As stated in my last post, failure to hole out in stroke play competition invokes the penalty of disqualification. Many such breaches occur when the ball is nestling against the flagstick.
Jaiveer Singh, a tiny tot(less than 10 years old) making one of his first appearances in the Junior circuit in KGA had one such distressing incident. On the last hole,his ball, after a chip, was resting against the flag.He thought he had holed out, picked the ball and walked out of the Green.The fact that he walked out of the 18th Green was not established at the time when I was called and was apprised that the player had not holed out.I asked the player to correct his mistake as per R 17-4 and added a penalty of one stroke for lifting the ball. Later, eye witnesses including Vijay Divecha, one of the well known referee and coach,confirmed that the player had clearly left the 18th Green, after failing to hole out and the correction under R 17-4 was too late.. Under the circumstances,the committee had no choice but to disqualify him. The youngster was in tears as he missed out for one of the runner up prizes.
A more complicated variation of this incident recently took place at the Eastern India Juniors in Tollygunge, Kolkatta.On the last hole,Khalin Joshi's chip on the par 3 18th, was resting against the flag.His fellow competitor Rommel Majumdar ran in and picked up the ball.All the players left the Green.Shetty, tournament Director and I saw a part of the ball from a distance.When we questioned Rommel, he was sure the ball was below the lip of the ball. Khalin was not sure about the status.One of the committee members indicated that because of the sloping nature of the Green, a part of the ball could be visible, even if it is below the lip of the hole.Allen Singh, one of the famous names in Indian golf and now assisting IGU in grooming young talent, recreated the scene and convinced both the referees that a part of the ball could be seen, even if all of it is below the lip of the hole.The error of parallax saved Khalin from disqualification.
Khalin would have learned a valuable lesson.In the above case,in case of doubt about the ball being holed out, the correct procedure for Khalin would be to invoke R 17-4 and place the ball against the flag. There would have been no penalty as the fellow competitor Rommel who picked up the ball is an outside agency.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Failure to hole out--Rule 3-2
Rule 3-2-Failure to hole out is very strictly applied in stroke play competition.The penalty for this breach is disqualification.Some players are unfortunate to incur this penalty of disqualification, though inadvertently.Many players fail to understand the definition of holing out and the correct procedure when the ball is nestling against the flagstick.
By definition, 'holed' means the ball must be at rest within the circumference of the hole and all of the ball should be below the level of the lip of the hole.
A few years back, Namith Gambhir, a budding young junior talent, was playing in an IGU sub junior event at BGC. His tee shot at the par 3, 10th hole was well short of the green. His chip hit the flagstick and resting against the flagstick, with half the ball inside the hole and the other half jutting out. Namith was ecstatic, thought he had a birdie.He ran and picked up his ball. The error was not pointed out at that time by his caddie or fellow competitors.He teed off from the next tee, without correcting the error and completed a few more holes.When the incident was brought to my notice later in the round,and investigations confirmed that the ball was half in and half out,I had no choice but to disqualify him.The correct procedure is detailed in Rule 17-4-Ball resting against the flagstick.In such cases, the player should move or remove the flagstick. If the ball falls into the hole, he is deemed to have holed out with his last stroke.Otherwise, if the ball is moved , it should be placed on the lip of the hole, without penalty and the hole should be completed.
If he has mistakenly picked the ball when it is not holed,the error must be corrected before teeing off from the next tee or in case of the last hole, before he leaves the putting green.The procedure is listed in Decision 17-4/1.The player incurs a penalty stroke under R 20-1 for lifting his ball without marking.The player must replace the ball against the flagstick and then apply R17-4.In the case of Namith Gambhir,if has done so before teeing off from the next tee, he could have scored a 3 or 4, if he had followed the procedure of R 17-4.
By definition, 'holed' means the ball must be at rest within the circumference of the hole and all of the ball should be below the level of the lip of the hole.
