I’ll answer as best I can.
Was it a local rule? It was a local rule in that it was understood to be a local rule, but, no it was not noted on the score card nor on any other written document. As far as the local rule adopted for the club President, yes that was for real. He was a great guy (and a friend of mine) and he had a wicked slice almost to the point that his ball traveled further to the left in terms of distance as opposed to down the fairway. The rule was the only way he was able to play golf on our club’s course. For example, hole #2 was a short par 3, about 135 yds with a steep upward elevation (much like WC #2, just shorter). The hole had OB to the right and a giant old oak tree to the left. The only way our prez could play the hole was to aim for the middle of the oak tree. Sometimes he was able to completely bend around the tree and make the green. Most times, however, his ball would strike near the top of the tree and bang around among the branches and land on the green a good percentage of the time. It was great entertainment.
What was the post protecting? The controversial crux of the matter. Our course used to be private, but sometime in the 1970’s it was sold to a local development who wanted to close it and build an upscale housing development, which he could never do as he ran into conflicts with the township and county zoning and codes departments. However he was successful in getting these agencies to approve a small building project whereby he would close holes #5 and #6, erect a seniors’ housing project on the land, and rebuild the fifth and 6th holes further to the south. Well the 5th hole rebuild was a disaster (this is the hole in question). In order to build the hole on the available ground, he had to make it a rather severe dogleg left. A creek ran down the left hand side of the hole and cut across the fairway right where the dogleg to the left began in essence cutting the hole into two parts. The first part of the hole, where you would tee off from was about 200 yds in length, meaning most players use to hit 5 irons in order to position for the second shot which was anywhere from 175 yds to 225 yds depending upon where your tee shot ended up. The set up didn’t sit well with the membership and it wasn’t long before many players elected to cut the fairway short by driving to the left and over the creek into the second fairway (even the club pro used this route). The owner for whatever reason didn’t like that approach (he was also criticized in the local paper for destroying a golf hole that had been around since 1923 so he may have been trying to appease his critics). He came up with the idea of the post to stop players from cutting the fairway short. Given the pole’s position it was virtually impossible to hit across the creek without bringing the pole into play. Members were infuriated. Rather than remove or reposition the hole, a “rationale” was promulgated that stated the real reason the pole was put in place was to protect players on the 6th tee from tee shots from the 5th tee that may come too close to players on the 6th tee. The only problem with that was the landing area for tee shots from the 5th was a minimum of 100 yds away from the 6th tee, meaning unless you could hit a hit tee shot in the range of 325 - 350 yds the players on the 6th tee were safe from any wayward hit tee shots. The whole situation was ridiculous and so enraged the owner that he refused to entertain any other potential solutions and made this “fix” permanent. We have something similar to this in WGT land at BPB#1. Most everybody hits to the right over the trees and into the fairway. If our owner had that hole he would have put a pole right where the fairway turns to right and issued a local rule saying all tee shots must be to the left of the pole.
The rule was deemed “stupid” by the membership and generally ignored. The only time it was recognized and invoked was when somebody saw it as an opportunity to gain an advantage over another player. In my case it was a “tournament”, not quite official but one where you paid your entry fee, someone in the pro shop held the money, and the prize (cash as opposed to merchandise) was paid out to the top three teams sometime during the following week when business was slack. My score for that hole, birdie, was discounted and my partner’s score was substituted. We eventually won the event and after taxes, title, dealer prep, and handling fees were subtracted my partner and I won a whooping $14.00. I immediately re-invested my $7.00 portion of the winnings in a half bottle of beer in the clubhouse.
I elected to challenge the ruling as I didn’t think the flight path of a ball could be penalized, I wanted to make officially public my thoughts on the reworking of the hole, and I was supported by quite a few members who were hoping this would lead to eliminating the post. The club pro thought like you. He encouraged me to involve the USGA, but noted that he thought their ruling would be a decision not to get involved.
BTW, a thought just occurred to me. Maybe our owner was WGT. For several months after my ruling was received, everybody tried to work on a tee shot that would take the pole out of play, allow you to fly the ball over the creek, and land in the fairway. A lot of ball hits used up in the process and a lot of lost balls (in the creek). I for one thought a draw shot from the tee would work, but it didn’t. For me at least, hitting driver with the intention to draw the ball instead of hitting a 5 iron, the ball would travel too far forward in addition to drawing to the left and I would end up over the creek but well right of the second fairway in a wooded area that was definitely out of bounds. I did “solve” the problem in the last few years I actively played as I played the hole by adopting the Lee Trevino approach. I’d hit an iron from the tee to a position from which I could hit a 7 wd to the green.
Your note on St Andrew’s is most interesting. I have always thought the name was Royal St Andrews. Thanks for the clarification.