Facts

As tensions rise and nerves fray due to a heated election season and the staggering unpredictability of college football, Foremost regrettably has to report that he has witnessed similar mistrust, anxiety, and combativeness on a golf course … of all places! Such was the case recently at BMCC.

In a spirited four-ball Match Play competition the teams were tied heading into the Par 4 9th Hole. Opponent BF had reached the green side bunker in two, and quite uncharacteristically, bladed his shot out of the sand. The ball screamed over the green at waist height, bounced once, and ricocheted high into the air off a cart path situated some 20-30 feet beyond the putting surface.

Calmly, BF played a nice pitch shot back onto the green leaving a manageable 10-footer for a bogey to tie the hole. He closely examined his ball after he marked it and, after his inspection, tossed the ball away in the direction of his parked golf cart. He didn’t announce why he was replacing his ball, or offer it to his opponents for inspection.

He then looked around and asked if anyone had another ball. “You can have mine”, said his partner, SP, who had finished the hole. SP tossed him his ball which BF used in substitution for the ball he had inspected and tossed at the cart. He then made a nice putt, curling in the down-hill 10-footer for the tie.

F had quietly watched this proceeding, internally questioning the ball substitution…first, the fact of the substitution as one must generally complete a hole with the ball played from the tee; and second, the use of his partner’s ball in completing the hole. Purely as a precaution before finalizing the score on the hole and in the match, F politely asked BF to simply confirm that the ball he had taken out of play was, indeed, “cut or cracked”.

“Yes it was”, said BF.

“Do you mind if I take a look at it?”, asked F, as the players approached the golf carts and BF picked up his previously discarded ball.

“Actually, I do!”, said BF rather tersely. “I don’t have to show you my dang ball!” He stalked off and hopped into his cart.

“Okay, take a look”, he continued, finally relenting. “It’s clearly cracked”, he said, handing F the ball.

Unfortunately, F didn’t see it that way. Neither did his partner, RF, both of whom would have been delighted to give BF the benefit of the doubt. The ball was clearly misshapen with a bit of a trough and a distinct ridge, but F saw no cut or crack.

“That’s a cut”, said BF. “It’s obvious!”

As the players were at the turn, F declared he would pass on his usual “diet” 9 1/2 hole hot dog (grilled and served on a toasted bun with mustard, ketchup, onions, cheese, and light relish) and instead, seek a Ruling as to the issue at hand. (F hopes the Reader will appreciate the deep sacrifices F makes to uphold the ROG.)

F declared to BF his intention to seek a Ruling and headed to the Pro Shop with the damaged ball. BF headed to the 9 1/2 hole.

Issues:

1) Assuming BF was entitled to replace his ball, was it legal to finish the hole with the same ball played on the hole by his Partner? Should he have retrieved another ball from his bag?

2) Did BF have any obligation to allow his opponent, F, to inspect a ball BF had removed from play, particularly given F’s direct request?

3) Was the ball “cut or cracked”, and thus subject to replacement?

Rulings:

1) In making his ball substitution to complete the hole, and provided the substitution was authorized, BF was entitled to get a “conforming ball” to complete the hole “from anyone else, including another player on the course” (R. 4.2a(1)). No problem here.

2) If a Player “reasonably believes” his ball has been “cut or cracked” during the play of a hole, he may lift it to inspect, provided he marks the ball and doesn’t clean it (R4.2c(1)), except on the putting green where he may mark and lift and clean the ball anyway under R13.1b).

He may substitute for a ball that is “cut or cracked…but not if it is only scratched or scraped or its paint is only damaged or discoloured.” (R4.2c(2)). (Yes, no typo, the USGA uses British English with the “u” in “discloroured”).

While F’s motives were entirely noble in asking to inspect the damaged ball (to ascertain compliance with the definition), F had no right under the Rules to make such a request, and BF had every right to tell him politely to kiss his ….

A player has no obligation under the Rules to advise an opponent he is substituting a ball due to its damaged status, and the opponent has no right to inspect the ball being removed. The opponent’s only recourse, it seems, is to request a Ruling if he believes the substitution was, or might have been, improper (in which case the damaged ball could then be voluntarily presented for inspection by the opponent, or preserved as evidence if such voluntary presentation is denied and does not lead to a mutual agreement).

Although F’s inspection demands were unwarranted, his position was upheld in the subsequent Ruling, as two distinguished Committee members painstakingly inspected the ball, with both agreeing that the damage did not rise to the level of a cut or a crack. Accordingly, BF was assessed one Penalty Stroke on Hole #9 for an improper ball substitution. R4.2c(2).

F regrets that he weaponized the Rule in seeking and coercing a ball inspection, although he does appreciate that justice was ultimately served.

As usual, all comments or corrections are welcome!

Respectfully submitted,
F