It’s crunch time for golf course superintendents everywhere as they work frantically to get their course ready for spring! Such is certainly the case at BMCC, where clubhouse construction activities, coupled with course maintenance activities, often have golfers dodging workers and equipment seemingly at every turn. Although this work is well-managed and scheduled, and workers appear well-trained in avoiding actions which might interfere with play, the paths of work, workers, and golfers occasionally intersect.

I. Facts

Foremost and his group waited patiently before hitting their lay-up second shots on the Par 5 8th Hole at BMCC. Workers and equipment were in the middle of the fairway evidently doing some work on the creek bank or the stone walkway meandering across the creek to the elevated green structure. The workers soon cleared and the golfers played their second shots.

F played a decent second shot, and then faced a routine 135-yard approach shot from the middle of the fairway. He pushed his shot dead right high into the branches of a big tree in the right rough just short of the creek. He didn’t see the ball emerge from the branches, and began a search around the tree and beyond, hoping that the ball had somehow cleared the creek.

A worker immediately walked over to creek on the green side of the creek, some twenty yards left of F’s search area (off the middle of the fairway)and pointed at the creek. He started talking and pointing and F had no idea what he was saying. He then reached down out of F’s sight line and picked up a ball.

“Is that my ball?”, asked F, who couldn’t believe his ball had ricocheted that far back towards the fairway. He approached the worker who now held up a ball on the other side of the creek. F couldn’t see the ball from this distance, and he couldn’t understand what the guy was saying as he nodded his head and described the ball. Finally, the guy said “F?” (the first verbalization F had understood), which F recognized as his unique ball marking and confirmation that this was indeed his ball.

F hadn’t seen the location from which the worker had lifted the ball as the creek area was below the line of sight from the fairway. F motioned for the worker to put the ball back down where he found it, which he eventually did after several hand communications. F couldn’t even see where he placed the ball.

The worker then removed himself to the sidelines. F walked around the fairway, over the bridge, and back to creek area and found his ball teed up nicely on a small tuft of grass just off the creek. As F had asked the worker to put the ball back where he found it, he could only assume the worker had done so, and that he was the recipient of a hugely fortunate bounce off the tree branches.

F hit a brilliant little chip shot up the steep slope, and made a nice little putt for an easy par to halve the hole.

Opponent JS announced that he had a problem with F’s play. “We don’t have any idea where your ball was”, he said. “None of us saw it. For all we know, it might have been in the creek.”

“I asked him to put it back where he found it”, said F.

“F, he didn’t even understand English”, said JS. “He was just giving you your ball back.” F had to admit there had been a bit of a language barrier. Was he justified, however, in playing the ball where it had been placed by the worker?

Ruling

F finds that he was, indeed, justified in playing his ball from the location identified by the worker, who was in fact the only witness to the flight of the ball and its eventual resting place. As the location was across a creek, F was entitled to rely on a “spectator” to assist in this identification. (Int. 7.2/1).

Unfortunately, the worker lifted the ball to assist in the identification. This action was at the initiative of the worker, and not upon F’s instruction. The worker then replaced the ball presumably where he found it. This replacement was at F’s instruction. F doesn’t think he was in any trouble at this particular point. His ball at rest had been moved by an “Outside Influence” defined as any person other than his caddie, partner, or opponent, or any of their caddies (See, Def.).

If it is known or virtually certain that his ball has been moved by an Outside Influence the player must replace his ball at its original spot, which if not known must be estimated. (R9.6). He may use his “reasonable judgment” in determining the spot upon which to replace his ball. (Int. 9.6/2). F finds it was “reasonable” to conclude that the worker placed the ball on the correct spot, and there was no evidence whatsoever to even suggest that the ball had been in the water, or plugged in the bank, or simply teed up on the only tuft of grass in the vicinity, despite the skeptical protestations of opponent, JS.

In retrospect, however, F was concerned that he, personally, had never replaced the ball…that the ball had been replaced by the worker. Was F, as the player, required to personally mark, lift, and replace the ball or was he entitled to rely upon the placement by the worker?

Although this issue was somewhat troubling at the time, F concludes that his play was correct. A ball to be replaced must be replaced by: “the player, or (emphasis added) any person who lifted the ball or caused it to move (even if that person was not allowed to do so under the Rules)”. (R14.2b(1)). As the worker caused the ball to move, he was authorized to replace it. F owes a debt of gratitude to a generous bounce off the tree, and the diligent worker who found his ball and placed it back in play!

II. Facts

With the clubhouse construction around the teeing area of the Par 3 10th Hole, the tees have been moved well-forward. White tees have been placed 105 to 115 yards from the green, with Senior Brown tees placed at a distance of approximately 85 yards. (F has no idea how far away the Blue tees are).

Opponents RGC and JB regularly play from the Brown tees. Recently, however, they have elected to move back and play this 10th Hole from the White tees, stating that this election is time-saving and the distance more truly competitive, and that it is unnecessary for them to move to the White tees.

“You don’t have a problem with this, do you?”, they ask.

F to date has not raised an objection to this election, although it occurred to him during the Masters coverage that his youthful, talented, and wily opponents might be selecting this distance for a competitive advantage, as the longer distance might offer them a better club selection for their shots. Triggering this concern was a comment by Dottie Pepper who said Bryson DeChambeau was too close at 85 yards to play into Hole #14, as he couldn’t work the ball and control his spin well at that distance. Her commentary was spot on in the BD case, and is one which demands consideration by F in the present circumstance.

Issue

May opponents select a different teeing area in four-ball match play, as long as the selected teeing area is farther from the hole?

Ruling

There is no automatic penalty in Match Play if an opponent tees off from the wrong teeing area. F’s sole remedy in this scenario would be to ignore his opponents’ request or, if pressed, refuse prior consent to the selection of another tee box, thus preserving his right to promptly cancel any shot taken by them from the wrong tee box. (R6.1b). This Rule applies to a shot taken “outside the teeing area (including from a wrong set of tee markers…on the same hole…). “

F, of course, avoids awkward Rules confrontations whenever possible. He has decided he may have to let this pass! Construction has to end some day!

As usual, all comments or corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,
F