A few years back, Namith Gambhir, a budding young junior talent, was playing in an IGU sub junior event at BGC. His tee shot at the par 3, 10th hole was well short of the green. His chip hit the flagstick and resting against the flagstick, with half the ball inside the hole and the other half jutting out. Namith was ecstatic, thought he had a birdie.He ran and picked up his ball. The error was not pointed out at that time by his caddie or fellow competitors.He teed off from the next tee, without correcting the error and completed a few more holes.When the incident was brought to my notice later in the round,and investigations confirmed that the ball was half in and half out,I had no choice but to disqualify him.The correct procedure is detailed in Rule 17-4-Ball resting against the flagstick.In such cases, the player should move or remove the flagstick. If the ball falls into the hole, he is deemed to have holed out with his last stroke.Otherwise, if the ball is moved , it should be placed on the lip of the hole, without penalty and the hole should be completed.
If he has mistakenly picked the ball when it is not holed,the error must be corrected before teeing off from the next tee or in case of the last hole, before he leaves the putting green.The procedure is listed in Decision 17-4/1.The player incurs a penalty stroke under R 20-1 for lifting his ball without marking.The player must replace the ball against the flagstick and then apply R17-4.In the case of Namith Gambhir,if has done so before teeing off from the next tee, he could have scored a 3 or 4, if he had followed the procedure of R 17-4.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Movable Obstructions-Rule 24-1
In my earlier post,I have pointed out that that Relief for movable obstructions under Rule 24-1 is fairly liberal compared to other free reliefs. However, many players, even at the highest levels, fail to take advantage of this relief.
In the recent professional tournaments and Junior tournaments where I officiated, I noticed that many players are not fully aware of their entitlement to relief for stakes defining margins of Water Hazards and Lateral water hazards. Such stakes are movable, if they are easily movable and if not, immovable.If these stakes are easily movable, a player can move the stake, irrespective of the fact whether the ball is inside the water Hazard or outside it.I was called many times by players in the circuit to clarify this point.Many players seem to think that they cannot remove these stakes if the ball is inside the Hazard .
In many clubs,the committee makes a Local Rule that Water hazard Stakes are immovable,even if they are easily movable.The definition of obstructions under the Rules gives this authority to the committee.This Local Rule is made because many club players fail to replace the stake after removing it and burdening the Green staff with extra work.If these stakes are immovable or a local rule deems it immovable,a player will not get relief if his ball is inside the hazard and he has interference.He can only touch an immovable obstruction.If his ball is outside the water hazard and he has interference from these stakes which are immovable or deemed so by a local rule, he will get free relief under Rule 24-2.
The Local rule making the water hazard stakes immovable has some inherent dangers.A player inside the hazard and electing to play a ball close to these stakes runs the risk of the ball ricocheting and harming him physically or the stake itself hitting him or oher players nearby.
In the recent professional tournaments and Junior tournaments where I officiated, I noticed that many players are not fully aware of their entitlement to relief for stakes defining margins of Water Hazards and Lateral water hazards. Such stakes are movable, if they are easily movable and if not, immovable.If these stakes are easily movable, a player can move the stake, irrespective of the fact whether the ball is inside the water Hazard or outside it.I was called many times by players in the circuit to clarify this point.Many players seem to think that they cannot remove these stakes if the ball is inside the Hazard .
In many clubs,the committee makes a Local Rule that Water hazard Stakes are immovable,even if they are easily movable.The definition of obstructions under the Rules gives this authority to the committee.This Local Rule is made because many club players fail to replace the stake after removing it and burdening the Green staff with extra work.If these stakes are immovable or a local rule deems it immovable,a player will not get relief if his ball is inside the hazard and he has interference.He can only touch an immovable obstruction.If his ball is outside the water hazard and he has interference from these stakes which are immovable or deemed so by a local rule, he will get free relief under Rule 24-2.
