Great Law School Case Is Settled, Darn It!

[Brown]

From KCCI-TV (CBS affiliate in Des Moines, Iowa):

Both sides in a case over whether a shot in a golf contest was a hole-in-one or a hole-in-two have reached a settlement Tuesday afternoon.

Drat! Double drat! This could have been the kind of case that law school professors love to talk about.

Basically, here are the facts:

The plaintiff, Adam Fisher, played in a charity golf tournament sponsored by the Iowa Future Farmers of America (Iowa FFA) Foundation. As an additional fund-raising gimmick, the Iowa FFA offered "mulligans" (first-shot do-overs) for a $5 fee.

On hole no. 5, the Iowa FFA offered a $10,000 prize to anyone who hit a hole-in-one. Fisher stepped up and swung, and hit a crappy drive. He then used his "mulligan," and re-did his first shot. The ball went into the hole.

Fisher thought he had won the prize. Not so fast, said the Iowa FFA, that wasn't a hole-in-one because you used a "mulligan." Fisher naturally responded that the "mulligan" had been bought and paid for, and his second shot counted as his first, so it was a hole-in-one.

A lawsuit followed. Was there a contract? Did the parties come to a meeting of minds on the effect of the "mulligan?" Was there an understanding that mulligans could not be used to get the $10,000 hole-in-one prize?

Ah, law professors love stories like this.

Alas, while the case was in the hands of the jury, it was settled. Too bad. This case had the potential to be reported in case books for the next hundred years, but the settlement makes that less likely.

Additional stories here and here from the Des Moines Register. The trial was covered by Court TV.

 

[Luke T.]

Seems pretty clear to me that the golfer won the money under the terms of the tournament. The tournament officials set up the rules and lost by them. It is their problem if the tournament rules they set up didn't match up with the insurance policy they agreed to.

 

[Manny]

Heh. Guess that's why it would have been a good law school case. It's equally clear to me that the FFA was in the right. Assuming (which I am) that the course is affilated with the USGA, the scoring rules are clear. On any hole which is not played according to the Rules of Golf the player is not to post his score but rather is to "treat it as a hole not played and record par plus any handicap strokes you would have received." So the Club (and FFA's) explanation was also in error -- it was not a "hole-in-two" by the Rules of Golf but rather a "hole not played" for Rules purposes and a "hole in par" adjusted by the golfer's handicap for scoring purposes. For whatever it's worth, the United States Golf Register is the USGA's official designate to record holes-in-one.

 

[Tmy]

USGA doesnt allow for mulligans.

It goes down as a "1" on the scorecard. Hence a hole in one. Why else would you need a muligan? To erase what just happend.

 

[Luke T.]

Heh. Guess that's why it would have been a good law school case. It's equally clear to me that the FFA was in the right. Assuming (which I am) that the course is affilated with the USGA, the scoring rules are clear. On any hole which is not played according to the Rules of Golf the player is not to post his score but rather is to "treat it as a hole not played and record par plus any handicap strokes you would have received." So the Club (and FFA's) explanation was also in error -- it was not a "hole-in-two" by the Rules of Golf but rather a "hole not played" for Rules purposes and a "hole in par" adjusted by the golfer's handicap for scoring purposes. For whatever it's worth, the United States Golf Register is the USGA's official designate to record holes-in-one.

If the FFA did not make other players who purchased mulligans to score their cards as holes not played or holes in par or otherwise alter the score they received with a mulligan, then they have no standing.

If they awarded other prizes based on score, and they accepted scores which were achieved through the use of mulligans in the awarding of those prizes, then they are really in the wind.

 

[Manny]

If the FFA did not make other players who purchased mulligans to score their cards as holes not played or holes in par or otherwise alter the score they received with a mulligan, then they have no standing.

True, but they almost certainly would not have done so, even for charity, on a USGA course.

That said, I've been knocking around the Legacy Golf Course site and it appears that they are not USGA members and that they do not comply with USGA standards (they even put GPS devices in the carts!) So I withdraw my previous post and the non-compliant bastids are on their own -- settling was probably wise, because they weren't playing "golf" by any reasonable definition of the word and the normal usage of the term "hole-in-one" may not have applied.

