In the recent Del Monte Leg of the ICTSI Golf Tour, Elmer Salvador, Richard Sinfuego and Juvic Pagunsan were all disqualified for a supposed violation of Rule 22 of the Rules of Golf that states:
22-1. Ball Assisting Play
Except when a ball is in motion, if a player considers that a ball
might assist any other player, he may:
a. Lift the ball if it is his ball; or
b. Have any other ball lifted.
A ball lifted under this Rule must be replaced (see Rule 20-
3). The ball must not be cleaned, unless it lies on the putting
green (see Rule 21).
In stroke play, a player required to lift his ball may play first
rather than lift the ball.
In stroke play, if the Committee determines that competitors
have agreed not to lift a ball that might assist any competitor,
they are disqualified.
The tournament committee thereafter came out with an official statement as follows:
“Elmer Salvador, Juvic Pagunsan and Richard Sinfuego was disqualified after it was confirmed that they three players in the last flight agreed not to let Elmer Salvador mark his ball which landed and was at rest about 6 inches from the hole.
The unfortunate incident happened on the 18th hole (par 5) of the last and final round. Elmer Salvador pitched his 3rd shot from around the green and his ball came to rest 6 inches beside the hole. And when Elmer walked on the green and was about to mark his ball, he backed off and discontinued the act of marking his ball and just moved aside. Juvic Pagunsan then who was also off the left side of the green pitched his ball and it came to rest about 18 inches from the hole. Then after Richard Sinfuego whose ball was also off the green, chipped his 4th shot and his ball rolled passed and went in between Elmer Salvador’s unmarked ball and the hole. The rulesmen who were around the said green had no idea to what the intentions of the players mentioned. The sequence of events were simoultaneous and swift that no one realized that there was a breached to a Rule, Rule 22-1 to be in exact. The breach was actually realized when a fellow competitor watching the game informed the rulesmen on site that he overheard the three players talking/agreeing for Elmer Salvador not to mark his ball anymore and let the two other players hit from their positions just off the green. This was later on confirmed when the three players were intreviewed after their round by the Rules Committee. Elmer Salvador narrated that while walking to his ball on the green Juvic Pagunsan told him not to mark his ball anymore and he obliged by not marking his ball due to respect that he has for Juvic. Juvic then hit his chip shot which came to rest 18 inches from the hole. Juvic Pagunsan actually admitted that he said that statement to Elmer and he ddint realize that they were about to violate a Rule. Similar case was also discovered when Richard Sinfuego admitted to us that he didnt want Elmer to mark his ball from the green so that he had a chance of hitting Elmer’s ball just in case it rolls pass the hole. So after confirming from all three players that they all agreed to the act of requesting Elmer not to mark his ball lying 6 inches from the hole while the two other players where playing their shots also to the same hole, the Rules Committe had no other opotion but to Disqualify all three players for violation of Rule 22-1 Ball Assisting Play. Similar case is also written in the Decisions on the Rules of Golf Book (Rule 22/6).”
Looking at the facts in light of the rule as quoted in my view Sinfuego should be disqualified but Salvador and Pagunsan should be spared. The rule states clearly that the players who violate this rule must have agreed not to lift the ball that might assist any competitor. From the facts only Sinfuego had an intent to illegally obtain assistance with no prior knowledge of the others. Salvador and Pagunsan had no knowledge nor intent to participate in the act of Sinfuego. The most that can be attributed to Salvador and Pagunsan as clearly stated in the ruling is that “they all agreed to the act of requesting Elmer not to mark his ball lying 6 inches from the hole while the two other players where playing their shots also to the same hole”. Nowhere is it stated herein that the ball was unmarked for the purpose of aiding a competitor as the rules require. Even the statement states that the rulesmen did not know the intention of the parties. So this begs the question, how did they jump from the act of not marking the ball to intent to assist without any supporting evidence or admission of guilt (except for Sinfuego)? In my view there is a jump in logic.
Were this a criminal case, a finding of guilt can only be arrived at if all the elements of a crime are present. For this rule it appears that the elements would be: a) non marking of the ball; b) intent to assist a competitor; and c) agreement of the competitors to that end. In this case only the first element was present. Since all the elements of the crime were not met no finding of guilt can be arrived at. Even if we do not apply the strict standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases and apply the less stringent preponderance of evidence or civil cases, it cannot be said that there is enough evidence to make a finding of a violation. It is unfortunate that there is no way that these gentlemen can reverse this ruling in spite of the fact they were unjustly treated because courts will not inquire into rulings of private entities conducting their own contests using their own rules to which the competitors have subscribed. Further, the USGA states that once results are announced that pronouncement is final. Nonetheless it must be vigorously argued that an injustice to at least Salvador and Pagunsan occurred here.
Some have said ignorance of the law excuses no one. If they committed all the elements of the violation they are charged with then ignorance of the rules cannot save them. True, but then Salvador and Pagunsan did not violate the rule, so this argument, as to them is immaterial. Others may argue conspiracy. But how can there be conspiracy when they did not have a common goal as it appears only Sinfuego had an intent to violate the rule? Lastly, some may say that the rules state that it is enough that the ball not be lifted “that might assist any competitor”. Therefore intent or conspiracy is not material. If this is the case then the rule is ambiguous as it sets no definitive standard or way to arrive at a standard. Clearly, what is a common standard that can be used to determine what might assist a competitor? In my view intent is where this case turns. No intent no crime.
The Duffer 