[Peter_Collins]

In stroke play competition the fellow competitor for whom you are the marker hits his approach to a patch of waist high "native vegatation" which is through the green.  As you approach the green and with your back to the fellow competitor as you repair your ball mark and mark you ball you hear what you believe to be your fellow competitor stomping down on the native vegatation.  Unsure of whether he has improved his lie or fairl taken his stance, you decide to observe his actions more closely.  He proceeds to take two haymaker swings through the native vegatation, on both swings sending grass with roots attached into the bunker between his ball and the green.   Based on the look on his face you believe he has swung and missed, but at the very least you are assured by the roots on the grass (i.e not loose impediments) that he has violated rule 13 by either improving his lie or his intended swing path.  Without changing his stance he plays the balls out the native vegatation onto the green and sinks the putts.

You ask him what his score was assuming he would at the very least fess up to the violation of Rule 13 and perhaps admit his whiff(s).  He does neither and announces his score as a very improbable par.  You advise you believe he has violated Rule 13 and should take the prescribed penalty of two shots.  You show him the rule and explain you believe his haymaker "practice" swings improved his lie by clearing the native vegatation from his intended swing path.   He agrees but requests an opportunity to discuss the situation with a rules official before signing and returning the card.

When you discuss the situation with the rules official you describe the situation as above.  The rules official states it is a question of fact whether the lie was improved and asks your fellow competitor whether he belives his lie was improved by his actions.  The fellow competitor predictably states the practice swings where a few inches right of where his ball was resting and he did not belive his lie was improved.  You advise the rules official you were several feet away, but you cannot fathom how cutting a path through the waist high vegatation behind his ball didn't improve his lie. The rules official determines there was no rules violation because the practice swings were made a few inches away from the ball.  Then, apparently either oblivious to the "intended swing path" language of rule 13 or intentionally ignoring it, he states the situation is no different than taking a divot on a practice swing in the fairway.    This is clearly an incorrect rulilng in your mind.

Knowing you have to play the second round with the guy do you press forward in the interest of protecting the field and explain to the rules official the error in his analysis or do you bite your lip and walk away knowing you were right.

I bit my lip and now regret it.

[Brent Hutto]

Personally, I'm not comfortable enough with my knowledge of the Rules to appeal the decision any further than whatever official is designated to handle such disputes. If someone is set on bending or even breaking the Rules, it's hard to force them to own up unless you catch them red-handed, so to speak.

I think everything you've done so far is exactly correct but pressing the matter any further is not supported given that you did not actually observe the lie and the ball until after the fact. In other words, you've already done everything in your power to protect the field IMO.

[John Kavanaugh]

Peter,

Congrats on calling the guy on the infraction and taking the steps you did.  You are one of the good ones and should take great pride in that.  

What kind of tournament was this....

[Peter_Collins]

State Am.

[peter_p]

I know a competitor can call for a second rules official if he does not like the decision of the first official, I do not know if a fellow competitor can call for a second rules official.

[John Kavanaugh]

State Am.

What you do could effect the rest of your golfing life...I would say do what I know I couldn't myself....let it go.  The State Am is a big local deal and you don't want to look like the state snitch...If he is a cheat he will show his true colors later...or maybe he learned his lesson.

What you have done so far makes you look like a hero...pressing it further can be a slippery slope where everyone comes out a loser...you, the field, the cheat, the rules official...And if he is not a cheat only you come out on the short end.

[JohnV]

Peter,

If there is a Rules Committee appointed for the event, you could ask for a ruling by the entire Committee.  As long as the official had not been assigned as a referee for your group, which it doesn't sound like he was, he should refer it to that Committee.  Once they make a ruling it is final.  In some cases, the Committee may give an official the right to make a final ruling, but usually he would still allow an appeal if there was any doubt.

If possible, you could have gone out to the place on the course where this occured with the official and tried to see if the evidence there led to a different conclusion.