The Local rule making the water hazard stakes immovable has some inherent dangers.A player inside the hazard and electing to play a ball close to these stakes runs the risk of the ball ricocheting and harming him physically or the stake itself hitting him or oher players nearby.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Provisional Ball
Many club level golfers and juniors sometimes fail to understand the finer points of the provisional ball procedures and options. The procedures are listed in Rule 27-2.Some of the most common errors made are:
a) The player will not clearly announce to the marker/fellow competitor that he is playing a provisional ball: In this case, he has put another ball in play, under stroke and distance of Rule 27-1.
b)When the player thinks that his ball may be Out of Bounds or lost(outside a water hazard), he will go forward to search for the ball and then come back and play another ball stating that he is playing a provisional ball. Once he has gone forward to search for his original ball, he has lost his right to play a provisional ball.Again,he is deemed to have invoked the stroke and distance option of Rule 27-1.It does not make any difference, even if the original ball is found within the 5 minute search period, once he has put another ball in play after going forward to search for it.
c) The main purpose of provisional ball is to save time.Many players play a provisional ball which may strike a tree and fall 150 yards short of the likely place of the original ball.They will walk forward to search for the original ball and if they do not find it, come back and continue with the provisional ball, wasting a lot of time.They are permitted to play as many strokes with the provisional ball till they reach the likely area of the original ball. Then they can search for the original ball for 5 minutes.
In certain circumstances, the player can exercise his option not to search for the original ball.For example, in a par 3 hole, if his tee shot may be lost in the woods, he plays a provisional and the provisional may land a few inches from the hole for a tap in 4. He can exercise this option, provided he taps in before his opponent or anybody else finds the original ball.
We had an interesting episode in my home club BGC in a tournament.One of the players in contention for the handicap title, teed off from Hole no 11, the most difficult long par 4 hole. His ball went towards a large garden area called as Kirloskar Hut, marked as GUR. There was a wooded area adjacent to this hut, but outside the marked GUR.The player felt the ball may be lost and rightly played his provisional, hit the sweet spot and it went soaring for 300 yards.Meanwhile, one of the sub committee members who was teeing of Hole no 10, saw the original ball land near a bush in the GUR garden.He conveyed this information to the player when they crossed each other.The player searched for the ball for 5 minutes, but could not find it.So, he continued with the provisional which became the ball in play . He completed the hole, finished his round and submitted his score.
When the sub committee member was apprised of this fact,he felt that the player had deliberately avoided proper search of his original ball.He interpreted that the player had played a wrong ball when he holed out with the provisional ball, not corrected his mistake and hence disqualified.
In this case,he was verbally informed by the sub committee member that his original ball was in some bush. the ball was not pin pointed or the spot specified, except for the approximate location.The player did search for his ball for 5 minutes.There was no concrete evidence that the player had deliberately not searched for the ball.At best It can be concluded it was virtually certain that the ball was lost in GUR.Decision 27-2c/1.5 indicates that the player in such a situation has the option of proceeding under R 27-2b with the provisional ball or under R 25-1c(i) when it is virtually certain that the ball is lost in GUR.Even with a good shot, he was still 3 off the tee and most certainly, he would have been in an equally good, if not better position, with the original ball.The sub committee member had given a wrong ruling. But, it was too late to correct as the player did not make a timely appeal.
a) The player will not clearly announce to the marker/fellow competitor that he is playing a provisional ball: In this case, he has put another ball in play, under stroke and distance of Rule 27-1.
b)When the player thinks that his ball may be Out of Bounds or lost(outside a water hazard), he will go forward to search for the ball and then come back and play another ball stating that he is playing a provisional ball. Once he has gone forward to search for his original ball, he has lost his right to play a provisional ball.Again,he is deemed to have invoked the stroke and distance option of Rule 27-1.It does not make any difference, even if the original ball is found within the 5 minute search period, once he has put another ball in play after going forward to search for it.
c) The main purpose of provisional ball is to save time.Many players play a provisional ball which may strike a tree and fall 150 yards short of the likely place of the original ball.They will walk forward to search for the original ball and if they do not find it, come back and continue with the provisional ball, wasting a lot of time.They are permitted to play as many strokes with the provisional ball till they reach the likely area of the original ball. Then they can search for the original ball for 5 minutes.
In certain circumstances, the player can exercise his option not to search for the original ball.For example, in a par 3 hole, if his tee shot may be lost in the woods, he plays a provisional and the provisional may land a few inches from the hole for a tap in 4. He can exercise this option, provided he taps in before his opponent or anybody else finds the original ball.
