I. Facts “A Case for Virtue and Morality”

A rather benign rules day changed suddenly and dramatically on the Par 5 6th hole of HCC with misfortunes off the tee by Player BB. His drive was eventually found just short of the pond at the base of the hill nestled snuggly in a bed of daffodil stems. F was anxious to see him play his next shot.

Instead, fellow player JH offered BB immediate free relief. “Take a drop”, he said. “We don’t want to hurt any flowers around here.” Foremost questioned this ruling as BB nodded his appreciation and took a hasty drop.

“He needs to play it”, said F. “Is there a Local Rule at HCC prohibiting play from a flower bed?” JH said he wasn’t sure about that, but he said, “all I know is that I’d never get another game in Atlanta with my buddies if I played out of a flower bed.”

F reflected on this comment. His Nashville pals like flowers, too, but would torch a rain forest before giving F free relief.

This episode brought back ancient memories. F recalled that his early interest in the ROG had been inspired by a similar incident at the GCTn as erstwhile opponent, the Yank, had taken free relief at a critical point in a critical match after citing a non-existent “Young Tree Rule”. With the realization that he had been scammed, F had decided it might be a good time to learn something about the rules.

Ruling

F isn’t swayed by the “love of flowers” moral high ground assumed by JH and BB in this situation. F finds their stance similar to the position taken by the Palestinian college protestors – they commit illegal acts , cite the morality of their cause as a justification, and then beg for a pardon rather than face the just consequences of their illegal acts.

F finds that BB needed to accept his situation and play his ball from the flower bed. If he didn’t want to play from the flowers, or if he wanted to take the moral high ground by dropping away from the flowers, he could have taken two-club length lateral relief for an “unplayable ball” and a one-stroke penalty (R19.2c).

F contacted the Committee at HCC to inquire as to whether a Local Rule was in effect to protect flower beds. “We don’t have a LR protecting flower beds or environmentally sensitive areas”, was the response. As to the free drop that was extended by JH to BB, the Committee speculated, “this may have been an act of mercy…”.

II. Facts  “Indecent Exposure”

As the group approached the 7th hole teeing area, overlooked by the elegant decked manse of Reader BG, Commodore F posed a question to Longhorn stalwart BB, wondering if this might be the year that BG ( the holder of two priceless VU degrees) would hang a large Vanderbilt flag off his upper deck instead of the Texas state flag to which HCC golfers have become so accustomed.

F pressed the issue with BB, noting that Texas would be joining the SEC this year and, in fact, was facing a stern road test October 26th in Nashville against the Commodores. With the SEC debut of this budding rivalry, F suggested it would not be a good year for Vandy grad BG to celebrate his Texas heritage and that a Vandy flag would be far more appropriate.

BB said that, frankly, he was unconcerned about the Commodores, and indifferent to this entire line of conversation as Texas was much more concerned about hosting Georgia on October 19th in Austin in what would certainly be the game of the year in college football. ( It was quickly F’s turn to grow indifferent to the direction of this conversation).

Nevertheless, F got somewhat heated as he pondered VU’s recent football irrelevance. Physically heated. He looked around carefully and noted all the nearby homes were empty, the streets were empty, and no golfers or workers were in sight anywhere on the course. He quickly ducked behind his golf cart and removed his golf shirt and long-sleeved wind-breaker undershirt, then quickly put back on his golf shirt.

BB wasted no time in calling a penalty on F for “indecent exposure”. JH nodded his head in agreement adding that he had unfortunately witnessed the “fleshy display”. F offered some instructive advice to BB and JH in return, after which BB noted two violations had now occurred, adding inappropriate golf course language to the first count of indecent exposure.

To his astonishment, F encountered a similar scene the following day around the mountain at OEI. The group there was discussing the futility of the LIV tour, how nobody watched or cared, and how the gimmicks of short pants, team play, and loud music weren’t all that appealing.

Player J, who caddies occasionally for a player on the Champion’s Tour and who is in on the pro league scuttlebutt , then lifted his shirt very briefly exposing his breasts, stating this particular gimmick was also becoming a common practice among  the female followers of the LIV Tour. Again, no one was in sight to witness this scene which was made simply to illustrate a point. Nevertheless, Player ML was offended. He quickly called a violation on J for “indecent exposure”. “That’s gotta be a penalty”, he said.

F had never heard of an “indecent exposure” penalty call on a golf course, much less been accused of one. Two such charges on two consecutive days on two prominent courses was hard to believe.

F could only conclude that the prevalence of this disturbing trend in the mountains certainly deserved some scrutiny.

Ruling

Golf has had some fun skin reveal episodes in the past, including one in which Ian Baker-Finch stripped to his blue boxers to play a ball out of a lake at the Colonial Open in 1993. He was thereafter known by some writers as Ian Boxer-Finch. (Dan Jenkins, Golf Digest).

While no specific rule addresses course nudity or indecent exposure, golfers are certainly aware that the Committee can always DQ a player for “serious misconduct” for acting “contrary to the spirit of the game”. (R1.2a.). Generally, penalties less than a full disqualification can be assessed only if a competition has enacted a Code of Conduct (Committee Procedures, Section 5H). A Code of Conduct might establish a Dress Code, for example. A Model Penalty Structure suggests: first breach – a warning; second breach- one penalty stroke; third breach-GP; fourth breach- DQ.

F confesses that a Dress Code accompanied with a schedule of penalty levels would be personally concerning as he has found out or been advised from time to time that his socks, or shirt and pants, don’t match. He even recalls playing on one occasion when he hadn’t played close attention and his left golf shoe didn’t match his right golf shoe. F admits that a stroke penalty or two might have been well-justified on these occasions.

Nevertheless, a point of emphasis in the ROG has evolved addressing slow play. F’s selfless act of discretely changing his shirt on the course avoided a time-consuming side-trip to the locker room, thus preserving a healthy pace of play for his fellow golfers ….an act for which he should have been heartily commended.

As usual, all comments or corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,

F