 

[Meadmaker]

When I think "hole in one", I think "shot hit from the tee that goes into the hole".

When I think "***hole", I think "people who sue organizers of charity golf tournaments."

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

USGA doesnt allow for mulligans.

It goes down as a "1" on the scorecard. Hence a hole in one. Why else would you need a muligan? To erase what just happend.

Correct. The USGA does not allow for mulligans. So, we then have to go back to that first shot - the "crappy" drive. He abandoned it. And when he played the second tee shot, technically he was playing the wrong ball. IIRC, he would incur a two stroke penalty, plus the original stroke, plus the replacement stroke. So he shot 4 - a bogey, not a hole in one.

 

[Manny]

Correct. The USGA does not allow for mulligans. So, we then have to go back to that first shot - the "crappy" drive. He abandoned it. And when he played the second tee shot, technically he was playing the wrong ball. IIRC, he would incur a two stroke penalty, plus the original stroke, plus the replacement stroke. So he shot 4 - a bogey, not a hole in one.

No, the USGA does not allow mulligans in matches played according to the Rules of Golf, and it does not allow you to record your score in situations when one is not playing according to those rules. The USGA absolutely recognizes that people take mulligans outside the Rules of Golf, they just insist they not be scored. Not scored as in not scored as if the mulligan didn't count AND not scored as if the second tee shot were an improperly played second ball. In a charity match on a USGA course (or off one if one is a USGA member) one may take a mulligan but one must not record the score. Specifically, to repeat, "For instance, if you use a mulligan, you aren't playing a hole under the Rules of Golf, so treat it as a hole not played and record par plus any handicap strokes you would have received."

So if the Legacy were a USGA course (which, again, it appears it is not), then Mr. Fisher would have treated it as a hole not played (no hole in anything) and if he were recording his score he would have scored a 3, or a 2 if his handicap was sufficiently high.

Also, for the record, if Mr. Fisher had availed himself of the $5 mulligan on 9 or more holes he would properly have recorded no score at all, again if he were a USGA member and/or the club were compliant.

 

[Suddenly]

The USGA rules are not legally binding, and that a club is affiliated with the USGA has nothing to do with what rules are played by during a particular tournament...


Mulligans are commonly sold during scramble tournaments, and I'll bet 100 cyberbucks that is what this was... A scramble is where each player plays a shot and then the whole team picks the best shot and goes from there. These are not the stroke play or match play tournaments contemplated by the rules.


(As for the GPS things on carts... As I understand these are permitted for casual play and even for handicap reporting under USGA rules... they are not just not permitted for competitive play in a USGA tournament. When my State am qualifier is held on such a course these are just shut off... but during the Sunday morning members' game they are on... still a USGA course...)

The USGA rules really don't matter. The rules of the tournament allowed for mulligans, so the tournament simply cannot in good faith hide behind a rule they are not following.

For example, I've played in "night tournament" in which special "glow in the dark" balls are used. These do not remotely confirm to USGA equipment standards... Can that tournament hide behind that rule in a similar situation? Seems patently unfair to me...

The question is whether it was "understood" that the mulligan cannot be used to make the hole in one... in every tournament I've been in that had such prizes and sold mulligans that restriction was posted on the sign by the tee of the hole where the prize was awarded... This is because the insurance company makes that clear...

It is also good practice to note on the sign that the offer is limited to those in the tournament... else if the sign is up the next day it can be legally seen as an offer to enter into contract, where performance of the specified duty (making a hole in one) creates a contract...

 

[Beerina]

to repeat, "For instance, if you use a mulligan, you aren't playing a hole under the Rules of Golf, so treat it as a hole not played and record par plus any handicap strokes you would have received."

That is only to arrive at the USGA-approved score. The allowance of a mulligan is to arrive at your actual score, which is not the same thing. And the implication is that that is the score that counts for this charity tournament.

