( Rs 15.1a; 10.2b(2); 1.3b; Def.  “Line of Play”) 

Foremost’s golf season ended somewhat prematurely! As the summer drew to a close, he was hosting family and awaiting a late morning tee time. He decided to do something productive and cook a few eggs, maybe an omelet or two for his guests. F is a great cook!

In short time, however, the skillet flared as F sprayed it with Pam, and F’s feet apparently slipped and never hit the ground as he jumped back. The result of the fall was a broken arm and multi-fractured pelvis, surgery on the pelvis, a handful of hip screws, and 18 days and nights in hospitals. F doesn’t really even like eggs!

F has had to miss a bunch of tee times and of equal importance, miss opportunities to play golf and reflect upon the Rules of Golf. The one Rules/ Etiquette controversy F got to enjoy was the Ryder Cup incident between Rory and Cantlay’s caddie. For the record, F sided with Rory. The caddie had moved to the side of the green after an appropriate celebration, but he had returned to the center of the green, tipping his imaginary hat, as Rory was lining up his putt. The only other person F has ever seen hog so much attention on a putting green is Reader Sandwich….

Nevertheless, after a few weeks of hospital life and still-continuing rehab, F can report he is out of the wheelchair, beyond a walker, and moving fairly decently with and without the benefit of a cane, which is primarily used now to practice his golf swing. F still isn’t getting to his left side with his swing, but he takes great comfort in the fact that he probably never got to his left side anyway.

With the surgical scars healed and some mobility F has found the fitness center at BMCC, and more importantly, the whirlpool. In addition to the remedial effects of the whirlpool, it has served, also, as a front office of sorts for F to entertain Rules conflicts and questions.

I. Facts – Opponent Creates a Dinner Plate Lie

Reader BB said that while he had been soundly beaten in a match play competition by HS, he was still somewhat troubled by a situation on the Par 5 14th Hole. By his recollection, HS had hit his second shot right of the bunkers and right of the cart path some 90-100 yards short of the green into an area covered by pine straw.

BB had hit the ball left, and by the time he made to the site of the HS ball, HS had elected to take stance relief from the cart path. Before dropping he had picked, brushed, and otherwise removed the pine straw from the drop relief area. As BB arrived, he watched as HS attempted twice to drop into the relief area he had cleared, with the ball both times rolling back into the position from which he had taken relief next to the cart path.

At this point, HS “placed” his ball in the relief area on a firm and clean dirt plate, which BB said he would have been proud to eat his dinner off of. HS knocked it on the green from there, and made the birdie putt on the way to his victory.

BB was a little concerned that HS had gone from a spaghetti lie in pine straw to a clean plate, but HS assured him his relief process had been in accordance with the rules. Subsequently, however, a friend had told BB that one can’t improve the area of a drop by removing Loose Impediments. BB ran the question by F.

I. Ruling

F shifted his sore hip in front of the powerful jets, and advised BB that HS was entitled to remove “Loose Impediments” from his Relief Area prior to dropping. Indeed, LIs may be removed “ in any way (such as by using a hand or foot or a club or other equipment)”. R15.1a. This Rule also applies to a Relief Area or a spot where a ball is to be dropped or placed. R15.1a/3.

F did, however, have a question and promised further research. How did the lie end up so clean and firm? By definition, Sand and Loose Soil are not Loose Impediments. Was the ground under the pine straw hard-packed, or had HS brushed aside loose soil and/or sand in creating his perfect lie? F had no idea as to the constitution of the earth under the pine straw, so he engaged an unbiased fact-finder, who was playing the next day to inspect the site. Reader MJ did so, and reported that the ground was clean and hard-packed under the pine straw. With no evidence of loose sand or soil, F finds the relief procedure exercised by HS was entirely appropriate.

II. Facts- A RM Controversy, Again

In a Four-Ball match between teams A&B and C&D, A makes a putt to tie a hole. B was watching his partner putt from beyond the hole. Player C then approaches A&B and says, ‘you guys really lost the hole since B was standing in A’s line, but we are not going to call it’. A&B had no idea whether or not this was a violation, but nodded their collective heads in agreement since the hole was halved. They weren’t sure whether a Rule had been broken, or whether the overtly gracious no-call was, in fact, a bit of gamesmanship. They suspected the latter.

F heard about this incident in a locker room exchange with a contemporary of A and B, Reader SM. Later that same evening F, quite unexpectedly, heard this same story again from oft-opponent, RM, who happened to be the D member of the “C&D” team, referenced herein-above, which had called the “line of play” violation. He was asking whether he and his partner had waived a Rule.

