Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Media & Entertainment Law Blogs -> The Sports Law Professor

Media & Entertainment Law

: The Sports Law Professor

Van de Velde Could Have Won

By Jeffrey Standen

With the British Open returning to famed Carnoustie, focus again returns us to poor Jean Van de Velde who, in perhaps the biggest mistake in sports history (pending Michael Vick's disposition), lost a major championship that was his for the taking. Why did he lose it? Not because of poor golf swings or even poor judgment, as is commonly understood. No, Jean lost the Open because he failed to exercise his right to counsel in a timely manner. Yes, if only a Lawyer instead of a caddie had carried Jean's clubs that day, the Claret Jug would have been his.

Don't believe me? Here's a piece I wrote at the time for Legal Times, a lawyer newspaper.

Don't Play Pro Se

Jean Van de Velde didn?t need a better swing coach, psychologist, or financial planner to win golf?s most coveted championship, the British Open, last month. What he needed was a lawyer.

The Rules of Golf, which golf professionals are somehow expected to master along with driving, chipping, and putting, are about as perspicuous as the Internal Revenue Code, and more important to boot. Playing a long shot from a deep sand bunker is a cakewalk compared to taking on the intricacies of Rule 27. Had Jean had a lawyer by his side as he played the fateful 18th hole at Carnoustie, he might have won, despite his poor judgments and poor shot execution.

Recall the troubles. Our doomed Frenchman carried a commanding three-shot lead into the final hole of the Open. A simple par, a routine score for a professional, would mean the famed Claret Jug would be brimming with expensive Bordeaux within the hour. But even a one-over-par bogey or a double bogey, the mode score of hackers everywhere, brings the Jug to France. Now, ending with a double bogey is not winning in the classic style, to be sure, but who cares about convention? An offhand wave of the Gauloise accompanied by an insouciant smile, c?est la vie, and that double bogey is forgotten forever.

But Jean wants it all, he wants to arrive in fashion, so he uses too much club on the drive, his first shot, on hole 18. Of course, Jean hits his drive errantly (a lesson there for us all), but he?s lucky! His ball somehow lands and stops on a small isthmus of land surrounded by a ball-swallowing stream, the Barry Burn, well off the fairway, but safe, dry, the ball lying perfectly on a flat patch of groomed and mowed grass. Of course, now we understand that Sartre was right, il fait necessaire, it must be. There is no reason for that patch of land to be groomed and mowed and flat but to catch and coddle Jean Van de Velde?s stray shot at this moment in time. Jean would win the Open no matter how much we mere mortals had tried to interfere.

Certainly, Jean must have understood all of this. How else to explain his next shot? Jean decides to use a long iron ? for most players, the most difficult club in the bag ? to carry the ball over the same burn, which circles back over the fairway about 200 yards away, with the idea of rolling his ball onto the green in regulation. A successful negotiation of the burn at this point all but seals the victory, as most players, from skilled pros to over weight cart-riders, can two put on most greens at most times.

But as golf history will forever record, Jean tempted fate once too often. His shot did fly over the burn but veered to the right at the end, and in an abrupt reversal of luck, struck a grandstand rail and bounced sharply backward, toward the burbling burn, bouncing off a rock and ending up in the long hay grass and gorse that passes for rough on Open courses. Now in a hopelessly impossible situation, Jean stumbled his way to a triple-bogey seven, ending up in a three-way tie playoff that he was unmistakably scheduled to lose.

What Jean should have done is this: Moments after his second shot caromed off the grandstand and into the tall grass, Jean should have handed his two-iron back to his caddie. He should then have planted his feet square to the target line and made a full shoulder turn to his left to consult his golf lawyer, who would have by now researched and prepared a legal opinion on how to proceed under the Rules of Golf. The golf lawyer ? or GL, as they will one day be called ? would have told Jean to try it again.

That?s right, Jean, drop another ball and try to hit it straight this time. What the rules of golf call a ?provisional,? though in the hands of a skillful lawyer really amounts to a free do-over, is known universally as a ?mulligan.? Had Jean?s provisional shot been correctly struck and ended up on the green, the GL would have told Jean to hurry to his provisional ball and two-putt to a victory.

