at HCC. A drive too far to the left is blocked by trees. A drive just a little too far to the right finds a fairway sloping to a right rough. A few trees on the right mark the outer edge of the rough, and OB stakes are placed just beyond the trees. Several lovely homes and backyards abut the boundary stakes.

KBP approached the back tees on #7 and unleashed a towering drive which started right and continued curving right. The ball disappeared around a bend of trees and a loud whack was heard by those at the tee box. TDa said it sounded like KBP’s ball had hit a tree. F said it sounded more like a back porch.

TDa, also, astutely noted that KBP had played from the Wrong Tees, as he had inadvertently teed off from the #2 tees rather than the #1 tees. KDP quickly announced he was playing a “provisional”, but rather than reteeing from the #2 tees he, instead, marched back to the #1 tees.

F and TDa were tongue-tied. They both knew that in Match Play there is no penalty for playing from a wrong tee-box, but that the player’s opponent may ask him to play from the correct tees. The problem, of course, was that KBP’s first tee ball had banged off a house, and was most likely OB…so why would they require him to play from the correct tee with no penalty … a free shot …when his original tee ball was probably OB under penalty of stroke and distance?

Furthermore, KBP had preempted their right to require that he play from the correct tees, by quickly declaring a “provisional” and moving to the back tees on his own.

As they pondered what to do, KBP unleashed his declared “provisional”, another towering drive which cleared the trees to the left this time, landing on the far side of the #8 fairway. His approach to the green would clearly be blocked from this angle.

F’s head was spinning.

Issues

1) Can a player even declare a “provisional” for a ball hit from the incorrect tee-box?

2) If a player does declare a “provisional” for a ball hit from the wrong tee-box, must he then hit his “provisional” from the same tee-box, or may he on his own initiative then play from the correct tee-box? (F and JDa never asked him to play from the correct tee-box, and they were denied an opportunity to see the result of the “provisional” from the incorrect tee box).

3) Did KBP play from a “wrong place” and thus incur a penalty by playing his “provisional” when he moved back to the #1 tees on his own initiative, rather than at the request of his opponents?

4) Should F and TDa have been allowed a reasonable time to search for and determine whether or not KBP’s original ball was in-bounds or OB before having to exercise their option of having him play from the correct tees? This “option” is particular to Match Play, and is premised on the fact that in Match Play, unlike Stroke Play, a player is on hand to observe the play of his opponent. Would it not, then, be logical to also allow a player time to search for a ball and see the result of an opponent’s shot…at least whether or not it was OB?

Facts (An Update):

Of course, KBP found his original drive in bounds, perhaps a little dinged by a flower box, but with a good backyard lie and a direct and clear angle to the green. TDa solemnly asked KBP at that point to go back and replay his tee ball from the correct tee (as KBP was now in play and had probably gained 20-30 yards on his first drive by playing from the #2 tees, and as the second drive he had hit from the correct tee was a “provisional”). KBP wasn’t moved this time by his FIL’s plea.

“Nope, it’s too late to make that demand now” , said KBP who was, of course, also familiar with the Match Play wrong tee rule. “I think the Rule says that the request to replay the shot must be ‘immediate’ “. He thus respectfully declined TDa’s request, and went on to make a truly magnificent par four to tie the hole, while F and TDa could only manage a best ball five. Thank goodness they had a stroke!

Issues (An Update)

6) F immediately protested the hole and the tie on the grounds that he and TDa were never afforded an opportunity to ask KBP to play from the correct tee-box due to his rapid declaration and play of a “provisional”; that they had had no opportunity to even ascertain the location of the initial drive; that KBP had incorrectly played a “provisional” shot from the wrong place (even though that shot wasn’t used); and that the second drive once played from the correct tee, had to be the ball in play, despite the fact that it had been unrequested and perhaps mis-declared as a “provisional”.

F was hoping one or two of these allegations would stick.

Rulings

(1) Yes, in light of the silence from his opponents, KBP had every right to declare and hit a “provisional” for a ball which might be lost or OB. (R18.3a). Had TDa or F asked him to play from the correct tee, the prior stroke would have been cancelled and there would have been no need for a “provisional”. TDa and F had plenty of time to make this request, had they so chosen, as KBP had a long walk back to the #1 tees.

(2) Nevertheless, KBP committed at least two violations in playing his “provisional” ball. First, he played from a “Wrong Place” as his opponents had never requested that he play from the correct tee box.

In Match Play there is no penalty for playing from the wrong tee box, but the opponents may cancel the stroke, in which case the player must play from the correct teeing area. (R6.1b(1). Since F and TDa never cancelled the stroke, KBP played from a Wrong Place by moving back to the #1 tees for his provisional. Additionally, since his original shot had been played from outside his teeing area, his “provisional” should have been played from the spot of his initial drive and should have been dropped rather than reteed as it had been played from outside a teeing area. (See, Int. 6.1b(I)). Accordingly, had KBP played his “provisional” he would have incurred the General Penalty, LOH. (See also, R14.6b).

(2) There is no merit in the F/TDa team claim that they should have been afforded a reasonable time to search and determine whether or not KBP’s original drive was in-bounds or OB. The the above-cited Rule states that decision as to whether to cancel the opponent’s shot must be made “promptly” before any player makes another shot. F finds that “promptly” means “promptly” … no time for a search. In fact, the Interpretation cited above specifically references the possibility that an opponent playing from the wrong tee may have hit a ball OB, in which case a decision may be made not to cancel the stroke.

3) KBP’s original drive, played from the wrong teeing area, was in-bounds and in-play since F and TDa had failed to cancel the shot.

(4) Despite multiple violations applicable to KBP’s play of his “provisional” drive, he incurs no penalties:

“All strokes with that provisional ball before it was abandoned (including strokes made and any penalty strokes solely from playing that ball) do not count.” (R18.3c(2)/5 (3)).

KBP escaped the hole with a well-deserved tie!

As usual, all comments and corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,

F