By Jeff Ninnemann
SCGA Assistant Director of Rules and Competitions
I recently worked the USC Collegiate Invitational at North Ranch Country Club and was witness to some of the finest amateur golf played on the West Coast. It is a 54-hole tournament – 36 holes are played on day one, and 18 holes are played on day two. On the first day of the tournament, players tee off at 7:30 a.m. via a shotgun start, playing continuously for 36 holes. It was a dry and mostly sunny day – probably the first clue that things weren’t quite normal. After all, most years the USC Invitational rivals the British Open for the “tournament contested amongst the worst weather conditions of the year award.” The morning started off slowly, there wasn’t much action, and I had already frequented the North Ranch Cappuccino machine twice. Finally, I got my first ruling of the day.
As is the case with many collegiate events, two holes are cut on each putting green so as to allow for the hole locations to be changed after the morning round of play. Josh Anderson (former CGA Champion) called me over because the “P.M. hole” intervened on his line of putt. Decision 16/7 tells us that the hole not in use is a “hole made by a greenkeeper” (i.e. Ground Under Repair). Since Josh’s ball was near the edge of the putting green, he wasn’t sure where to move his ball and furthermore whether it should be placed or dropped. I advised him that since his ball came to rest on the putting green, he must place his ball at the nearest point of relief – which in this scenario happened to be on the fringe (D. 25-1b/10).
Elsewhere on the course, two players made “Hole-in-Ones” in the wrong, vacant hole. Again, since these unoccupied holes are merely holes made by a greenkeeper, the player’s ball simply lies in GUR. Unfortunately for those players, they had not made aces, but rather had to place their ball at the nearest point of relief and putt to the proper hole (with hopefully just as much luck).
Here’s where it gets juicy…
The players are instructed by their coaches to place the flagstick into the “P.M. Hole Location” once they’ve completed their morning round. There were 20 groups of four players competing in the event; thus, on two holes there was both an “A” group and a “B” group.
Just before my lunch break I got a call on my cell phone from Mark Wilson, Director of Golf at NRCC. Over the past few years working this tournament, I know that when Mark’s name appears on my cell phone it’s because a coach has called him looking for a Rules Official – and it’s usually not pretty. Mark informed me that the 11A group placed the flagstick in the “P.M. Hole Location” on Hole 10 – the only problem was that the 11B group still needed to play the “A.M. Hole Location” and three of the four players already hit their approach shots onto the green. “Oh shoot!” (or something similar) I said. One of our best Rules Officials, Harley Williams, was already at the scene of the crime. I got on the radio and confirmed what had happened with Harley. At this point, we needed to stop that group from playing another stroke – this was a doozy! Three players had hit approach shots to within 15 feet of the “P.M. Hole Location”, and the fourth player was waiting in the fairway for our ruling. I began fumbling through the index of my Decisions book, as I knew there was a decision regarding moving a hole location during a stroke play competition (the USGA is always kind enough to have something to that effect on their exam!). I initially found D. 33-2b/1 – a good decision, but not entirely helpful to our situation. Declaring this round null and void wasn’t even close to being an option – I knew the round would stand, it was just a question of how it would continue. After reading that decision I noticed the title of the decision directly below it (33-2b/2). While I certainly don’t know the Rules of Golf in their entirety, I am “virtually certain” (that’s for all you Rules nerds out there) that the situation on Hole 10 at North Ranch is not in the book verbatim. Nevertheless, 33-2b/2 seemed to be close. To me, the premise of that decision is that someone has made a stroke towards a hole, which ultimately doesn’t end up being the hole. How then can we most equitably treat the player who played to a hole that isn’t going to be used?
When I finally arrived at the tenth green, Harley and I huddled off to the side to think through our options. The main points we considered were:
1) Should we have these players return to the fairway and replay their strokes to the correct hole location?
2) Are players obligated to know that the flagstick may not be marking the location of the correct hole? Thus, should we force these players to putt to the correct “A.M. Hole Location” even though they measured and hit their approach shots to the incorrect “P.M. Hole Location”?
3) What is the most equitable resolution for everyone involved?
We quickly dismissed the notion of having these players replay their strokes – after all, there aren’t many “breakfast balls” in the game of golf. Question two gave us the most trouble, but we ultimately felt that given today’s technology (i.e. Rangefinders), Hole Location Sheets have become almost as obsolete as tape players. Furthermore, there always exists the possibility that the hole location sheet can be inaccurate. (As a side note, we didn’t feel that the mischievous practical joker in D. 1-4/3 necessarily applied here. That decision only contemplates one hole being cut in the putting green – so where else can that decision force the player to putt to? That decision also attests to the rarity of the “breakfast ball.”)
Our ultimate decision was to follow the procedure outlined in D. 33-2b/2. We felt that each player in each round should play to the same hole and that it was most equitable to “recreate” a comparable situation for the three players who wrongly played to the “P.M. Hole Location”. I fetched my “Gotcha” – a dental floss like device designed to measure things like who is away and clearly defining an out of bounds line. One by one, I measured the distance from each player’s ball to the “P.M. Hole Location” (the hole they had wrongly aimed at). I then measured that same distance from the “A.M. Hole Location” and Harley visually inspected the break of the original putt, thus allowing us to relocate each ball into a comparable position relative to the correct hole location. This involved us physically moving each player’s ball marker approximately 20 feet. As for the fourth player back in the fairway (Bryan Hogan – a regular on the SCGA Tour), we placed the flagstick in the correct, “A.M. Location” and had him play his approach shot accordingly – after all, 76 other players had to.
All in all, I’m very satisfied with the decision and procedure we followed. After further thought and consideration, I’ll be the first to acknowledge that there are other ways to potentially handle this situation – perhaps you’ll come up with something that makes more sense.
One More Notable Ruling…
➢ SCGA Match Play Champion Matt Hoffenberg “wiped” his ball between his fingers after he had been asked to lift it under Rule 22-2. There was some discrepancy between players and coaches as to whether or not Matt actually cleaned the ball; however, D. 21/3 makes it clear that any doubt shall be resolved against the player – Matt incurred a one stroke penalty.
