Ants in your Pants?

On hole #16 at LaFortune, Player A’s tee shot came to rest near the trunk of a large tree on the left-hand side of the fairway:

The ball was located very near a large tree root that protruded from the ground, and the player asked if he was entitled to free relief.

Under USGA Rules, there is no free relief in the circumstance presented thus far. However, upon closer inspection, we noted that there was a colony of large black ants swarming the area surrounding the player’s ball.

USGA Rule 16.2a states: A “dangerous animal condition” exists when a dangerous animal (such as snakes, stinging bees, alligators, fire ants or bears) near a ball could cause serious physical injury to the player if they had to play the ball as it lies. I don’t know for certain whether the ants in this case were potentially dangerous or merely a nuisance, but I also don’t see any reason to tempt fate! My recommendation in such cases would always be to err on the side of caution—that is, dangerous unless known otherwise.

Ordinarily, under Rule 16.2b(1), a player would be entitled to free relief under Rule 16.1 Relief from Abnormal Course Conditions (such as a cart path), which is what I advised the player. He then identified the nearest point of complete relief, dropped his ball within the appropriate relief area, and took his next stroke.

Unfortunately, I now know that I advised the player incorrectly. Rule 16.2b(3) goes on to state: There is no free relief under [this Rule] when playing the ball as it lies is clearly unreasonable because of something from which the player is not allowed to take free relief (such as when a player is unable to make a stroke because of where the ball lies in a bush). I knew this exception applies to all circumstances under Rule 16.1, but in the moment I deduced that it surely must not also apply to a dangerous animal condition.

Well, I was wrong… the exception applies to dangerous animal conditions as well. And in this case, the player’s ball was resting so close to the tree that the tree trunk would have made it nearly impossible to take a normal stroke. So, technically the player was not entitled to free relief.

I’m not sure that I agree with the Exception in this circumstance. I understand that free relief cannot be a “get out of jail free” card, but I also know that dedicated golfers will take unreasonable risks to avoid incurring a penalty stroke (see Life and Death Cliffhanger in the Golf Rules Blog). I would feel just awful if a player were to incur an actual injury from a dangerous animal just because he elected to take an unwise risk. I understand that my “safety first” attitude is not shared by everyone, but I sure would hate to be the official who had to deliver such a Ruling.

In hindsight, I wish I’d had the presence of mind to advise the player that he was entitled to try simulating his stance using an abnormal address, such as a behind-the-back shot:

I’ve seen this player attempt such a stroke many times, so it would have been completely reasonable under the circumstances. If the player had interference from the ants with this setup—which I believe he would—then he would be entitled to take free relief under Rule 16.1 after all!

Now if the player had successfully demonstrated interference for his behind-the-back shot and taken free relief on that basis, would he then be required to carry through with his original behind-the-back stroke? The answer is no… USGA Clarification 16.1/1 states: If a player receives a better lie, area of intended swing or line of play in taking relief under Rule 16.1, this is the player’s good fortune. There is nothing in Rule 16.1 that requires them to maintain identical conditions after relief is taken.

So maybe I didn’t get it wrong after all… I just got it right for the wrong reason!

To Mark or not to Mark?

On hole #16 at LaFortune, Player A (yellow ball) and I (orange ball) hit our tee shots to almost the exact same spot near the right-hand fairway bunker:

Player A’s ball was furthest from the pin, so it was his turn to play. However, there was no way for him to strike his ball without moving mine in the process.

Was I entitled—or obliged—to mark my ball before Player A took his stroke? The answer is a bit trickier than you might imagine!

This situation is governed by USGA Rule 15.3b(2), which states: If a player reasonably believes that another player’s ball anywhere on the course might interfere with the player’s own play, the player may require the other player to mark the spot and lift the ball. This is a really confusing sentence, but the upshot in this case is that since Player A was certain my ball would interfere his play, Player A was entitled to require me to mark my ball before he took his stroke. No surprise there!

However, it may surprise you to learn that I was NOT entitled to mark and lift my ball unless Player A demanded that I do so. The Rule goes on to state: A player is not allowed to lift their ball under this Rule based only on the player’s own belief that [their] ball might interfere with another player’s play. Again, a super-confusing sentence, but the upshot is that I can’t mark and lift my ball just because I think my ball might interfere with somebody else’s stroke. Consequently, I had to get concurrence from Player A that he wanted me to mark and lift my ball before doing so.

But this same Rule also gives me a little bit of autonomy over this process: In stroke play only, a player required to lift their ball under this Rule may play first instead. Of course, this was not a real option for me in this case since I could not strike my ball without also striking Player A’s ball. Still, it’s nice to know I do have recourse.

Told you it was tricky!

Collision Decision

On hole #17 at Cherokee Hills, Player A was in the process of marking his ball with a tee. At the same time, Player B putted his ball, which missed the hole and looked like it was going to collide with Player A’s tee:

Noticing this, Player A quickly removed his tee.

I then asked my four groupmates this question: Was Player A entitled to remove his tee while B’s ball was in motion? The consensus response was no… but were they right?

First, a tee is classed as Equipment under the USGA Definition: Anything used, worn, held or carried by the player.

Second, ordinarily players are prohibited from taking actions to affect where a ball in motion might come to rest under USGA Rule 11.3: When a ball is in motion, a player must not deliberately lift or move a loose impediment or a movable obstruction.

However, there is an EXCEPTION to Rule 11.3: This Rule does NOT prohibit a player from lifting or moving:

• A removed flagstick,

• A ball at rest on the putting green, or

• Any other player equipment

So Player A was entitled to remove his tee, even though Player B’s ball was in motion and heading straight towards it.

But my groupmates are smarter than the average bear… and they correctly pointed out that Player A’s ball location was no longer marked when he removed the tee. So, what about that?

Unfortunately, Player A did indeed breach Rule 9.7b when he removed his tee: If a player lifts their ball-marker or causes it to move when the ball is lifted and not yet replaced, the player gets one penalty stroke.

But Player A objected, suggesting that his ball WAS in fact marked the entire time… by the hole made by his tee when he first inserted it! A genius observation, but was he correct?

The Definition of Ball-Marker states: An artificial object used to mark the spot of a ball to be lifted, such as a tee, etc. Since a hole made by the insertion of the tee is not an artificial object, it cannot be used as a ball-marker. So, Player A incurred a 1-stroke penalty for his actions.

This sequence of events represents a bit of a dilemma. I have no doubt that Player A had the very best of intentions in mind when he lifted his tee. Despite his motivations, he nevertheless breached a Rule, and suffered a penalty, proving once again that no good deed goes unpunished!