RM said that he, personally, had had nothing to do with the call of a Rules violation …that he, RM, hadn’t said a word…that this entire confrontation had been instigated solely by his partner … that he, RM, wasn’t even sure a violation had been committed… and that accordingly, F could and should refrain from using the RM name in any recitation or review of this particular incident. He, RM, stated that in his opinion, use of his partner’s name would be sufficient. F agreed.

II. Issues

(1) Did opponents A&B, in fact, commit a violation when Player B watched his partner putt not from behind the partner, but from an extended line of putt on the other side of the hole?

Ruling:

F’s initial reaction to this question was that there was no violation. In fact, F remembers reaching this conclusion on the same facts years ago, a conclusion based on the premise that a player beyond the hole could not be interfering with the Line of Putt if such line, by definition, did not extend beyond the hole.

F believes his initial reaction was incorrect. Indeed, the old Rules of Golf did include definitions for “Line of Play” and “Line of Putt”, both of which stated that this line did not extend beyond the hole. The New Rules simply define “Line of Play”. This definition makes no distinction between LOP on the Putting Green an LOP on strokes from other areas, and the qualification that LOP does not extend beyond the hole is no longer included. (See Def. “Line of Play”).

While the New Rules did modify the definition of LOP, F does not believe this language change is determinative in this instance. The Rule states a caddie (or partner) “must not deliberately stand in a location on or close to the player’s line of play … or do anything else …to point out the line of play”. R10.2b(2). In other words, during a stroke a partner can’t position himself in a place to show the LOP…he can’t present a target for his partner.

Although there was no allegation that partner B had intentionally positioned himself to present a target he , in fact, did present such a target when he positioned himself on an extension of the line of play.

Accordingly, F finds that the A&B Team did violate R10.2b(2) by presenting a target on the putting green. Nice call by RM’s well-known partner, Player C, who may remain unnamed!

(This Ruling certainly makes sense … on tv, one never sees a caddie standing beyond the hole on an extension of a player’s LOP.)

(2) Given that notice of the R10.2(b) violation was verbalized at the time , were both teams subject to disqualification for a violation of R1.3b referencing “Player Responsibility for Applying the Rules”? A violation occurs when two or more players “deliberately agree to ignore any Rule or penalty they know applies…”. RM confessed he had been somewhat worried about this Rule.

F would acknowledge that there is a body of Rules commentary that states that while a player can choose to ignore a violation by an opponent in Match Play, he can’t say the following words out loud, “That was a penalty, but I’m not going to call it”, because the utterance of these words means that both parties now know of the violation and are in violation of R 1.3b by their complicity in failing to enforce the penalty, thus agreeing to ignore a Rule of Golf.

In the present case, however, F doesn’t see an agreement between the parties to ignore a Rule. While the A&B team might have agreed that the result of the hole was a tie, there is no indication that they verbalized agreement with the penalty call. Had they done so, perhaps saying, “Yes, thanks”, then F suggests R1.3b disqualification would have been appropriate.

III. Facts -A Foremost Rules Violation?

Consistent with today’s locker room theme, F was recently accosted by a veteran group of Readers including TH, RP, and JS. Minding his own business, F had quietly entered the Men’s Locker Room from the adjacent and attached workout facility. Someone in the aforementioned group asked F (frankly, with some hostility) to remove his cap in the club house.

F didn’t like the tone of this directive and responded while he was well aware of the no-hat restriction in the “clubhouse”, he did not think it applied to the “locker room”, and that upon reflection, if the no-hat mandate applied to every structure at the Club with a roof on it, it certainly was not being enforced in the adjacent “workout facility” where a cap was often part of the workout gear for younger members. (F had to wonder if the Vanderbilt insignia on his cap had generated the hostile reaction. Indeed, it has been a rough season.)

Nonetheless, F advised the table of critics that if they didn’t like his cap, they probably were not going to appreciate the ass-view he would soon be exhibiting for them as he walked by them in his robe on the way to the showers. At this point they asked for a truce.

III. Ruling

F consulted Locker Room Manager B to determine if he had breached a Clubhouse or Locker Room Rule. B answered with no hesitation, “no hats in the Locker Room …period”. F didn’t see a lot of wiggle room in this response.

B went on to say that there had been a recent incident resulting in the issuance of a letter of reprimand where a younger member had departed the shower wrapped in a towel instead of a robe, a discourtesy which had drawn a rebuke from an elderly group of card players. F wasn’t the least bit worried about this towel precedent. He was comforted in the knowledge that he had always planned on wearing a robe while showing his ass.

As usual, all comments or corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,
F