Golf has produced plenty of unusual moments over the years, but Charl Schwartzel encountered a particularly bizarre one during the final round of LIV Golf New York at Trump National Golf Club Bedminster in New Jersey.
The 41-year-old South African saw his tee shot on the 134-yard, par-three seventh hole land on the green before rolling backward toward the water. The ball eventually ended up in the pond, where an unexpected incident unfolded.
Television cameras captured a fish surfacing and grabbing Schwartzel’s golf ball from beneath the water. The fish then swam away, leaving bubbles and a commotion around the spot where the ball had landed.
“I have never seen that,” one of the commentators said during the broadcast.
Despite the unusual circumstances, Schwartzel was handed a one-stroke penalty because the ball was considered lost. He ultimately took relief from the penalty area and finished the hole with a bogey.
Under golf’s rules, a player generally does not receive a penalty when an outside influence, including an animal, moves a ball that is at rest. In such circumstances, the ball is normally replaced at its original location.
However, Schwartzel’s ball had already entered the penalty area before the fish moved it. As a result, the applicable procedure required him to take relief with a one-stroke penalty, rather than simply replacing the ball without penalty.
The unusual sequence ultimately contributed to Schwartzel finishing the hole with a bogey. He ended the tournament tied for 22nd at two-over par, while Joaquín Niemann captured the title after finishing at 16-under.
Schwartzel, the 2011 Masters champion and winner of the first-ever LIV Golf event in 2022, was competing at Bedminster as LIV Golf returned to the New York area from August 6-9.
The rules surrounding the incident are covered under Rule 9.6, which deals with situations where an outside influence moves a ball at rest. The rule applies “whether or not the player’s ball has been found”.
Because the ball was in the penalty area when the fish moved it, the location where it would have been replaced remained within that area. Rule 14.2a also states that the original ball should generally be used when replacing it.
However, another ball can be used if “the original ball cannot be recovered with reasonable effort and in a few seconds, so long as the player did not deliberately cause the ball to become unrecoverable”.
Ojas Jaiswal is a Content Producer at Hindustan Times, currently working with the US Desk, where he covers a wide spectrum of American sports and global news developments. From high-intensity NFL moments on the field to the latest off-court NBA storylines, he specializes in delivering engaging, audience-driven stories that blend factual accuracy with compelling narratives. A graduate in Journalism and Mass Communication from Bennett University, Ojas brings over two years of experience in digital journalism. Before joining Hindustan Times, he worked with EssentiallySports, a leading digital sports media platform catering to American sports audiences, where he contributed across multiple editorial and engagement-focused roles. He also interned with Times Network at the Sports Desk, producing articles and video content across diverse sports, ranging from Formula 1 to football. Known for his commitment to factual and accurate reporting, Ojas was awarded a Certificate of Excellence in Editing during his college years. Beyond sports journalism, he closely follows international affairs and global developments, while also exploring documentaries from different cultures and regions around the world. A lifelong football enthusiast, Ojas has admired Lionel Messi since childhood and continues to draw inspiration from the football icon’s journey and legacy.Read More