Should have you gone further?  Only if you were very sure you were correct and thought that you could present evidence rather than just opinion.  Did you do anything wrong by not going further?  No, you did the right things by stating your concern and having an official make a ruling.  At that point, you have fulfilled your obligations.

In the end, when it is one player's word against another's, most officials will go along with the player who is affected.  This might sometimes lead to a player getting away with something, but, if he cheated and knows he did, he's the one who has to look himself in the mirror the next day.  Hopefully he did it out of ignorance or he truely felt he wasn't improving his lie, but he learned that he needs to be more careful next time.

[ward peyronnin]

Peter,

I agree with both Johns and the quotes on the bottom of John V B sum up the nature of the game. Annika and Paula got into it in their LPGA tournament and in the end the officials, who apparently didn't have a view, relied on Annika to declare where the ball entered the hazard. That being said when the situation is truly indeterminable  the ruling is usually in favor of the player but where the player engagaes in behavior that is as apparently compromising as what you were able to visually confirm but not see an actual infraction the ruling should be against the player. Ie The player should have taken practice swings away from the ball; if a ball at rest moves when a player has taken practice swings by it the player is assumed to have influenced the ball. Your official blew it.
I belive you may consider a note to the director of competition sticking closely to the facts so that he can make the determination as to whether he needs to educate his rules officail and notify the competitor that he needs to understand compromising behavior will be viewed unfavorably in the future  and he either needs to call for a ruling or suffer the consequences. This may assuage your angst by putting the monkey on him and believe me word of this will filter beacause the rules community is a small one.

Ward Peyronnin
Amateur Rules Volunteer

[TEPaul]

Peter:

Interesting situation but all in all not that unique or rare, all things considered. This is really just another situation of one player's word against another player's word. The Rules of Golf and the Tournament Committee pretty much just have to view it that way.

As JohnV said, you did the right thing. If that happened to you again, as it did, you also certainly have the option and the right to refuse to sign that fellow competitor's scorecard as his marker. Of course the tournament committee cannot refuse to let you do that or penalize you in any way for that but they still have to make a decision on the disputed situation and the facts of it.

From the way you described the entire incident it sounds to me like that player may've both violated Rule 13-2. as well as perhaps Rule 6-6 by basically taking a swing at his ball with the intention of hitting it, whiffing it, and bascially just lying about the fact that he really had intended to hit it. As for him actually violating 13-2 if you didn't actually see him move his ball you can't claim that. As for improving his lie or the area of his intended swing that's another matter, given your description of all that hay flying around so close to the ball and its lie. Either way, if Rule 13-2 or 6-6 was violated he'd need to own up before signing his card and walking out of the scoring area, or he'd be DQed.

But you did your job well as a marker whose function is to protect the interests of the rest of the field's fellow competitors who aren't there to protect their interests.

You did have another option actually if you so chose, I think. If you wanted to you could've refused at that point to continue to act as his marker. You could've drawn a line behind the previous hole's score, signed your intials there and handed it to another fellow competitor if he was willing to take it and take over as the guy's marker or I guess you could've just given it to that guy.

I did that once with a fellow competitor in the Pa State Am, but it wasn't a question of cheating exactly---he merely pumped a bunch of balls OB on one hole, lost them all, and refused to go back and play stroke and distance. So, I initialled his card right there and just handed it to him but at that point he did realize there really wasn't much point in playing another round.

But my advice to you in the future if you feel as strongly about that situation as you obviously do is to just explain all the facts as you feel you saw them to the commitee and then refuse to sign his card as his marker over that dispute if he insisted on the score for that hole that he did and the tournament committee has the mechanism at that point to resolve the issue, one way or the other.

For some guidance on how a tournament committee looks at and tries to resolve disputes on questions of fact between marker and player take a look at Dec 6-6a/4 and 34-3/4.

