PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE:  This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

Is there any flexibility in golf rules?

Who knows?

But, I ask this question for a couple reasons.  First, in retirement, I don’t have much else to do other than think about golf rules – or, for that matter, play golf under the rules of golf.  Second, I encountered a situation the other day when I was serving as a starter for a junior golf tournament at Michelbook Golf Club in McMinnville, Oregon – a situation that prompted me to think about whether there is any flexibility in the rules – and, specifically, the administration of them.

Here’s what happened.

A mother driving her son to the course got stuck in traffic, thus fearing her son would miss his tee time.  So, she called the course to provide an alert.

The tournament director got the message and said, if the player was late for the tee time, he would either be penalized or disqualified depending how late he was.  And the alert call would not do any good.

Under golf rules, it was the right call.  The tee time is hugely important.  Miss it and you get penalized or DQ’d.

But, given that this was a junior golf tournament and the mother and son were traveling from some distance away, the tournament director said the son would be allowed, if he arrived late, to play just for the experience of playing…his score would not count.

Should the mother have made the call?  The answer is yes.  Her action illustrated that, if the player was late, he had hoped to be on time, so a “no-show,” if it happened, would not be counted against him in future tournaments.

It was an act of good faith on the mother’s part.

Another rules-related incident happened a few years ago at Trysting Tree in Corvallis, Oregon.

In this case, the starter on the tee gave the wrong instruction to players about which tee markers they would use.  The written golf rules for the day had the right markers; the starter had the wrong ones.

It turned out that, following the starter’s instructions, four groups of players teed off on the wrong tees before the mistake was discovered.

So, what to do in this, another junior golf event run by the Oregon Golf Association (OGA)?

It turned out that the OGA Executive Director, a rules expert in her own right, was on site at the tournament, so she, with the tournament director and several rules officials, caucused by phone to decide what to do.  The options were, (a) to disqualify all of those who had used the wrong tees and had not corrected the error in time, or (b) find some other less-onerous penalty.

I watched and listened as the decision was made – a compromise that imposed a two-stroke penalty on all players, but avoided a DQ.   The reason?  A voice of authority, the starter on the tee, had given the wrong instructions and players had followed his instructions.  They could have known better, but didn’t.

So, back to the main question posed in this blog:  Is there any flexibility in administering golf rules?

The answer is yes, there can be.  But those who allow such flexibility also understand they are making an exception and, thus, doing so must occur only under unusual situations.  Otherwise, the purpose of the rules – “to protect the field” – could be in jeopardy.

*********

And this additional point:  What does “one-ball rule” mean?  I ask this question because of recent experiences in my sojourn as an OGA official.  In United States Golf Association qualifiers run by the OGA, players play under the “one-ball rule.”

This means they have to play the “same brand and same model” golf ball throughout their round. 

The question that emerged recently was this:  Does the same ball mean the same color ball, a question that arises because of the increased use of a yellow golf ball. 

The answer is yes.  Here’s what the Internet says: 

“The one ball rule isn’t part of the Rules of Golf, meaning not every golfer has to adhere to it either when playing casually or even in most tournaments.  However, it’s a recognized condition of competition tournament organizers can require of their competitors — often called a “Local Rule.”  The one-ball rule means basically what it implies, requiring a golfer must use the same golf ball — same manufacturer and model — throughout a stipulated tournament round.

“For example, if a golfer starts his or her round with a TaylorMade TP5x golf ball, her or she has to use that ball throughout the round.  They can switch out golf balls as desired between holes or as required when balls are damaged or lost, but the golfer has to exchange one TaylorMade TP5x for another TaylorMade TP5x golf ball.

“The one ball rule not only requires a golfer to use the same manufacturer and model of golf ball, but it also compels a player to use a golf ball with the same color throughout a round.  That means a golfer can’t switch between white, yellow, pink or another color.”

So, there you have it – in case, as is not likely, you care.