Could it be true? Do the Rules of Golf, that long and picky list of do?s and don?ts issued jointly by the most stuffy of ruling bodies, the U.S. Golf Association and the Order of the Royal and Ancient, really allow for a good old mulligan on the last hole of a major championship, just like you get on the first hole every Saturday morning? You bet. It?s a bit complicated, but that?s why we pay lawyers.

Our path to a free mulligan begins with Rule 27, pertaining to lost and provisional balls. A ball is ?lost,? according to the rule, when, well, it?s lost. No one can find it in five minutes. Under the same rule, a ball is also ?lost? when the player puts another ball into play, even if the original ball is not lost in the first sense. So even if the original ball is sitting in the middle of the fairway, if a player drops another ball and hits it, without declaring it to be a provisional ball, then the first ball is lost, and the provisional ball is now the ball in play ? albeit lying there after a one stroke penalty for a lost ball. None of this would have helped poor Jean, who on the advice of his GL, would clearly have declared his mulligan to be a provisional ball before dropping it at the spot from which his original shot, the second shot on 18, was struck.

But Rule 27 doesn?t stop there. For some reason, a third definition of ?lost ball? is provided, and here?s the one on which Jean?s golf lawyer would have rested his finger in explaining matters to perplexed officials as Jean hoisted the Jug. Strangely, under Rule 27 an original ball is deemed lost whenever a player plays his provisional ball from the place where the original ball is likely to be lost or from a point nearer the hole than that place.

So as soon as Jean smoothly strokes his provisional ball for the second time (after, presumably, it has come to rest on the green, which is a point nearer to the hole than the place where his original ball is presumed lost), then at that moment Jean?s original ball, snuggled in an unspeakably long rough, is lost ? even if thousands of spectators are looking at it, Bob Rosburg is assessing the merits of its lie for the television audience, and Curtis Strange is calling Jean stupid for hitting it there. Jean putts his provisional ball for his fifth shot (after taking his one-shot penalty), taps in for the double bogey, hugs his gleeful wife, and prepares his gracious acceptance speech.

Sound implausible? As they say in golf, it will work. A player may play a provisional ball as long as the ball may be lost outside a water hazard. The player?s belief on this point must be a reasonable one, according to the USGA?s ?Decisions on the Rules of Golf,? which provide what purport to be authoritative interpretation of the rules. The numerous decisions resolve dilemmas involving balls being stolen by animals, hit by thrown clubs, and all other sorts of wild mayhem and improbable luck that might happen on our otherwise sedate golf landscapes. With Jean?s ball lying in the tall grass, his decision to declare and play a provisional would seem reasonable.

Beyond a Mulligan
So Jean drops and hits his provisional shot. If the provisional shot was well-struck, Jean could proceed to play it, forgetting about his original ball. If the provisional was as bad as the original, then Jean could simply have abandoned his provisional and played the original, no harm done. Wait, the weekend player might say, this isn?t just a mulligan, it?s the coveted ?Murphy,? one better than a mulligan, because Jean can actually hit two balls and pick the better. That?s right. Jean had a chance to try the shot again with impunity.

Indeed, in interviews after the tournament, Jean said that, for him, a long-iron shot from the perfect lie where his drive ended up was actually an easy shot. Jean?s claim was probably correct, given that the young Scot, Paul Lawrie, the eventual winner, attempted successfully a very similar shot about one hour later in the playoff, and he did so holding but a one-stroke lead. So we have good reason to conclude that Jean?s second try would have sailed true, and Jean would have had an easy choice to make.

Could Jean really have putted out a provisional ball? Decision 27-2b/1 of the USGA discusses in question-and-answer format a player continuing to play his provisional ball without searching for his original ball. Here?s the question, which of course is on the lips of every golfer whenever the provisional stroke turns out far better than the original:

Q: At a par-3 hole, a player hits his tee shot into dense woods. He then hits a provisional ball which comes to rest near the hole. In view of the position of the provisional ball, the player does not wish to find his original ball. He does not search for it and walks directly towards his provisional ball to continue play with it. His opponent (or fellow competitor) believes it would be beneficial to him if the original ball were found. May the opponent (or fellow competitor) search for five minutes for the player?s ball?