[Dave_Miller]

In stroke play competition the fellow competitor for whom you are the marker hits his approach to a patch of waist high "native vegatation" which is through the green.  As you approach the green and with your back to the fellow competitor as you repair your ball mark and mark you ball you hear what you believe to be your fellow competitor stomping down on the native vegatation.  Unsure of whether he has improved his lie or fairl taken his stance, you decide to observe his actions more closely.  He proceeds to take two haymaker swings through the native vegatation, on both swings sending grass with roots attached into the bunker between his ball and the green.   Based on the look on his face you believe he has swung and missed, but at the very least you are assured by the roots on the grass (i.e not loose impediments) that he has violated rule 13 by either improving his lie or his intended swing path.  Without changing his stance he plays the balls out the native vegatation onto the green and sinks the putts.

You ask him what his score was assuming he would at the very least fess up to the violation of Rule 13 and perhaps admit his whiff(s).  He does neither and announces his score as a very improbable par.  You advise you believe he has violated Rule 13 and should take the prescribed penalty of two shots.  You show him the rule and explain you believe his haymaker "practice" swings improved his lie by clearing the native vegatation from his intended swing path.   He agrees but requests an opportunity to discuss the situation with a rules official before signing and returning the card.

When you discuss the situation with the rules official you describe the situation as above.  The rules official states it is a question of fact whether the lie was improved and asks your fellow competitor whether he belives his lie was improved by his actions.  The fellow competitor predictably states the practice swings where a few inches right of where his ball was resting and he did not belive his lie was improved.  You advise the rules official you were several feet away, but you cannot fathom how cutting a path through the waist high vegatation behind his ball didn't improve his lie. The rules official determines there was no rules violation because the practice swings were made a few inches away from the ball.  Then, apparently either oblivious to the "intended swing path" language of rule 13 or intentionally ignoring it, he states the situation is no different than taking a divot on a practice swing in the fairway.    This is clearly an incorrect rulilng in your mind.

Knowing you have to play the second round with the guy do you press forward in the interest of protecting the field and explain to the rules official the error in his analysis or do you bite your lip and walk away knowing you were right.

I bit my lip and now regret it.

Peter:
Decision 6-6(a)/4 pretty much covers this situation.  You can ask to have the situation referred to the committee for them to decide but it would appear to me that they would decide in favor of the competitor.
You can disagree with the decision but the decision is final.  However you can then refuse to sign for the score on this hole.  You will have to sign for the scores that you can attest to.
Look up the decision, you can get it on line on the USGA Rules section of the website.
Best
Dave

[Dave_Miller]

In stroke play competition the fellow competitor for whom you are the marker hits his approach to a patch of waist high "native vegatation" which is through the green.  As you approach the green and with your back to the fellow competitor as you repair your ball mark and mark you ball you hear what you believe to be your fellow competitor stomping down on the native vegatation.  Unsure of whether he has improved his lie or fairl taken his stance, you decide to observe his actions more closely.  He proceeds to take two haymaker swings through the native vegatation, on both swings sending grass with roots attached into the bunker between his ball and the green.   Based on the look on his face you believe he has swung and missed, but at the very least you are assured by the roots on the grass (i.e not loose impediments) that he has violated rule 13 by either improving his lie or his intended swing path.  Without changing his stance he plays the balls out the native vegatation onto the green and sinks the putts.

You ask him what his score was assuming he would at the very least fess up to the violation of Rule 13 and perhaps admit his whiff(s).  He does neither and announces his score as a very improbable par.  You advise you believe he has violated Rule 13 and should take the prescribed penalty of two shots.  You show him the rule and explain you believe his haymaker "practice" swings improved his lie by clearing the native vegatation from his intended swing path.   He agrees but requests an opportunity to discuss the situation with a rules official before signing and returning the card.

