This section of the Rules Corner covers any interesting or unfortunate rules situations which come up in our tournaments.  Someone once said that it is great to learn from your mistakes but it is much better if you can learn from the mistakes of others.  Here's your opportunity.

2008 Kickoff Tournament - First Victim of "Virtual Certainty Rule"

One of the rule changes for 2008 was the new standard for determining when a ball that has been lost has been lost in a water hazard and played under Rule 26 or must just be treated as lost and played under Rule 27.

Under the previous rule there had to be "reasonable evidence" that the ball was in the water hazard. The USGA determined that too many players were using a standard like "probably" lost in the hazard. In 2008, the new standard is described as "Virtual Certainty".

On the 16th hole of our first tournament, Jim Schlatter had a poor tee shot which headed in the direction of the right hand hazard. No one really saw it bounce and the players couldn’t even determine whether it had cleared the hazard, come up short, or was in it. The area in question had a lot of high weeds which were not in the hazard as well as a large bush and a tree.

After five minutes Jim, who had studied the new rule, believed that there were so many other places for the ball to be that it was not "virtually certain" that the ball was in the hazard. He therefore played his provisional ball and took the stroke and distance penalty.

So, be sure the next time you are helping a player with a water hazard issue, remember to apply the new standard; only then will we all be playing by the same set of rules.

2007 Directors' Cup - Raking Bunkers and Reviewing Scorecards

To help speed up play, a player raked some footprints in a bunker prior to playing his ball from a bunker on the 15th hole.  This is a violation of Rule 13-4 which prohibits testing the condition of a hazard prior to making a stroke from the hazard.  The player was advised after play of the hole that a penalty might be involved.  When returning the scorecard to the pro shop he raised another rules question about a rules situation on hole 11 and then, as other players began turning in their cards, he forgot to bring up the bunker raking situation.  He was later reminded of the incident and returned to the shop to discuss the issue.

As it turns out, that was too late.  Once a scorecard has been turned in and the player has left the scoring area, the card is official.  Since the score on hole 15 did not include the 2 stroke penalty, there was no alternative but to disqualify the player.

So do yourself a favor.  If you've just spend 4.5 hours generating a score, take a couple of minutes to make sure it is correct.  If there is a question on the rules, put something on the card to remind yourself to check it at the end of day.  Our club works hard to play by all the rules, but sometimes the results of doing this can be painful.

2006 Directors' Cup - Provisional Balls and Water Hazards

A player teed off on the 11th hole and was unsure as to whether or not he had crossed the hazard.  He announced a provisional ball, hit it in the water and then hit two more in the water.  However, upon arriving at the green he found that his original ball had, in fact, crossed the water.  He played that ball and played on.  He reported the situation at the end of the day.

Unfortunately, under the rules of golf a provisional ball cannot be played when a water hazard is involved.  The 2nd ball played became the ball in play as soon as it was hit.  Consequently the player played a wrong ball when he played the original and was DQ'd as soon as he hit his tee shot on hole 2.

Remember that the Provisional Ball is covered in rule 27 for ball lost or out of bounds.

2006 Stroke Play Championship  - Those Pesky Scorecards, One year later

A player on the 2nd day of the Championship  turned in a card with the correct total score but failed to notice that, on the 18th hole, the marker had recorded a 4 instead of a 5.  After the score had been posted, he went to Rich to straighten it out since Rich had done the addition from the hole scores and corrected the total.   Since the player had left the scoring area (the pro shop) the player was DQ'd from the tournament, particularly painful since even the corrected score would have won first place.

It would seem that spending at least 4.5 hours generating a score, one could take the time to verify the hole by hole scores.  And remember that it is good to learn from your own mistakes, but it is far better to learn from the mistakes of others.

2005 Stroke Play Championship - Those Pesky Scorecards

Rule 6 puts the player in charge of getting the correct numbers in the correct positions on 18 boxes designed for hole scores.  Rule 6 does not require the player to perform any addition.

On the 2nd day of this year’s Stroke Play Championship, a player and a marker determined that the marker had entered two bogies instead of two pars.  Once this was agreed, the marker corrected the TOTALS and returned the card to the player.  The player then signed it and turned it in.

When Rich checked the card he corrected what was now an addition error and posted the score based on adding up the hole scores.  There was some consternation in the breezeway afterwards, but the rules are clear.  If you sign for a score higher than the actual score, you get the higher score.  This is far better than signing for a lower score, since that one gives you a DQ.

So what’s the point?  Check the scorecard carefully and don’t depend of your marker because it is not his responsibility. 

2004 Pacific Grove Four Ball - This situation arose on the 14th hole with the team of Pete Bahnmueller and Bob Kelley.  Both players hit long drives down the left of the hole and at the time the players were concerned that one or both balls may have gone through the fairway into what turned out to be a water hazard marked as 'environmentally sensitive'.  One ball was located some distance short of that area and was assumed to be Bob's ball.  The group went forward to the hazard and looked around but did not go into the hazard, respecting the environmental designation for the area.  It was then agreed by all four players in the group that the ball had to be in the hazard and Pete dropped a new ball.  Bob went back and played the other ball onto the green.  Pete also played onto the green.  

Arriving at the green Bob realized that he had, in fact, played Pete's ball.  He then went back and found his own ball some ways in back of the area being searched.  Bob realized he was out of the hole and Pete putted out and continued on.  They brought the situation to the attention of the 'committee' after the round. 

