Rule 13-4- Loose impediments in Hazard

Many of the players in competitive tournaments are aware of the prohibitions in Rule 13-4. When the ball is in a bunker or water hazard, they take good care to avoid touching a loose impediment.
In one of the amateur events concluded recently, I was involved in a ruling which applies Rule 13-4. One of the player's ball was in a lateral water Hazard which was also full of dry leaves. A gentle breeze was prevalent. The player elected to play a stroke. He carefully hovered his club face behind the ball and above a bunch of leaves. Before he played his stroke, the  gentle breeze which was prevalent made one of the leaves flutter.The hovering club face touched this leaf.I duly applied the penalty under Rule 13-4. The player wanted a second opinion. After conferring over phone with a senior international referee, the penalty was confirmed.
In the above case, the player could have taken a little bit more care to avoid the breach as there was a prevalent breeze and the danger of touching a leaf always existed. But what about situations where it is not possible to avoid such a breach. For example, when a player is about to make a stroke, a sudden gust of wind brings a leaf from elsewhere and the club touches this leaf before a stroke?Can we apply equity to condone the breach? This point is worth debating.

Ball Marker

                                                                     The Ball Marker

The Ball marker normally does not merit any discussion among the college of referees. However, a routine incident in a friendly four ball match generated heated discussions among us. A player’s marker was moved by the practice swing of his partner. When my opinion was sought, I ruled that the player (not the partner) incurred a penalty stroke under R 20-1 and application of R 18-2(which penalizes the player if the ball at rest is moved/caused to be moved by his partner).

As this incident was widely debated, I thought I will put my views in this blog. The Ball Marker, though unheralded, plays an important role. It represents the ball when it is marked and lifted. It is also a movable obstruction like a flagstick. Like flagstick, there are special rules - Rule 20-1 and 20-3 which applies to Ball Marker distinct from Rule 24-1 which applies to Movable Obstructions.

The important implication of Rule 20-1 and 20-3 is that when a ball marker is moved which cannot be directly attributable to the act of lifting, marking, Placing, Replacing of the Ball/the ball marker, there is an embracing penalty of one stroke. However, R 20-1 /20-3 does not elaborate in detail about various possibilities of movement of the ball marker unlike the series of Rules in 18 for a ball at rest moved. The Decisions also mention a few passing incidents relating to the movement of Ball marker. It will be fit to compare the consequences of movement of the ball marker with the movement of the Ball at rest as spelt out in the Rules (R18) and Decisions.

1.       Ball Marker Moved by an Outside Agency:  This is almost fully compliant with R 18-1. (Dec 20-1/9)The Ball Marker must be replaced without penalty. The test of virtual certainty is also applicable. Decision 20-1/10.5 directs replacement of ball marker if moved by wind/casual water agency, unlike a ball at rest moved by wind.

2.       Ball Marker Moved by Player: It is almost comparable with R 18-2. The Player incurs a penalty stroke and the marker to be replaced. (D 20-1/15.5, D 20-1/8). While R 20-1 is not explicit about the partner moving the player’s marker, it will be fair to apply R 18-2 and hold the player responsible for his partner’s aberrations. An important distinction between R 20-1 and R 18-2 is “Touches Purposely”. While R 18-2 applies a penalty, the penalty seems to be exempt for purposely touching a ball marker(D 20-1/6.5)

3.       Ball Marker moved by  Opponent  etc in Match Play—Though Rule 20-1 is not explicit, Decision 20-1/7, confirms penalty and replacement of marker by applying equity(R 1-4) like R 18-3

4.       Ball Marker Moved by Fellow competitor in stroke play- As in R 18-4, no penalty as fellow competitor is an outside agency.

5.       Ball Marker moved by another ball in motion: In my view, there should be no penalty as in R 18-5 and the marker to be replaced. The purpose of marking the ball, especially on the Green, is to avoid collision of the balls. A marker on the Putting Green is more likely to be moved by a ball in motion on the green, than elsewhere. Also, the owner of the ball, if not marked on the green, does not incur a penalty.  There should be no reason to impose a penalty, if he marks it and the ball marker is moved. The status of the ball marker should be a movable obstruction. In equity, there should be no penalty.

6.       Ball marker moved in Measuring:  There is no penalty as clearly spelt out in R 18-6 which is one of the few special mentions for the ball marker in the R 18 series.

I will be debating two other interesting possibilities with my fellow referees and attempt to put in the next blog. One possibility is movement of the ball marker after address and the other, after a dropped ball under R 20-2.

