"I haven't slept a wink since yesterday. I strongly appealed to play a two-ball, but the chief referee said no. On social media, I'm being portrayed as if I asked for a mulligan, which is not true, and it's really distressing."
Hur In-hoe spoke of his feelings after being caught up in the "misjudgment incident" at the GS Caltex Maekyung Open in a late-night phone interview with The Seoul Economic Daily on the 4th. His weary voice on the other end of the line conveyed the mental anguish of being swept into the controversy against his own intentions.
Hur finished the final fourth round of the GS Caltex Maekyung Open, which ended on the 3rd, tied for the lead with Song Min-hyuk and Cho Min-kyu, but failed to join the playoff and ultimately finished tied for third. His score was revised after the ruling on his tee shot at the 7th hole during the third round was belatedly overturned as OB (out of bounds). The Korea Golf Association (KGA), which hosted the tournament, issued an official apology the following day on the 4th, but offered no clear explanation of the process by which the ruling was reversed. We asked Hur directly about the situation at the time.
Q. Please explain the situation starting from the discovery of the original ball at the 7th hole in Round 3.
A. I thought it might be unclear whether my tee shot was OB, so I called for a referee and was walking toward the ball. When I got to about 5 meters from the ball, I saw that another player's caddie was holding my ball.
Q. Didn't you ask the fore-caddie to return the ball to its original spot?
A. The fore-caddie pointed to where the ball had originally been, but at that moment, different claims came from all around. The referee on the scene and the gallery members were all pointing to different locations. The difference wasn't just a hand span or two — it was more than a meter. So I said, "I can't accept this."
Q. The chief referee came to the scene. How did it proceed?
A. When the chairman asked the fore-caddie, "Why did you pick up the ball?" the fore-caddie replied, "The other player's caddie told me to pick it up." However, that caddie denied it, saying, "I never did that."
Q. How was the decision to play a provisional ball reached?
A. I said that since the situation was ambiguous, I would play a "two-ball" — playing two balls — to keep the round moving. But the chief referee said that wasn't allowed because the original ball's location couldn't be identified, and told me to play a provisional ball. I strongly insisted again, saying, "Playing a provisional ball would be tantamount to accepting the OB, so I want to play a two-ball first." Then the chief referee said, "I can cancel the original ball and allow you to play the provisional ball," adding, "Whether it was OB will be investigated and decided later."
Q. Then was the conclusion reached when you submitted your score after Round 3?
A. When I submitted my score, the chief referee said that after an internal meeting, the evidence that the ball was OB was insufficient and that the evidence had been compromised. He also cited a rule provision stating that "when a player's claim conflicts with another player's claim, it should be resolved in favor of the player." In that way, the score on the 7th hole of Round 3 was accepted as par.
Q. On the final day, after Round 4 ended, the KGA reversed the ruling, saying a new informant had come forward.
A. They told me that just before the playoff, after I had already submitted the Round 4 scorecard. Because it was such an important matter, I said I wanted to hear it directly myself and asked them to bring that informant. But the committee said, "That person is too busy to come." Does it make sense that someone can't come because they're busy, when a player's life, a large prize purse, and his honor are at stake? Why accept the opinion of one new informant while rejecting the claims of other gallery members who said it wasn't OB?
Q. The KGA issued an official statement and apologized.
A. I don't understand why this had to happen to me. I want to emphasize this once again: I strongly appealed to play a two-ball, but the chief referee blocked me from doing so. This is not something that can be ended with a simple apology. I hope no player suffers a similar case in the future. I will therefore carefully review the matter before finalizing my position.
