"Hiding in the Weeds" Rule

The twosome that joined Digger and me at Moon Valley Country Club this weekend were an interesting pair. They had analyzed their rounds of golf (and read an article) and their hypothesis was that if you hit eight greens in regulation and have 32 or less putts you are very likely to break 80. This does not seem like rocket science. Assuming a normal par-72 course with 4 par-3s, 4 par-5s and 10 par-4s and assuming 15 putts on the eight holes reached in regulation, you would be 1 under par on those eight holes so you could be 8 over par on the remaining 10 holes with only 17 putts (3 one-putt holes) and still shoot a 79! One hole (no pun intended) in the hypothesis is that as you hit more greens in regulation, rather than chipping, pitching or using the Texas wedge from off the putting surface, the average distance of your first putt will likely be substantially longer and 32 putts may be overly optimistic.

Our twosome also knew the intricacies of the Rules of Golf. There were three interesting and good-natured Rules discussions (we just talked about the Rule rather than implementing it). First, I hit my tee shot on a par-3 hole into the back bunker and skulled my shot into the water. Disgustedly, I dropped my ball where it went into the water hazard marked with yellow stakes, chipped up and made the putt for a double bogey 5. One of the twosome pointed out that my nearest point of relief was actually on the far side of the water hazard (no closer to the hole) with the hazard between the ball and the green. The other fellow offered that I could play the shot out of the greenside bunker again (I thanked both of them and took my double bogey). This is Rule 26 of the Rules of Golf.

Second, one member of the twosome chipped onto the green before his playing partner, who was farther from the hole but on the green, putted his ball up to the hole. The discussion ensued over the penalty for playing out of turn and they agreed there was no penalty assessed but the person that hit out of turn could be required to re-hit his shot without a penalty. A similar discussion occurred on the tee box when one player was about to tee off before his playing partner who birdied the prior hole. We all agreed that this was a breach of golf etiquette and gave the birdie player the honors. This is Rule 10 of the Rules of Golf. I proffered that if you know your partner is playing out of turn and you "hide in the weeds" to see if he hits a good shot before requiring him to re-hit the shot you have "unclean hands" and cannot take advantage of this Rule. Although there is nothing in the Rule to support this position, I am a lawyer and I can argue any position with a straight face. I call this the "Hiding in the Weeds" Rule.

The third Rules violation occurred when one player marked his playing partner's ball on the putting surface. According to the Rules expert, unless a golfer authorizes you to mark his ball it is an infraction to do so. There was much discussion about golfers marking their playing partner's ball in PGA tournaments (which I have never seen) and we all agreed that in order to address this Rule the players must agree on the first tee that the other player may mark your ball on the green on any hole, which seemed to resolve the matter between the Rules aficionados. This is Rule 20 of the Rules of Golf.

Michelle Wie could take a lesson on the Rules of Golf from our playing partners. This weekend at the Kia Classic, Michelle was playing a ball partially immersed in water and she had one foot in water and one foot on the ground. After hitting the ball she grounded her club in the hazard. This is a 2-shot penalty in stroke play (or loss of hole in match play) unless you ground the club to help you keep your balance. Michelle said that she in fact grounded the club so that she would not lose her balance and that the Rules official could not know what she was thinking or feeling, although there is no indication that she is falling in the video. I think that she simply had a brain freeze and compounded that with a white lie. The penalty cost her over $90,000 in prize money, but more importantly some respect among her fellow golfers.

Lost Ball Rule in the Television Era

I am perplexed by the application of Rule 27, "Ball Lost Out of Bounds; Provisional Ball" as it was applied to Robert Allenby's tee shot on the 17th hole at Torrey Pines last Sunday. Allenby hooked his tee shot. It was clear from the television cameras that the golf ball cleared the cliff and landed in the canyon. There were no marshals or spectators in the area where the ball entered the hazard and the golfers could not see the edge of the cliff or canyon from the tee box. Allenby and his caddie rummaged around in the rough area on the cliffs for awhile and then called over the Rules official. After some discussion between Allenby and the Rules official you could see Allenby getting extremely upset and you could hear the Rules official saying that he needs "clear and convincing evidence" that the ball was lost in the hazard.

Rule 27 generally states that if your golf ball is lost or out of bounds the penalty is "stroke and distance", i.e., you are assessed a one-stroke penalty and required to re-hit from the spot where you hit your previous shot. However, if there is clear and convincing evidence that the golf ball is lost in a water hazard, immovable obstruction or casual water, you fall under different rules that are less penal.

Generally, I would just take it for granted that there is no "common sense" rule under the Rules of Golf, but the USGA has issued rules of decision that hearing a ball splash in a water hazard satisfies the "clear and convincing evidence" test so there is at least a modicum of common sense applied. In this case, the television cameras provided irrefutable evidence that the ball landed in the canyon, but the Rules official either could not, or would not, consider that evidence. Therefore, Allenby was assessed a one-stroke penalty and walked back to the tee box to hit his third shot on the hole. He double-bogeyed the hole.

Interestingly, under the Rules a golfer can be penalized well after he completes his round if a television viewer spots a rules infraction and somehow contacts a tournament official. This has happened on numerous occasions at PGA tournaments and oftentimes leads to a player disqualification because the rules infraction imposes a penalty stroke and the golfer is disqualified for signing an incorrect scorecard! See Rules of Golf - Playing Ball as it Lies.

It would seem that what is good for the goose is also good for the gander so if television cameras can be used to spot rules infractions they should also be used when available to provide "clear and convincing" evidence. What do you Rules purists think?