Having a Ball on the Bridge

On hole #5 at Cherokee Hills, a player found that his ball had come to rest on a bridge that spans a gulch:

The bridge is classed generally as an Abnormal Course Condition, and specifically as an Immovable Obstruction. The area near the bridge is very poorly marked, but there was at least one red stake nearby. Since we always treat this entire gulch as a red penalty area, we concluded that the bridge itself must be in the penalty area.

Ordinarily, the player would be entitled to free relief under USGA Rule 16.1 Abnormal Course Conditions (Including Immovable Obstructions). However, there is an often-overlooked exception to this rule under 16.1a(2): Relief from interference by an abnormal course condition is allowed under Rule 16.1 only when the ball is anywhere on the course, except in a penalty area. This rule goes on to state that when both the ball and the obstruction are located in a penalty area, the only relief available is under Rule 17 Penalty Areas.

The player wisely decided not to play the ball as it lay, and instead took relief for a ball in a red penalty area under Rule 17.1d(3) Lateral Relief, for a one-stroke penalty.

Movin’ and Shakin’

On hole #10, a player found his ball in a terrible, plant-filled lie. During his backswing, the player noticed that the ball moved just before he struck it. He reported this fact, thinking he would be assessed a penalty stroke for causing his ball to move. So, was he right?

USGA Rule 9.2b tells us that first we must make a decision about causation: When a player’s ball at rest has moved, it must be decided what caused it to move. In stroke play, there are only three possible causes:

• Natural forces, such as wind or water

• The player

• An outside influence, including any other player

In this case, the movement was not caused by an “outside influence”, so that narrows the list down to two.

Prior to the 2019 Rules re-write, it was fairly common to assume that the player caused just about any ball movement if he was anywhere nearby—in other words, he was guilty until proven innocent. That script has been flipped, and the onus is now on the player to make an honest assessment using the “Known or Virtually Certain” standard, according to Rule 9.2b(2): If it is not known or virtually certain that the player or outside influence caused the ball to move, the ball is treated as having been moved by natural forces.

However, I have noticed in several professional tournament Rulings that rules officials will nearly always conclude that the player caused the movement if he grounded his club in preparing to take his stroke. In this case, since the player noticed the movement after having grounded his club, he is virtually certain to have caused the ball to move. So, the player did indeed incur a penalty under Rule 9.4b: If the player lifts or deliberately touches his or her ball at rest or causes it to move, the player gets one penalty stroke.

Ordinarily, according to Rule 9.4a, if you cause your ball to move, you have to replace it before taking a stroke at it. However, this case illustrates an important exception to the normal procedure, according to Rule 9.1b: If a player’s ball at rest begins moving after the player has begun the stroke and the player goes on to make the stroke, the ball must not be replaced, no matter what caused it to move. So the player escaped liability for not having replaced his ball prior to striking it.

Wrenching Decision

On hole #16, a player noticed that the clubhead on his driver was loose. The player used a borrowed Torx wrench to repair his club. However, it later occurred to the player that he might not subsequently be allowed to use the repaired club to take a stroke.

Luckily, USGA Rule 4.1a(2) states: If a conforming club is damaged during a round, a player may have the club repaired by restoring it as nearly as possible to its condition before the damage happened, while still using the original grip, shaft and clubhead. So the player was entitled to continue making strokes with the repaired club.

However, the wording of this Rule creates a potential point of controversy. The Rule uses the phrase “damaged during a round” very deliberately, so what if the player’s clubhead was actually loose BEFORE he started the round, but he only noticed it during the round? In this case, I think the player would have to be given the benefit of the doubt and be allowed to treat the club as having been damaged during the round. But if the player knew the clubhead was loose before the round started, and only chose to tighten it during the round, then the repair procedure would most likely not be allowed under this Rule.

Note also that the Rule makes a distinction between repairing a club and altering its playing characteristics. Rule 4.1a(3) states: A player must NOT make a stroke with a club whose performance characteristics he or she deliberately changed during the round. So you can’t change your loft, reset your weights, or make any other type of change to your club during a round.