When you discuss the situation with the rules official you describe the situation as above.  The rules official states it is a question of fact whether the lie was improved and asks your fellow competitor whether he belives his lie was improved by his actions.  The fellow competitor predictably states the practice swings where a few inches right of where his ball was resting and he did not belive his lie was improved.  You advise the rules official you were several feet away, but you cannot fathom how cutting a path through the waist high vegatation behind his ball didn't improve his lie. The rules official determines there was no rules violation because the practice swings were made a few inches away from the ball.  Then, apparently either oblivious to the "intended swing path" language of rule 13 or intentionally ignoring it, he states the situation is no different than taking a divot on a practice swing in the fairway.    This is clearly an incorrect rulilng in your mind.

Knowing you have to play the second round with the guy do you press forward in the interest of protecting the field and explain to the rules official the error in his analysis or do you bite your lip and walk away knowing you were right.

I bit my lip and now regret it.

Peter:
This situation is also covered by the definition of "Line of Play".
This definition states "The line of play is the direction that the player wishes his ball to take after a stroke, PLUS A REASONABLE DISTANCE ON EITHER SIDE OF THE INTENDED DIRECTION."
The question here is how do you, the competitor and the Rules Official define the reasonable distance on either side.  Could a few inches be beyond a reasonable distance?
Not sure but if he was more than 6 inches then I would guess he did not improve the area of intended swing.  What about 4 inches or three inches.
Just don't know.
Best
Dave

[Peter_Collins]

Maybe I'm not understanding but aren't line of play and intended swing path two different concepts? My thought process was he thinned out the waist high grass/weeds with his two haymaker "practice" swings thus making it easier to pass his club (shaft) through the grass/weeds on his stroke.  Remember he didn't change his stance after the practice swings.  Thus, the path he cleared with his practice swings was in the path of his intended swing, just a little higher up the shaft.

[Dennis_Harwood]

I know a competitor can call for a second rules official if he does not like the decision of the first official, I do not know if a fellow competitor can call for a second rules official.

Remember the Master's a few years back when Seve was attempting to get relief from a area where carts had been driven to the left of #10.  The Official on the scene (a Master member who was obviously awed by Seve) was about to grant relief when his fellow competitor--I believe Hubie Green--stated "We need a second opinion"-- When Seve saw the second opinion was coming down the hill and was the Secretary of the R&A, he announced "Never mind. I'll play it as it lies".

As a marker in stroke play if you do not agree with an official you should always ask that official to call for a second opinion, and despite what the official stated, raise the issue again when the card is returned.  This is a situation where the Committee can adjust the score at any time before the competition is closed (and perhaps afterwards if its found the player gave wrong information)-

Under 6-6a/5 a marker wrongly attesting a card and failing to include a known penalty results in DQ of the marker-- Although bringing the matter to the attention of an official should cover the player, the marker still has an obligation to the field.

[Dennis_Harwood]

You did have another option actually if you so chose, I think. If you wanted to you could've refused at that point to continue to act as his marker. You could've drawn a line behind the previous hole's score, signed your intials there and handed it to another fellow competitor if he was willing to take it and take over as the guy's marker or I guess you could've just given it to that guy.

I did that once with a fellow competitor in the Pa State Am, but it wasn't a question of cheating exactly---he merely pumped a bunch of balls OB on one hole, lost them all, and refused to go back and play stroke and distance. So, I initialled his card right there and just handed it to him but at that point he did realize there really wasn't much point in playing another round.

TE-- You can not do THAT-- There is no right to resign as marker or appoint another marker.  So long as you are still able to be a witness you must continue to act as marker--

To have someone else other than a the assigned marker sign is DQ (see 6-6b/5)--

Under exceptional circumstances the Committee can ratify a marker change (6-6a/1 and 33-1/5--which often happens with an ill player), but the marker can not resign, with or without the players consent, and if present must continue to act as witness--

The remedy for the marker is refusal to sign the card, not resignation (6-6a/4)--

Taking the course you suggest would mean most Committees may DQ the marker for refusal to discharge duties as a marker.