Searching for Ball- Rule 12

                                 Searching For Ball- Rule 12
Referees who have attended the R&A Rules schools are familiar with the opening presentation. It covers Rule 12 and Rule 13. It is obvious that R&A considers adequate emphasis should be given to these two rules.
Many players are also not fully aware of the finer points of Rule 12. While searching,the player is given some leeway in bending grasses and bushes but he is not exonerated for moving a ball, except in some special circumstances.While searching,Rule 18-2a still applies.In stroke play, if the ball is moved by player/his caddie while searching, penalty is applicable.This penalty is exempt while searching for a ball believed to be covered by sand anywhere on the course including bunker.
Many players believe they are exempt from Rule 18-2a  while searching for a ball in a water hazard. In one such incident in the recent Pro event at Aambi valley, the caddie of the player moved the ball while searching for it in a water hazard. He was instructed to replace the ball and docked one stroke penalty under Rule 18-2a. The penalty is exempted only in a situation where the ball is believed to be lying in water in a water hazard and the ball is moved while probing for it.
Penalty is also now applicable for moving a ball while searching for it believed to be covered by loose impediments.Exemption applies only for replacement of loose impediments under Rule 12-1b.
One other exception for moving a ball while searching relates to ball within obstruction and abnormal ground condition.
The moral of the story- while searching for a ball, the player and his caddie should be extremely careful.He should encourage his fellow competitors and their caddies to to the active searching.

Virtual Certainty

                                                                     Virtual Certainty

Though decision 26-1/1 explains how to apply the term known or virtually certain, it is one of the most difficult exercises for referees. The gathering of evidence in India is mostly limited to getting it from players, caddies, and if available, fore caddies  We do not have a crew of photographers or spectators to support with credible evidence.

This situation was highlighted in the recent Poona Club PGTI event. On hole 11, we had marked a very large area as GUR. A player’s tee shot hit an adjacent tree. The ball could not be found. When I reached the spot, the search was in the GUR area. The player informed me that according to the fore caddie  the ball hit the tree and fell in the GUR area. Nobody else has seen the ball hitting the tree and the dropping of the ball. I was almost convinced that it was virtually certain that the ball not found was in the GUR. However, on persistent questioning the fore caddie changed his version. He could only confirm that the ball hit the tree which was bordering the GUR. He was about 75 yards away. He was not certain about the ball falling in the GUR area. The area close to the GUR area also had thick roughs. This revised evidence of the fore caddie changed the status drastically. The evidence did not pass the test of virtual certainty. I had no choice but to ask the player to proceed under stroke and distance Rule 27.

In another incident at Aamby valley, on hole 12, par 5, the 125 yard third shot of a player sailed over the green. A high ridge was bordering the green. Beyond the Green was a narrow strip marked as Lateral water Hazard. The depth of this hazard was about 5 yards. The water hazard was closing on a short metal fence which was the margin of the Out of Bounds. The player could not find his ball in the water hazard. The hazard did not have water but only contained thick grass. The player wanted to proceed under the water hazard Rule 26. I denied the request as it was not virtually certain that the ball not found was in the water hazard. It may be in the water hazard or it may have gone Out of Bounds which was close by. Nobody has seen the ball landing in the water hazard because of the contour and high ridge surrounding the green. The Player was required to proceed under lost ball Rule 27.

Another fellow referee who was officiating in the same tournament made a player to proceed under Rule 26 and dropped a ball at the point of entry of the lateral water hazard margin. After dropping and stroke played, the ball was found in the Out of bounds fenced area which was close to the lateral water hazard.

These incidents highlight that the test of virtual certainty has to very strict. It will be hard on the players. The R&A has good reasons for shifting the weight of evidence from reasonable to virtual certainty.

Ball sitting on a Broken Bottle-Rule 24-1

           Ball sitting on a Broken bottle                                           

Aamby valley is one of the most picturesque golf courses in the country. As per the current trend, this private Golf course is a designer course and ideal for major championship. PGTI recently hosted its player’s tournament and attracted a full field. The Delhi lad Vinod Kumar won the tournament. The Course had a good mix of water hazards, pot bunkers, roughs and a manicured fairway. We had a few interesting Rules incidents involving many referees.

I was called for a ruling involving a relief for ball lying on a movable obstruction. His ball was sitting on a broken glass bottle. The glass bottle was partly embedded in the ground. As per Rule 24-1, I asked the player to lift the ball, remove the glass bottle. The player then dropped the ball directly under the spot where the glass bottle lay. The ball came to rest on the old depression created by the removal of the embedded bottle. The player now demanded relief for embedded ball under Rule 25-2 and decision 25-2/2. The relief was denied as the ball did not get embedded as a result of impact created by the dropped ball but came to rest only on the old depression made by the removal of the bottle.

