The players were relieved when spry, young golfer RGC leapt to his feet after a scary looking slide on his backside down a muddy GUR slope off the 5th hole at BMCC. Much of the slope from the green to the sixth hole fairway was under repair from damages done by sledders over the winter snows. “No More Sledding” is now the Rule, by club edict, although RCG apparently hadn’t paid attention to this new rule as his swift and dramatic slide had attested.

“That’s not what Foremost meant when he said ‘you can take a drop’ “, said JB, as he watched RGC climb back on his feet.

RGC had knocked his second shot into the bunker left of the #5 putting green, a bunker which was also clearly under repair. He was still arguing a F ruling after completion of the hole, and perhaps distracted, as he tumbled down the muddy hill strewing a handful of clubs into the bunker in the process.

F had offered RGC relief from the green side bunker as GUR. The dispute had centered on the point RCG had to select for his drop. RGC asked F if he could drop on the putting green at a point some 25 feet from the location of his ball in the bunker, but “no closer” to the hole. F said “no”, that he had to take “nearest” relief, “no closer” at a spot behind the bunker about 10 feet from the location of his ball.

”Well, that spot is the same distance from  the flagstaff as the spot I selected”, said RGC. “Both spots are no closer to the hole.”

F conceded this point,  but then tried to explain the “nearest”  language, and that this distance reference was in relation to the original spot of the ball, and not the distance ultimately selected between the drop and the hole.

RCG didn’t like F’s ruling. He said that he would be taking this issue to the Committee. Further, he stated that he would finish the hole playing two balls in, one from each location, and then advise the Committee which ball he would have played, with the selected ball to ultimately count being the product of the Committee ruling, and not F’s ruling.

F tried to inform RGC that he couldn’t play in with two balls in a Four-Ball Match Play competition, but at this point F’s calm and measured advice was being ignored. RGC made a nice par with the ball he had illegally dropped on the putting green. He hadn’t fared as well with the second ball he had played from the spot from which he should have dropped, on a grassy downslope just behind the bunker.

At the conclusion of the round, RGC (who has apparently done some work on the clubhouse grounds) approached his contacts at the Club in the technology/security field (unbeknownst to his playing companions)and demanded that they release a drone to take a picture of the 5th hole green complex from above, so he could pinpoint the location of his ball and the proposed drop points, and submit an accurate mapping to the Committee to assist in their ruling.

While RGC had disappeared on this secret mission, prompting JB (who is not to be confused with James Bond) to wonder if RGC had gotten lost on his way back to the locker room, another dispute now raged between those players present, as RGC’s playing partner for the day, CC, said he hadn’t heard of RCG’s front nine press, and was demanding a return of the extra $2 he had paid at the end of the round on this account. (JB was was so disconcerted by this new argument that he knocked over his beer, the delivery of which had escaped his notice, as he had been otherwise occupied, loudly bemoaning the lack of prompt beverage service in the locker room).

CC grew even more enraged as F and his partner, JB, then both admitted that they really hadn’t heard the press bet either, but had accepted the post-round payment in good faith (including the extra $2), as the amount RGC had declared as owed after the round, by virtue of his nine hole press on the ninth hole tee. Although CC wanted his $2 back, F ruled that it was too late to raise the issue of an improper payment, as the money had been paid, and particularly in light of the absence of CC’s partner, RGC, who was the most reliable witness to the fact of the bet. CC stomped off $2 light. The whereabouts of RGC was a growing concern.

After a diligent search (fortunately not limited by the three-minute rule), F eventually found RGC in the technology bowels of the Club where a security officer was patiently explaining that he could not release a drone while players were still on the course, due to safety concerns. At this point, RGC reluctantly agreed to hop in the car with F to revisit the scene and circumstances on the 5th green.

F and RGC parked in a driveway on Page Road and carefully entered the course next to the green through a walkway stile in the stone wall bordering the hole. They did so quietly and carefully, skillfully balancing their drinks, although their presence may have caused one youngster to miss what must have been a rather important three-foot putt. The youngster glared at F and RGC as he walked off the green (fortunately, he didn’t slip and fall), and seemed to not give a dang when F explained they were simply revisiting the site of an important Rules question.

Ruling

F was correct in his ruling as to the proper drop location.

Under R16 a player may take relief from an Abnormal Course Condition (including GUR) by taking a drop using a reference point at the “nearest point of complete relief”. By definition, the “Nearest Point of Complete Relief” is the estimated point “nearest to the ball’s original spot, but not nearer the hole than that spot”.

In other words, the “not nearer” or “no closer” requirement is only part of the definition. The reference point for the drop must first be “nearest to the ball’s original spot”, which in the present case would have placed the reference point on the grassy downslope behind the bunker.

F was, also, correct in his statement that in the event of a rules dispute, a player may not elect to play two balls in Match Play. (Int.20.1b(4)/1). Since F objected to the play of two balls, which was not allowed, RGC would lose the hole by playing a “wrong ball” in breach of R6.3(c)1. (Ibid).

(F has to say, however, that he might have lost on the “loss of hole” issue, since the Int says that in addition to objecting to the play of two balls, the one objecting must make a timely ruling request on the issue (which F hadn’t done since RGC had already said the two ball issue was going to the Committee. F might have had to make a ruling request on the issue as well, which admittedly wasn’t done. Whether F had to make an independent rulings request, when he had already been informed that a rulings request was on the table, is another question which should, perhaps, in the interest of time, be addressed on another occasion).

As to the protested $2 bet payment, F agrees CC had a strong argument, as neither of his opponents had known about or accepted the bet. “In my entire, illustrious golf career (F thinks he heard the word, ‘illustrious’) I’ve never had to pay a bet to a couple of guys who didn’t know they had a bet. What a couple of skalawags”, said CC shaking his head in disbelief.

F finds, however, that the $2 payment was fair. Indeed, F is confident that CC would have been the first to claim the reward had his side won the hole, whether he knew about the bet or not. Furthermore, in Match Play a player is bound by the actions of his partner. (R23.5), a rule which would certainly extend to wagers placed on behalf of the team.

And finally, F would note that while the equity of this determination was under a cloud, it was ruled equitable by a two to one vote!

As usual, all comments or corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,
F

*Note: In the photograph above, the prongs of the rake at the forefront of the bunker represent the original location of RGC’s ball. The grassy area behind the bunker is where he should have dropped. The strip of grass on the edge of the green at the bottom right of the picture is RGC’s proposed drop area. The Reader might note the dark strip in the mud just short of the bunker …. it’s the actual skid mark resulting from RGC’s slide. He should probably get a rake and go and go back and fix that or be criminally charged. No golfer is above the law…ask Scottie.