“ I would not have used this tee if it was a sanctioned event.” HC

I. Facts

Of course, all play is “sanctioned “ when Foremost is around, which is probably why he was asked to review the possibility of a serious equipment violation at BMCC by a heretofore well-respected golfer.

Opponents called a foul on Reader HC who showed up and played with what his opponents suspected might be a non-conforming tee. Specifically, they questioned the directional arrow on the stem, and the head design which was open on one side, an opening which they feared might illegally reduce flight friction, which might illegally increase flight distance, and which might otherwise illegally channel the flight directionally. Further, the ramped headrest seemed designed to perhaps illegally launch the ball higher in a strike than a flat-topped tee, offering a further competitive advantage.

F was pleased to investigate this alleged breach. He is, of course, well-known and highly regarded as a technical expert in matters concerning equipment and equipment specifications, as he recently, for example, received plaudits for exposing numerous technical and safety deficiencies in the golf carts at HCC. (See, “Creeping Dementia” Facts II, May ‘23).

Ruling

There are four general restrictions related to the design of a tee. The tee may not be longer than four inches, nor may its design indicate line of play, or unduly influence movement, or otherwise assist the player in making the swing. (Equipment Rules, 6.2).

The Flight Path manufacturer web page claims their tee “increases launch angle..decreases spin rpm…increase(s) max height of the ball …and increase(s)total drive distance.”

Based on the manufacturer claims alone, F determined that this tee is non-conforming as it aids direction and performance. The USGA apparently disagreed with F (this isn’t the first time), however, as the web page also posts a certification letter from the USGA stating that the product “conforms with the ROG”. (Equipment Standards Decision Notification, 5-31-18).

Accordingly, F reluctantly finds that the tee was conforming, and that all talk of penalties (i.e., suspension, expulsion) to be taken against HC for playing with suspect equipment is unwarranted.

F is going to have to get some of these tees. It’s nice to know that he can simply point the arrow and will never miss another fairway!

II. Facts (Another Tee Tantrum)

F and partner, Reader SC, found themselves on the tee box of the 18th Hole again hitting after Reader opponents BC and JB. As far as either could remember, this was their own, rather sad, Caitlin Clark-like moment …they had each set a new personal record! In long and distinguished golf careers of individual or four-ball match play competition, neither could remember having not won a single hole, or having not earned the tee box on a single hole in an 18-hole match.

In truth, they hadn’t even played that badly. Unfortunately, they had lost a couple of earlier holes and then matched best-ball pars or bogies with their worthy opponents who had brother-in-lawed themselves for ties (ok, and perhaps an occasional win) down the stretch.

They both traced their misfortune to the first hole, where BC had simply grabbed the first tee without a customary coin toss. In fact, as F had fished in his pocket for his lucky silver one-ounce Trump coin, for the very purpose of a coin toss, BC had said, “We’ll go ahead”, and had promptly teed off without any agreement by his opponents.

F and SC sat on the 18th hole, and pondered whether this discourtesy, this rude departure from customary order of play, had set the tone and unfortunate order of play for the entire day. In truth, F and SC acknowledged as they pondered this circumstance on the 18th hole, the fact that they had never earned the tee box would hurt much more than their monetary loss on the day.

Neither F or SC were prepared to suffer this indignity if the ROG permitted otherwise. They informed BC and JB that the entire match was under protest as the first tee had been seized illegally.

Ruling

F finds that the seizure of the tee box on the first hole was, indeed, a breach. In Match Play, the “honour” in starting a hole “is decided by the order of the draw set by the Committee or, if there is no draw, by agreement or by using a random method(such as tossing a coin)”. R6.4a(1). There was no such “agreement”, and certainly there was no coin toss. BC played out of turn.

Unfortunately, however, the match stands. F and SC could have cancelled BC’s first hole drive had they done so promptly before JB, his partner, had played the next shot, his own drive. Had they cancelled the BC shot, they could have insisted on a coin toss to properly establish the first hole honour. R6.4a(2). A remedy for an opponent playing out of turn did not survive the next shot by JB.

The ROG are important! A single, timely, seemingly-insignificant call of a breach might have changed the story-line on this particular day, and the course of history!*

As usual, all comments or corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,

F

*An historical note: F and CS did win the 18th hole, their first hole-win of the day but BC and JB refused an offer to continue play, thus eliminating any opportunity for the good guys to finally tee off first.