Two different rulings on similar shots: Understanding the nuance of the Rules of Golf

It was ironic to witness a pivotal moment during the Mexico Open where a golf ball came to rest in a precarious position against a fence on the 18th hole at Vidanta Vallarta. This situation echoed a similar incident from the opening round of the tournament. In that instance, S.H. Kim faced the risk of a high score on the 18th, his ninth hole of the day.

Kim’s initial tee shot had gone out of bounds to the right, followed by a peculiar second tee shot that landed squarely on the out-of-bounds line. However, his ball ended up on the in-bounds side of the green, leaning against the wire fence. The evidence of this ruling lies in a 39-second video clip, shared on Twitter by Joseph LaMagna, a writer for the Fried Egg, which had been retrieved from the ESPN+ feed.

Within the clip, Kim demonstrated his knowledge of the rulebook by consulting a rules official to assess his lie and potential options for play. It is worth noting that professional golfers, like Kim, are well-versed in the rulebook and often utilize its nuanced and tricky provisions to their advantage. Beyond the fence, there was a sandy border, a cart path, and grass. In the context of the tournament, the sandy border and cart path were considered an immovable obstruction or an abnormal course condition. As Kim’s ball was technically positioned on the same obstruction, he could argue for relief if he could prove that he could make a reasonable play from there. This situation is similar to when players on all skill levels often take free drops when their ball lands on a cart path.

By all accounts, the ruling in Kim’s case seemed reasonable. However, he still had to argue that he could make a play at the ball. In his case, Kim contended that he could hit the ball over the fence from the other side. The rules official agreed, granting him relief. As a result, Kim was able to take a free drop directly to the left of the obstruction, which positioned him in the rough with a much better lie.

What can we learn from this ruling? If you are a professional golfer and can effectively argue your intentions, even for an abnormal shot, you may be successful in gaining favorable rulings. Kim was permitted to play his next shot from an improved lie forward instead of having to punch out sideways, as he and the official deemed it reasonable.

Yet, Sami Valimaki approached a similar situation differently when facing a crucial moment on the 72nd hole of the tournament. Trailing by two strokes, Valimaki desperately needed to make a birdie to exert pressure on the leader, Jake Knapp. His tee shot veered to the right, ending up in the sand. As Valimaki was in contention, we had a clearer view of his lie, with his Callaway ball nestled between two small wire posts of the fence.

Was Valimaki’s lie accessible in the same manner as Kim’s? It is challenging to ascertain. Although their balls were not in precisely the same spot, they were similar. Valimaki also had trees in close proximity, which posed a plausible obstacle for his swing within the out-of-bounds area.

During the NBC broadcast, walking reporter John Wood expressed doubt, stating, “There’s no way to hit this ball, absolutely no way.” Valimaki seemed to agree, showing no intention to climb the fence or create an escape plan. Perhaps he possessed an extensive understanding of the Rules of Golf or was solely focused on other aspects of the tournament, such as his standing in the competition. Taking a penalty drop would have brought him closer to tying for second place rather than finishing outright in the same position. For a professional golfer contending for the first time on the PGA Tour, this distinction can make a massive difference.

However, Valimaki’s case falls under an exception to Kim’s rule. If it is deemed unreasonable to play a stroke from the position where the ball has come to rest, and if the ball is on an abnormal course condition, the player is not entitled to free relief. This exception, as confirmed by the rules committee after the tournament, applies to Valimaki’s situation:

“In Sami’s case, it was clearly unreasonable for him to play a stroke. The exception to Rule 16.1 applies.”

Some viewers may perceive the two scenarios as identical, while others may view them as distant cousins. This illustrates the inherent nature of the Rules of Golf, which possess numerous gray areas that are open to interpretation. Curiously, Kim’s subsequent shot went out of bounds, resulting in a triple-bogey 8, whereas Valimaki opted to take a penalty drop in a comparable area and managed to scramble for a par, achieving his best finish in his PGA Tour career.