What started as a search for a missing golf ball turned into one of the most heated exchanges of the 2026 Internet Invitational. Sam “Riggs” Bozoian and Cheddy found themselves at the center of a rules dispute on the final hole of their singles match. The incident raised questions surrounding ball identification, personal markings, and whether a player could claim a ball without knowing its number or identifying features.

The confrontation grew more tense as the group tried to determine which of the TaylorMade balls found in the rough belonged to Cheddy. While Cheddy maintained that he had been playing TaylorMade balls throughout the round, he struggled to identify the specific ball he had hit. His explanation drew further criticism, with even Dave Portnoy, who had been supporting Cheddy, acknowledging that the situation was a problem.

“This is f***ing comedy. I don’t give a f*ck. Alright, I’m hitting right here. Ball doesn’t lie. He’s going to hack one in the f***ing woods. You know what ball it is? No, I don’t. I told you that. That’s a that. I’m a Cheddy guy, but that’s a problem. What? Not knowing what ball you play. Yeah. Brother, I buy refurbished golf balls. I don’t buy like rack; I just have balls in my cart man. I don’t play at Whisper Rock like Riggs,” the three were discussing.

You can watch the video of the Riggs-Cheddy confrontation in this NUCLR GOLF’s X post.

However, beneath the heated exchange was a genuine question about golf’s rules. Does a player have to mark their golf ball personally, or is being able to identify it enough?

The confrontation between Riggs and Cheddy didn’t come out of nowhere. Tensions had already been building throughout their match during Episode 4 of the 2026 Internet Invitational.

The singles matches took place on the back nine at Buffalo Ridge, part of Big Cedar Lodge in Missouri. Riggs, representing Barstool Sports, faced Cheddy in a contest that had already featured disagreements over golf etiquette and on-course decisions.

According to Golf Digest’s recap, Riggs was frustrated with Cheddy for refusing to concede short putts and not replacing the flagstick. Those seemingly small disagreements contributed to an increasingly uncomfortable atmosphere between the players.

Another rules-related exchange took place on the preceding hole. Justin Gaethje, Riggs’ cart partner, questioned whether Cheddy had moved his ball while marking its position on the green. Kevin Kisner joined the discussion and ruled that there was no penalty.

This incident differs from the later argument. Moving or marking a ball’s position on the putting green is different from putting a personal identification mark on the ball itself.

Cheddy subsequently made his par putt but was so frustrated that he threw his Titleist ball into the water. He then introduced another ball, a TaylorMade, into play.

Both players sent their tee shots into the high rough on the final hole, making it hard to find their respective balls.

Cheddy was already frustrated by the earlier exchange and made no secret of it.

“Yeah, I wonder why I smoked that ball. I’m f***ing pissed,” he said during the conversation.

As the group searched for the missing balls, attention shifted toward the brand, number, and identifying marks on the golf balls they eventually found.

Cheddy argued that he had been playing TaylorMade balls and believed the found ball was likely his. He also pointed out that the group had located two balls for two players.

However, the other participants maintained that a player should establish ownership rather than make an uncertain claim based on the brand alone.

One important distinction in the confrontation is that putting a personal identification mark on a golf ball is recommended, not mandatory.

Under Rule 6.3a of the Rules of Golf, a player should mark the ball they intend to play. The wording matters because it says “should,” not “must.”

The R&A’s Rule 6 explains this recommendation, while the USGA also encourages players to use identifying marks to help distinguish their balls during a round.

However, that does not mean a player can claim any ball they find.

Rule 7.2 deals with identifying a ball at rest and provides several ways to establish its identity.

The disagreement had a direct impact on the match

While the exchange provided plenty of entertainment, its sporting consequences were just as significant.

Cheddy ultimately accepted a penalty and took a drop after the group could not establish the identity of his original ball. The transcript also captures a discussion about where he should take the drop, including references to the cart path, a nearby fence and two club lengths.

However, Rule 18.2 requires stroke-and-distance relief for a lost ball. This means the player adds one penalty stroke and plays again from where the previous stroke was made.

A nearby drop would require another applicable basis, such as penalty-area relief or a relevant local rule.

Despite the disagreement, Cheddy eventually made it clear that he was accepting the penalty and moving forward.

“I’m telling you I’m taking a drop, brother. I’m not making it up,” he said.

The decision proved costly in the match.

Riggs won the final hole, halving the singles contest. He didn’t win the entire match, but the outcome meant Cheddy couldn’t close out the contest with a victory.

The argument therefore changed the competitive outcome rather than remaining an inconsequential disagreement between players.

Following Riggs’ success in squaring the match, Portnoy also described the entertainment value of the situation by calling him a “great villain.”

That reaction captured another dimension of the Internet Invitational. The event has increasingly become a platform where competitive personalities, disagreements, and unexpected incidents become as much a part of the viewing experience as the golf itself.

This is not the first time the Internet Invitational has produced a major on-camera rules disagreement.

During the 2025 inaugural competition, Paige Spiranac became involved in a controversy. Video footage showed her pressing down grass around the ball of her teammate, Malosi Togisala, during the final.

Peter Finch questioned the action, and the confrontation developed into a much larger discussion about whether Spiranac had improved her teammate’s lie in breach of the Rules of Golf.

Spiranac became visibly upset during the exchange and later addressed the accusations publicly. She described herself as “painfully embarrassed” for not knowing the rule and said she never intended to cheat.

Both situations highlighted how quickly an on-course rules question can turn into a public debate about a player’s judgment and character.

Other interpersonal disagreements also arose during the competition. In the inaugural event, Luke Kwon’s late arrival after oversleeping led to a tense exchange with teammate PFT Commenter. The incident attracted considerable attention, with the episode reportedly drawing more than 12 million views.

Kwon subsequently released a video explaining his side and apologizing.

Coming back to the Riggs-Cheddy confrontation, it offers a useful lesson for recreational golfers, too.

Although marking a golf ball with a personal symbol is not compulsory, it remains one of the simplest ways to avoid confusion during a round.