[TEPaul]

Peter and Dave:

This "line of play" thing is certainly part of Rule 13-2 but it seems sort of illogical to assume this guy was standing and swinging at hay right over the top of his golf ball to intentionaly clear out some resistance for his shot eventually taking the ball out of there more easily on that line, thereby improving his "line of play" and violating the intent of the "line of play" aspect of Rule 13-2, but I guess anything is possible.

The point is here that this was a disputed situation by a player and his marker, as sometimes happens---the proper processes were used within the Rules by the marker and the player and also within the "Committee's" procedures in Rule 33 and 34.

The committee ruled on the situation in favor of the player given the facts presented to them and that's the end of it as it should be under the Rules of Golf.

We, on here, are not going to improve upon that committee ruling or determine the correctness or incorrectness of that situation given what we know from one player and not the other and from no input on the part of the committee.

The point is, Peter Collins, the marker, did what he was supposed to do as a marker given what he observed and felt. His position on the situation was not upheld by the committee but that does not make anything he did or felt wrong, or incorrect, including his observations and feelings about a potential Rules violation within that situation.

And what the player did is not necessarily right or wrong either, it's merely a matter of the fact that the committee ruled in his favor. The Committee itself is not wrong either---they only made a decision on a disputed situation given the facts supplied to them, as is their responsibility.

That's the way the Rules of Golf work and that's golf. That's the way it's supposed to work.  

[TEPaul]

"To have someone else other than a the assigned marker sign is DQ (see 6-6b/5)--"

Dennis:

To have someone else other than the assigned marker sign a scorecard under Dec 6-6b/5 is DQ of whom?

I admit that to have Peter Collins line that player's card at the previous hole, initial it at that point and refuse to continue as his marker probably could bring up some issue of Peter's responsibility under the Rules as the player's marker but the Rules do seem to be pretty quiet on that point.

What if Peter refused to continue to mark the other players card at that point? Do you think the committee would DQ Peter for that? In any case, if Peter continued to play (with that player) which he did, at the very least, the committee should logically allow Peter to be interviewed as having witnessed the remaining holes, and at that point to attest to their correctness. Or do you suppose Peter would tell the Committee that he was so disgusted he refused to even notice, thereby potentially DQing himself virtually on purpose, if in fact there even is some provision in the Rules of Golf to DQ a marker for something like that.

What I did in the Pa Amateur, though, is definitely not a situation that would put me in any jeopardy of being DQed as the marker of the player I was marking for, for refusing to continue as his marker past the hole of his Rules violation.

There was no reason to continue as his marker anyway as there was no disputed situation to review with the committee and the player's round was clearly done at that point. The player I was marking for refused to play under the Rules by refusing to play stroke and distance for a lost ball.

He therefore could not possibly return a score or a legitimate score on the 16th hole at Merion, and he knew that and he knew perfectly well that DQed him. There was no dispute and therefore no issue on that at all and there was another player and a few caddies to attest to the facts if he didn't.

[Bob_Huntley]

I know a competitor can call for a second rules official if he does not like the decision of the first official, I do not know if a fellow competitor can call for a second rules official.

Remember the Master's a few years back when Seve was attempting to get relief from a area where carts had been driven to the left of #10.  The Official on the scene (a Master member who was obviously awed by Seve) was about to grant relief when his fellow competitor--I believe Hubie Green--stated "We need a second opinion"-- When Seve saw the second opinion was coming down the hill and was the Secretary of the R&A, he announced "Never mind. I'll play it as it lies".

As a marker in stroke play if you do not agree with an official you should always ask that official to call for a second opinion, and despite what the official stated, raise the issue again when the card is returned.  This is a situation where the Committee can adjust the score at any time before the competition is closed (and perhaps afterwards if its found the player gave wrong information)-

Under 6-6a/5 a marker wrongly attesting a card and failing to include a known penalty results in DQ of the marker-- Although bringing the matter to the attention of an official should cover the player, the marker still has an obligation to the field.