People who golf on a USGA golf course are under no obligation to score according to their rules.

 

[BPSCG]

I'm guessing this was not a slam-dunk (to borrow another sports metaphor) for either side, else they would not have settled. Why settle if you're certain you're going to win?

 

[Luke T.]

I'm guessing this was not a slam-dunk (to borrow another sports metaphor) for either side, else they would not have settled. Why settle if you're certain you're going to win?

Nothing is ever a slam dunk if there are 12 citizen-jurors involved.

 

[Suddenly]

I'm guessing this was not a slam-dunk (to borrow another sports metaphor) for either side, else they would not have settled. Why settle if you're certain you're going to win?

Not certain who is going to win. Certain that the USGA rules are not dispositive as a matter of law.

What is more in play is an issue of fact. Was it made clear one way or another, is it even reasonable to assume a mulligan can be used for such a purpose... We don't know all the facts, both sides can present evidence as to common practice, etc.

That is a pure jury issue, and what LukeT said...

 

[Luke T.]

The USGA rules really don't matter. The rules of the tournament allowed for mulligans, so the tournament simply cannot in good faith hide behind a rule they are not following.

I'm going to have to check the records just to be sure, but I think this is the first time LegalPenguin (or any of his other incarnations) and I have ever agreed on anything!

*clutches chest*

This, and Jack Kemp. I don't know. I'm feeling kinda...funny, inside.

 

[Manny]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beerina
That is only to arrive at the USGA-approved score. The allowance of a mulligan is to arrive at your actual score, which is not the same thing.[/quote]Correct. My point was that the USGA does have a provision for holes on which a mulligan is taken. It is a hole not played.

Not certain who is going to win. Certain that the USGA rules are not dispositive as a matter of law.

What is more in play is an issue of fact.

I agree with that. I'm just saying as an issue of fact on a proper USGA course both parties would or should have a reasonable expectation of what defines a hole-in-one and that it does not include the provision for a mulligan, as taking the mulligan makes it a hole not played at all.

---

 

[patnray]

There are two different scores here: the USGA score, which must be used if the golfer posts the score for handicap purposes, and the score for the tournament, which obviously was not conducted under USGA rules.

For handicap posting the golfer must score it as a "hole not played". Assuming it is not a scramble (scramble scores are team scores and cannot be used for individual handicaps).

For the tournament score, it is scored as a hole in one. That's why they sell mulligans, and if they accept mulligans in other score cards, they have to accept on this one.

Whether it counts for the hole in one contest is a seperate issue. We don't have enough details about how the rules were written, nor do we know how the cases were presented to the juries.

If I were on the jury, as a 21 handicapper and absent any compelling reason otherwise, I'd probably vote that it counts.

 

[Brown]

Nothing is ever a slam dunk if there are 12 citizen-jurors involved.

This was a civil case. A civil case typically has eight people, and Iowa law allows for a non-unanimous verdict.

 

[patnray]

"I think that the rule is common knowledge. Especially in the game of golf," said Betsy Ratashak, former Iowa FFA President.

Even if it was common knowledge, the former president of the Iowa FFA Foundation admitted that no one told tournament golfers two years ago they could not use a mulligan for the $10,000 hole-in-one contest, NewsChannel 8 reported.

That's almost funny. The USGA rules only state that mulligans are not allowed and any hole where a player uses a mulligan must be scored as a hole not played. The rules of golf say nothing about whether mulligans count in hole in one contests at charity tournaments. Since the FFA sold mulligans and accepted scores including mulligans for the tournament, then the tournament was not being conducted under USGA rules. In my opinion, since the FFA modified the rules, it would be up to the FFA to clearly specify how mulligans could be used.

OTOH, not that I would ever do it, of course, but whenever my wife uses a mulligan after a wayward tee shot I refuse to give her credit for a Fairway Hit on her next shot (or a Green In Regulation, and she loses the hole in Match Play...)

 

[Luke T.]

This was a civil case. A civil case typically has eight people, and Iowa law allows for a non-unanimous verdict.

Can you ask for a mulligan and get a new jury?