    Dropping Ball on the Putting Green

Normally, Referees are kept busy dealing with relief procedures-free or penalty. Seasoned players always call for a referee when one is readily available. If relief is taken with the consent of the Referee, the player is safe is from any subsequent consequences. Rule 34-2 gives fairly wide authority to the Referee.

Free relief under R 24-2 and R 25-1 details the relief procedure. The principle in this case is to determine the nearest point of relief which is related to the interference. Hence, a ball lying through the Green or on the teeing Ground, the nearest point should exclude hazards and the putting green. If a ball is in a bunker, the nearest point has to be in the bunker. No free relief is available under R 24-2 and R 25-1 for a ball in the water hazard/Lateral water hazard. If the ball is on the putting Green, the nearest point may be on or outside the Putting Green, not in a hazard and the ball must be placed. On the Putting Green, additionally, relief is also available for line of putt for R 24-2 and R 25-1

As far as Penalty drops are considered in R 26 and R 28, there is no concept of nearest point of relief. The flag line option for penalty relief under R 26 and R 28 and the two club length option under lateral water hazard relief in R 26 and R 28, gives a rare opportunity to a player to drop a ball on the Putting Green.

As a referee, I was itching to witness such a scene. At Prestige Golf shire, Hole 8 is ideally situated for such an event. The Putting Green borders a wide and long Water Hazard, marked lateral on the Greenside. It is a short par 4, if one carries the water. If one lays up, a wayward second shot will put the ball in the water. In the PGTI event concluded last month, one player landed in the water – his second shot. Part of the two club length relief was on the Putting Green. I was expecting him to drop on the Green, but he dropped just outside the green on the Apron and the ball rolled onto the Green .This provided an interesting ruling. Under R 20-2c (iii), if a dropped ball rolls onto the green, it has to be redropped. He redropped and again, it rolled onto the Green and then he placed the ball on the redropped spot. If he has first dropped the ball on the Putting Green and the ball has stayed on the green/ outside the green within two club lengths of the dropped spot, the ball would be in play.

However, in the Ladies WGAI event concluded yesterday at Prestige my dreams came true. On the same 8^th hole, one of the ladies encountered a similar situation. As she is also a qualified referee, she promptly dropped the ball on the green and the ball stayed on the green within two club lengths from the dropped spot. She proceeded to putt from there.

Obstructions

Most of the duties of Referees involve rulings on Obstructions(R 24) and Abnormal Ground Conditions(R 25-1). The hard card of the tours will specify Immovable Obstructions. The additional Local Rules issued for each tournament will detail and exhaustively list the immovable obstructions. It is a prudent practice not to list movable obstructions. This gives some flexibility to players. In many courses, yardage and Hazard stakes are usually movable, but a few odd stakes will be grouted hard. The player has the option to treat such grouted stakes as immovable.

In some cases, the status of the obstruction is not clear. It is the duty of the committee to clarify the status of such obstructions. Decision 24/3(concrete base of boundary fence), Decision 24/7(stone serving as part of drain in bunker) are some examples.

KGA is rated as the best course in the country. Serious negotiations are underway to hold the Indian Open in 2012. KGA is a delight for any Tournament Administrator. The course marking is excellent, Water Hazards are well staked on the natural contours, yardages done scientifically and indicated on sprinkler heads, boundaries well defined. However, two issues need to be addressed and clarified:

1.    Nylon Netting- whenever there is a strong wind, the nylon net located outside the course intrudes into the course and causes interference. After a lengthy debate, matter was referred to R&A who clarified that in such cases, the nylon net will be an immovable obstruction and R 24-2 will apply. PGTI incorporated this in the Local Rule.

2.    Loose stone lining in Water hazard: Most of the water hazards are lined with loose stones placed closely (not cemented). Since these cut stones are designed to act as retainer wall for the hazard, this can be treated as an immovable obstruction. The issue (and this did take place in the recent IGU Junior tournament) is if the player entitled to remove the loosely placed stones under R 24-1? I denied such a request since the stone was not meant/designed to be moved and constituted a part of an immovable obstruction. My ruling is supported by Decision 13-2/32, Decision 24/7. I ignored decision 24/6 as in that case, the stone has broken away and no longer a part of the immovable obstruction. My ruling would have been easier if the status of these loose stones acting as retainer wall of the hazard has been clarified in the Local rule of the competition.