Foremost doesn’t remember if customary handshakes followed the completion of play on the 18th green. “We might have a problem”, opponent JS had noted, almost before the last putt stopped rattling in the hole. A polite Rules discussion ensued and continued as the players walked off the green and around the construction fencing to the bag room.

Facts

F (who admittedly had been on the receiving end of several strokes in the match) was One-Up heading into the long and difficult Par Four 18th Hole where he was once again entitled to receive a well-earned pop. Due to several misfortunes, however, which are not germane to the actual controversy (although finding his ball in the crook of tree roots leading to an unplayable was a part of the story) , F eventually hit his 5th shot onto the green some 30-35 feet short of a back-center pin placement. JS had played his 3rd shot onto the green, perhaps 40-feet short of the pin. Circumstances seemed dire for F.

F could only watch as JS hit a magnificent putt which came to rest just off the lip of the cup for a conceded bogey five. Now F simply had to make his putt. A six, net five, would tie the hole and secure the Match for F.

As F surveyed his line, player JD approached the flag and asked F if he would like it ”in” or “out”. (JD was not a partner of either player, nor was he a participant in the match competition.) F asked him if he would mind “tending the flag” and, of course, he agreed to do so.

Putting right-handed with his two-faced Bobby Grace custom putter, F took careful aim, and fired. Frankly, there was never any doubt in the outcome. The putt hit the hole dead-center as if guided by a laser …. and dropped. Momentarily, there was a stunned silence. Unfortunately, however, there was a complication which cast a bit of a shadow over what should then have been a joyful celebration.

Player JD, who was tending the flag, had failed to remove the flag. It appeared to F, in fact, that JD had made no effort to remove the flag. A bit of a smile appeared on the face of JS, who after congratulating F for a splendid putt said, “I think we may have a little problem giving you a six on the hole, as your caddy, or agent, failed to remove the flag which he was tending for you. That’s a penalty”.

F had to agree this might be a problem, but as he contemplated conceding the point, JD said he had tried to take it out, but it was “stuck”. F reconsidered his impending concession, wondering if the fact that the flagstick was “stuck” might change the result in his favor. F and JS agreed at this point to Request a Ruling (hereinafter, “RfR”).

As they approached the bag room, however, two members of the Committee sharing a golf cart just happened to appear outside the bag room on a golf cart. They graciously agreed to take the time to officially hear the RfR and resolve the question. They listened and quickly grasped the gravity of the situation, and the fact that the fate of an important Match was at stake.

A small, but growing, crowd of anxious bystanders gathered by to hear the discussion as well, sensing a rare opportunity to hear a Committee rules discussion and decision being aired in public.

JS introduced the RfR by describing what happened, this time embellished somewhat by other “facts”:

First, he noted that JD had wiggled, removed, and replaced the flagstick upon assuming his “tending the flag” duty and that, therefore, if it was “stuck”, it was due to JD’s own complicity and actions taken in F’s behalf. (JD politely turned and headed for the parking lot at this point, along with non-participant Player BO, both of whom were apparently not too interested in the outcome of the discussion).

Second, JS claimed that the JD was actually tugging the flagstick, with it somewhat bent back as he tried to remove it. F hadn’t seen this, but JD had confirmed this observation before his departure. This observation was not made in any way to suggest that JD had bent the flag in a direction to deflect the shot.

Finally, JS suggested that the pace of the putt would have taken the ball off the back of the green if not for the unremoved flagstick. F did dispute this account, saying that putt was so exact that it would have dropped in a thimble with or without the aid of the flagstick. F conceded, however, the ball did strike the flagstick squarely before dropping.

Committee Member #1 listened carefully to these facts, and after a brief consultation with Committee Member #2, ruled in favor of F, saying that the fact that the ball hit the flagstick was no longer a relevant issue as the new Rules allow a player to putt with the flagstick in the hole. As F thanked him for this thoughtful and appropriate ruling, JS stated that he disagreed and wished to submit this decision for Committee appellate review, since this was a “tending the flag” violation. To F’s dismay, Committee Member #1 said he would take this request under advisement.

Committee appellate review quickly came to pass however. Another Committee member, Committee Member #3, arrived, listened to the factual review, and ultimately agreed with the Ruling, but for a different reason. He stated that as the nonremoval was “accidental” rather than “intentional”, the player was required to live with the result, good or bad. As an example, he said that if instead of dropping in the hole, F’s ball had ricocheted 15 feet away (which it never would have done because of its splendid pace), F would have had to live with those consequences as well, and play from this new location.

F thanked Committee Member #3 for this thoughtful Ruling, and suggested that a now unanimous Committee verdict certainly put an end to the RfR discussion. He suggested, further, that it might be an appropriate time to settle the wager. JS said he would consider settling the bet, but he remained unconvinced as to the validity of the Ruling as no one had fully addressed the “tending the flag” issue. He noted that as prompt payment carried with it certain ‘finality’ in his experience, he might rather let the issue simmer a bit longer in case Committee minds changed.

F advised JS that, in any instance, he should take comfort in the fact that F would review the decision and the important issues raised.

Issues

1) Is a player subject to penalty when the person he has asked to tend the flag fails to remove the flagstick?

2) Must a caddy (or agent) remove the flagstick when “tending” it under rules that now allow the flagstick to be left in the hole when putting from on the green?

3) As to the assessment of a penalty for failing to remove a flagstick being tended, does it make a difference whether the failure was “unintentional” or “deliberate” and does caddy “incompetence” or “negligence” play a role in this determination?

4) When is a Committee Ruling final? When is the result of a Match final?

5) When should the bets be paid?

Ruling

F finds that , indeed, depending upon the circumstances, a player can be subject to the General Penalty (LOH) if his “caddy” fails to remove a “tended” flagstick. (Note that the term “caddy” as used by F herein references anyone “authorized” by the player to tend the flag. (R13.2b), referencing R11.2c. Frankly, the authorization to have “another person” tend a flag” doesn’t make such person a “caddy” by definition, but F thinks the same applicable rule would apply).

The player “must” make a decision whether to have a flag removed before making his stroke. (R13.2b). The New Rules allowing a player to leave the flagstick in the hole do not apply or excuse a situation where the player has asked that the flagstick be attended and removed, and it is not.

Whether a penalty is incurred after a ball hits a flagstick after a player has instructed that it be removed (asking that someone “attend the flag” means that they are to remove it) depends upon whether the nonremoval was “accidental” in which case the ball is played as it lies, or “deliberate”. (Int.13.2b(1)). Despite JS’s rather callous claims of “incompetence”and “contributory negligence” by JD, the fact remains that the nonremoval was clearly “accidental” rather than “deliberate”, thus the ball would be played as it “lies”, which in this case was the bottom of the hole for a six … net five. In case a reminder is needed, this outcome means F tied the hole and won the Match.

The Committee’s ruling is “final” (R20.2b). If a Ruling by the Committee is later found to be wrong, it can be corrected, but if “it is too late to do so”, the wrong ruling stands. (R20.2d).

In the absence of formal Terms and Conditions of a Competition defining when the match is final, “too late” is probably a subjective determination. F and his group consider a match final, and payments owed, when the players have exhausted any Committee appeals and leave the premises, although prompt Venmo payments (a necessity in this day and cashless age) are permitted. F does agree with JS on one point — when payments are made in this group, they are “final”!

As usual, all comments and corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,
F