A: Yes, provided that in the meantime the player does not play a stroke with the provisional ball, it being nearer the hole than the place where the original ball is likely to be. The player is entitled to play such a stroke. If he does, the original ball is lost under Rule 27-2b and further search for it would serve no purpose.

You see, it?s a race. Jean hits his provisional shot, the ball rolls onto the green, and then, acting under legal advice, Jean moves quickly to the green. Heck, it?s the Open! Run, Jean, run! As long as Jean plays his next shot before his first ball is found by his fellow competitor, forecaddie, or some official, then his provisional becomes his ball in play and his original ball is lost.

Indeed the rules are even more specific. Even if Jean?s ball is found, Jean may still stubbornly proceed to his provisional and play it, as long as he has not actually been told that his original ball was found. Look at Decision 27-2c/2, ?Original Ball Found: Player Wishes to Ignore It and Continue Play with Provisional Ball:?

Q: At a par-3 hole, a player hits his tee shot into a heavy thicket and, since his ball may be lost, he hits a provisional ball, which comes to rest near the hole. In the circumstances, it is advantageous to the player not to find his original ball, in which case the provisional ball would become the ball in play. Accordingly the player does not search for the original ball; he walks directly towards his provisional ball. While the player is on his way to his provisional ball, his original ball is found by a member of the Committee, a forecaddie, his opponent, or a fellow-competitor. The player is advised that his original ball has been found. May the player ignore the original ball and continue play with the provisional ball?

A: No. The player must inspect the ball which has been found and, if it is the player?s original ball, he must continue play with it (or proceed under the unplayable ball Rule). The provisional ball must be abandoned.

So putting these two decisions together, as long as the player has not ?been advised that his original ball has been found,? he may dash forward and hit the provisional ball for his next shot. Once he plays that shot, the original ball is lost, no matter who finds it and when. Jean?s golf lawyer could have helped here too, engaging meddlesome officials and rerouting troublesome forecaddies who might want to help Jean find his original ball while Jean quickly lined up his approach putt.

Why not? This is the British Open, for goodness? sake. Tiger Woods once had a two-foot high boulder carried out of his way, with the assistance of spectators, as a ?loose impediment? and that was a comparatively meaningless PGA tour stop. Why shouldn?t Jean use the Rules of Golf just as aggressively? The only ?violation? of the rules Jean would have committed by quickly hitting his provisional ball again is playing out of turn, which under stroke play competition results in no penalty at all.

Check out this delicious variation. What if Jean?s provisional ball had rolled into the cup? As his GL, I?d advise him to sprint to the green. Surely he?d be faster than the rotund Craig Parry, his playing parter for the day. Consider Decision 27-2b/2:

Q: At a short hole, A?s tee shot may be out of bounds or lost, so he plays a provisional ball, which he holes. A does not wish to look for his original ball. B, A?s opponent or fellow-competitor, goes to look for the original ball. When does the provisional ball become the ball in play?

A: The provisional ball becomes the ball in play as soon as A picks it out of the hole, provided his original ball has not already been found in bounds within five minutes of B starting to search for it.

And they say golf is not a sport! This decision could have restated more realistically as follows: The moment A?s provisional ball falls into the cup, A and B take off like mad-men down the fairway. B dons his golf gloves and dives headfirst into the thicket, hoping to find A?s original ball at first look. For his part, A, having trained for speed, sprints to the green, coming to a sliding stop right at the hole. He plucks his provisional ball from the hole and holds it aloft moments before B screams out, ?I found it!? And A records a routine par 3.

Jean had the championship right there in front of him. Not on the 18th green, but in Rule 27. What could officials have said had Jean played a provisional and then hit it again? The Rules and Decisions of Golf actually permit a Murphy: a chance to hit the shot again and then decide, after seeing how good the second try was, whether to play the original ball or the provisional. Nothing would have prevented Jean from playing the provisional with the one-stroke penalty ? a trade Jean would have been delighted to make, given the fate of his original shot.

Poor Van de Velde. One day, in a better world, professional golfers won?t have to face the perplexities of the Rules of Golf without adequate legal counsel. Until that day comes, pro golfers, like victims everywhere, will have to suffer the injustices meted out by unseen tyrants. C?est la guerre, Jean, c?est la guerre.

Full post as published by The Sports Law Professor on July 18, 2007 (boomark / email).