Bob's status was easy to determine.  He had played a wrong ball and since he didn't go back and play his original ball out, he was disqualified for the hole.  Pete's status was less clear.  There must be 'reasonable evidence' to treat a ball as being in a hazard as opposed to being lost.   One of the justifications for treating a ball as being in a hazard is if there is no place else where it could reasonably be.   The real fault for the situation was Bob's failure to identify the ball he played.  The others in the group assumed (incorrectly) that this had been done.

My initial reaction was to not give Pete the benefit of the doubt and DQ him as well for playing from a wrong place.  Since the team was not in the money it was academic anyway.  I agreed to check with Gail Rogers at the NCGA and then get back to the players.  After doing some more thinking, I began to think that Pete was OK and I based this on a different scenario.  Supposing it had not been Bob at fault, but one of the other players in the group.   In that case, Pete would have been justified in thinking that the other team had identified  the ball and, if that were true, it was reasonable to assume that his ball which had been hit farther, was in the hazard.  And, if all that is true, it is unfair to penalize Pete for another players mistake.  And this would be true even, as was the case, when the players was his own partner.  Gail concurred with this reasoning although she also agreed with Peter Malloy's comment that the the team should be DQ'ed under the 'stupidity' rule.

Here's the bottom line:  IDENTIFY YOUR GOLF BALL BEFORE YOU HIT IT!!!!!  Also make sure you put identifying marks on your ball that are easy to see.  If possible put multiple marks so you don't have to lift it to identify it.   And finally, to avoid disqualification, both players could have gone back and played a 'second' ball and waited for a ruling from the committee.

2004 Tournament Of Champions - There were two interesting rules situations at this tournament.  On Saturday, Brad Miller's ball came to rest near the 8th green in what may or may not have been an embedded lie.  His fellow competitors were not unanimous in their opinion about the lie and whether or not Brad was entitled to relief.  He did mark the position of the ball and the group inspected the lie.  Brad eventually decided to play the ball, but in the process of lifting it for inspection, he also cleaned the ball.  Under Decision 25-2/7, a player may lift a ball to determine whether or not it is embedded.  However, that decision states that the ball may not be cleaned unless it is determined that it was embedded and that the player may take a free drop.

Therefore, Brad was required to take the one stroke penalty under Rule 21.

The situation was correctly brought to the attention of the Rules Committee at the end of the round and the one stroke penalty was applied.  Although the question of whether or not the ball was embedded became irrelevant once Brad decided to play it as it lay, the question of how to determine whether or not a ball is embedded is still important.  And since the Rules Official mistakenly referred to an out of date ruling at the time in the discussion, it is important to look at a new decision, 25-2/0.5.    Contrary to the decision in effect prior to 2004, the new decisions states that, "For a ball to be considered embedded, it must be in its own pitch-mark with part of the ball below the level of the ground.  However, the ball does not necessarily have to touch the soil to be considered embedded, e.g., grass or loose impediments may intervene between the ball and the soil."

Since there was disagreement about the status of the ball, Brad would have done better to play a second ball under Rule 3.3 and then get the tournament committee to rule.  In that case, had the committee ruled that part of the ball was below the surface, then Brad would not have been assessed the penalty incurred when he played from the original position since that would not have been the ball that was used to score.

And the mention of Rule 3.3 that brings us to the second incident.  On Sunday, Ken Stalder's drive on the first hole ended up lying on top of another ball which was embedded in the rough.  Since Ken was not sure of whether he had to play from that position or not, he decided to invoke Rule 3.3 and play both the original ball and a second ball.  He scored 5 with the first ball and 6 with the second ball and then reported the situation to the committee at the end of the round.

Ken got lucky.  An important part of Rule 3.3 involves the player stating clearly which ball he intends to score with should the rules permit the procedure being used.  In this case, Ken should have said he was going to score with the second ball since he had no idea how the shot with the original ball was going to come out.  But having failed to make that statement, he became subject to another part of Rule 3.3 which states that in the absence of such a statement, the score obtained with the original ball must be used (as long as the rules permit the procedure used to play that ball).

Since Ken was taking relief from a movable obstruction (the other ball) the rules certainly permitted him to play his ball while it touched that obstruction.  Hence Ken was "forced" to take the 5 instead of the 6.

Ken got lucky, but you might not, so remember that when you use Rule 3.3, you should state clearly which ball you intend to score with.  This rule is there because no player should get to choose which ball after both balls have been holed out.

2003 Stroke Play Tournament - An unfortunate event took place in this year's tournament.   On the first day of play, Jim Cowie got into a complicated situation where his ball entered a gopher hole in a bunker but rolled so deeply into the hole that he was actually beyond the bunker's boundary.  (See photo at right; ball was actually deeper but the photographer didn't want to lose the sample ball.)  In this case, the Rules of Golf required him to take his free relief  'through the green' (outside of the bunker) since the boundary of the bunker extends straight down.  This is certainly not something most players would know and Jim, with the concurrence of the other players, dropped the ball in the bunker and played on.

At the end of the round, the card was signed and turned in with no mention being made of the event until it came up in casual conversation later.  The end result was that Jim was disqualified for turning in a scorecard with a score for that hole that did not include the penalty strokes for playing from a wrong place.

The lesson here is not to know every obscure rule; the lesson is to always check out any questionable situation with the 'Committee' before signing and turning in your scorecard.  

In addition, when you are in any doubt as to how to proceed, Rule 3.3 allows you to play two balls and get a ruling later.  Read Rule 3-3 carefully, particularly the section which requires you to state (even if it is obvious) which ball you intend to score with if the rules allow it.  This Rule is there because we don't have the luxury of a PGA Rules Official with every group in our tournaments.

Last Updated on 1/26/2008