Oops Swing

On hole #3 at Cherokee Hills, Player A was preparing for his second shot just to the left of the fairway. In taking a practice swing, Player A accidentally made contact with his ball, causing it to come to rest in a fairway bunker:

Was the practice swing considered a “stroke”? The answer is no… the Definition of Stroke states: The forward movement of the club made to strike the ball. But a stroke has not been made if the player accidentally strikes the ball when making a practice swing or while preparing to make a stroke (amongst others).

So does Player A now have to play his ball from the bunker? The good news is no, because Rule 9.4a states: If the player causes [their ball at rest] to move, the ball must be replaced on its original spot (which if not known must be estimated). It is important to note that the ball in this case must be replaced—not dropped.

Did Player A incur a penalty? Unlike when a similar situation occurs with a ball in play on the Green, there is a consequence in this instance. Since Player A’s ball was at rest in the General Area, USGA Rule 9.4b governs: If the player causes [their ball at rest] to move, the player gets one penalty stroke. None of the five exceptions to this Rule would apply to this circumstance, so Player A was assessed one penalty stroke.

Player A then asked whether the ruling would be the same if he had accidentally caused his ball to move on the Teeing Area. In that case, the ball on the Teeing Area would not be “in play” until after the player took his first stroke, according to Rule 6.2b(5): When starting a hole or playing again from the teeing area under a Rule, the ball is not in play until the player makes a stroke at it. If a teed ball falls off the tee or is knocked off the tee by the player before the player has made a stroke at it, it may be re-teed anywhere in the teeing area without penalty.

So if you’re going to make an “Oops”, make sure it’s on the Teeing Area or the Green!

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!