I know a competitor can call for a second rules official if he does not like the decision of the first official, I do not know if a fellow competitor can call for a second rules official.

Remember the Master's a few years back when Seve was attempting to get relief from a area where carts had been driven to the left of #10.  The Official on the scene (a Master member who was obviously awed by Seve) was about to grant relief when his fellow competitor--I believe Hubie Green--stated "We need a second opinion"-- When Seve saw the second opinion was coming down the hill and was the Secretary of the R&A, he announced "Never mind. I'll play it as it lies".

As a marker in stroke play if you do not agree with an official you should always ask that official to call for a second opinion, and despite what the official stated, raise the issue again when the card is returned.  This is a situation where the Committee can adjust the score at any time before the competition is closed (and perhaps afterwards if its found the player gave wrong information)-

Under 6-6a/5 a marker wrongly attesting a card and failing to include a known penalty results in DQ of the marker-- Although bringing the matter to the attention of an official should cover the player, the marker still has an obligation to the field.

Dennis,

It was not Hubie Green, it was Ken Green and Seve even argued with Michael Bonnallack until the latter told him to get on with it. Ken Green took a lot of guff with his attitude but he basically told Seve to go pleasure himself.

Bob

[TEPaul]

Bob:

To go pleasure himself is not the kind of English a fiery Spanish Shampiun like Seve Ballesteros understands.  

[Lloyd_Cole]

Peter
If it makes you feel any better, I've been living for a long time with having seen our club assistant, when I was caddying, improve his lie in the rough in a professional tournament. I was maybe 18, he was probably 23. I felt physically sick. Obviously I should have dropped his bag and walked off, reporting him. But he lived at the club, a prominent Glasgow club, as did I, being the clubmaster's son. Life is complicated.

[Jim Nugent]

Sounds like one problem is that you didn't see exactly what he did.  You can only infer.  Probably correctly.  But no one besides him knows what really happened.  

How did this incident affect YOUR play?  

[JohnV]

Maybe I'm not understanding but aren't line of play and intended swing path two different concepts? My thought process was he thinned out the waist high grass/weeds with his two haymaker "practice" swings thus making it easier to pass his club (shaft) through the grass/weeds on his stroke.  Remember he didn't change his stance after the practice swings.  Thus, the path he cleared with his practice swings was in the path of his intended swing, just a little higher up the shaft.

Peter you are correct.  Given what you described, he improved his area of intended swing, not his line of play.  Either way, it is a violation of 13-2.

As Dennis said, you were entitled to ask for a second opinon.  The official could deny that, but most wouldn't.

I still think the most important thing to do at that point would be to go out to where the incident occured and try to see if there were facts there that would corroborate your story.  Without that it would hard to rule against the player involved.  Remember the Michelle Wie DQ.  They didn't just take the reporter's word, but went out and checked the site.  Until they had done that, there was no way to rule against her.

[TEPaul]

JohnV:

The point you make or allude to I think is pretty important to know---eg what more on here who cite rules situations or ask about them should know.

And that is that many to most of these situations in the real world of officiating and Committee Rules interpretations and decision making can be and often are anything but cut and dried and black and white, particularly if they emanate from just one side or opinion or the written word of one side or opinion---such as on here (and believe me this is definitely not intended to be any knock at all on Peter Collins or anything he did or has said).

To make this very clear one needs to always keep in mind the decision in Rule 13 (Dec. 13-2/22), and the essential philosophy of it, that it is certainly possible to take a practice swing and knock down a number of leaves and not violate Rule 13-2, while on the other hand, in another situation the knocking down of a single leaf may violate Rule 13-2.

Every situation merits a close analysis of the individual facts of a situation therefore making generalization in Rules interpretations not the thing to do or expect.

Some obvously want a far more black and white Rules Code and a more black and white Rules interpretation process but it's just not that way and never will be because that is just not the way golf is anyway.  

On the other hand, that reality always needs to be balanced by fair and even-handed rulings both philosophically and actually across the board for all competitors, particularly in a single "field".

I guess one could say that is the essential dilemma of The Rules of Golf, all Rules officials and all Tournament Committees.

[TEPaul]

"TEP:  I don't thihk there is much doubt this guy was trying to whack away some hay with the practice swings."

Shivas:

Once again, you seem to sort of miss the intent of Rule 13-2, and certainly you seem to miss the intent of the answer in Dec. 13-2/22.

It is not the per se whacking at hay, even violently, with a couple of practice swings that constitutes the violating of Rule 13-2. The only thing that constitutes the violating of 13-2 is if either of those swings ACTUALLY improved the player's lie or the area of his intended swing (and I suppose to some extent his "line of play").

Furthermore, the fact that he did not move his feet is not the KEY fact---it is merely another contributing fact in the situation.

The only Key fact in the situation would be was something observed that basically proves that the player actually improved his lie or the area of his intended swing? If the Rules intended that a player must not take practice swings with his feet in the same position as his actual swing, particularly in a situation like that in high hay, then believe me, a Rule or a Decision would definitely say so.

There is probably a very good test you could apply to yourself (any of us can and should). And that is can you possibly contemplate a situation where a player takes a couple of practice swings, even violent ones (even if they are with the same stance that he uses to actually play his shot) that DOES NOT violate Rule 13-2?

If you cannot possibly contemplate such a situation then I would have to say you probably don't know how to interpret and apply Rule 13-2 as well as, as accurately as, and as correctly as it can be applied and should be applied.  

[Tom Huckaby]

Perhaps a similar question, for the rules gurus:

Match play - head to head matches and better-ball (fourball) running simultaneously.  Par three hole, ditch/creek marked red, runs parallel on the left to the line of a longish par three.  Two balls go in said ditch, mine and one of the opponents (not my direct match play opponent or my partner - the other guy).

Not much water in the ditch, so I commence searching for my ball, thinking if I can find it I can play it.

While I am in there (and my partner is way on the other side, so he saw nothing), said opponent takes drop and pitches on to the green.  I saw none of the drop.

I give up my search... proceed to look for a place to drop.  Point of entry is just about pin high for me.  Since the hazard runs parallel, there's no where for me to drop on the green side of the ditch that doesn't put me closer to the hole.  I thus drop on the other side - properly I believe - but I'd love confirmation there.  Before doing this the opponents asked me why I was going to other side of ditch, and I explained why... and then said - you didn't drop closer to the hole for yours, did you?

His was close, from what I could tell re point of entry.... That is, his went in a little short of the green, so he could have dropped sideways and back a little and MAYBE not gotten closer.

Thing is, I am positive this guy didn't have a clue how to do proper drop.... and I say, I didn't see it anyway....

So of course I have no claims here, and didn't want to be a prick anyway, so let it go.

BUT... it bugged me that he took what I have to believe was an improper drop, while I did it correctly - and of course went on to lose the hole primarily because the pitch from the far side of the creek was a lot harder - patchy dirt and rough v. perfect fairway.  Note my direct opponent scraped out a routine bogey to beat me... improper drop dude managed a 5, same as me... My partner meanwhile was buried in a bunker and could manage no better than 5 either.  So none of this was any huge big deal... it was more of a mental annoyance than anything else.  I do feel though that I had just innocently dropped on the green side of the creek like casual opponent, I could have pretty easily made 4 and halved both my head to head match and the better ball....

What, if anything, could I have done differently?  Pay more attention?  Anything?

TH

[JohnV]

Tom H,

You said it, Pay more attention.

Unless you can prove that he dropped in a wrong place, you don't have much of a basis to make a claim.  If you saw him drop in a wrong place, you should have told him immediately rather than waiting and making a claim.

Your partner should have been watching also as he was his singles opponent.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()