We had an interesting episode in my home club BGC in a tournament.One of the players in contention for the handicap title, teed off from Hole no 11, the most difficult long par 4 hole. His ball went towards a large garden area called as Kirloskar Hut, marked as GUR. There was a wooded area adjacent to this hut, but outside the marked GUR.The player felt the ball may be lost and rightly played his provisional, hit the sweet spot and it went soaring for 300 yards.Meanwhile, one of the sub committee members who was teeing of Hole no 10, saw the original ball land near a bush in the GUR garden.He conveyed this information to the player when they crossed each other.The player searched for the ball for 5 minutes, but could not find it.So, he continued with the provisional which became the ball in play . He completed the hole, finished his round and submitted his score.
When the sub committee member was apprised of this fact,he felt that the player had deliberately avoided proper search of his original ball.He interpreted that the player had played a wrong ball when he holed out with the provisional ball, not corrected his mistake and hence disqualified.
In this case,he was verbally informed by the sub committee member that his original ball was in some bush. the ball was not pin pointed or the spot specified, except for the approximate location.The player did search for his ball for 5 minutes.There was no concrete evidence that the player had deliberately not searched for the ball.At best It can be concluded it was virtually certain that the ball was lost in GUR.Decision 27-2c/1.5 indicates that the player in such a situation has the option of proceeding under R 27-2b with the provisional ball or under R 25-1c(i) when it is virtually certain that the ball is lost in GUR.Even with a good shot, he was still 3 off the tee and most certainly, he would have been in an equally good, if not better position, with the original ball.The sub committee member had given a wrong ruling. But, it was too late to correct as the player did not make a timely appeal.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Obstructions-Rule 24
Many golfers are fairly clear about immovable obstructions and the relief procedures.But, when it comes to movable obstructions and Rule 24-1, many golfers get confused about the relief procedures.Relief under Rule 24-1 is one of the most liberal grants given by R&A to golfers with the least number of restrictions.You will not get relief for immovable obstructions/abnormal ground conditions nor can you touch or remove loose impediments in a water hazard.In a bunker,you cannot touch or remove loose impediments.Also, for free relief for immovable obstructions/abnormal ground conditions in a bunker, the ball has to be dropped in the bunker. A movable obstruction can be moved in a bunker, in a water hazard and even if it is located Out of Bounds. The only restriction imposed is that a player cannot move a movable obstruction when it will influence the movement of the ball.The equipment of any player and flagstick(when attended, held up or removed) are exempted.
The confusion arises when a ball is resting against or in/on a movable obstruction.
In the recently concluded South Zone Junior golf tournament at Eagleton, I was officiating as a referee.This preparatory tournament is the brainchild of Vijay Divecha and his initiatives has put some of the Southern India golfers in the top rung of the national circuit.His wards include Abhishek Jha, Anirbhan Lahiri, Chikka Rangappa and others. Many of the youngsters in this South Zone tournament are raw, but very eager and enthusiastic to learn.One such player encountered a situation when his ball was resting against a rake placed close, but outside the bunker.He was not clear about the procedure and a referee could not be contacted immediately.He marked the ball,picked up the ball first and then removed the Rake!Then, he replaced the ball. As his fellow competitors expressed some doubts about this procedure,he opted to play two balls under R 3-3.He dropped the second ball under the spot where it lay. He completed the hole with both the balls and reported the facts to the committee.
As the second ball did not comply with the procedure laid out in R 24-1, the score was ignored.The score with the original ball was taken and a penalty of 1 stroke was added, because he lifted the ball when not permitted by rule and breached R 18-2.
When a ball is resting against a movable obstruction, the obstruction may be removed(NOT THE BALL) and if the ball moves, it must be replaced.If the ball lies in or on an obstruction,the ball may be lifted, obstruction removed. The ball must be dropped under the spot where it originally lay.
The confusion arises when a ball is resting against or in/on a movable obstruction.
In the recently concluded South Zone Junior golf tournament at Eagleton, I was officiating as a referee.This preparatory tournament is the brainchild of Vijay Divecha and his initiatives has put some of the Southern India golfers in the top rung of the national circuit.His wards include Abhishek Jha, Anirbhan Lahiri, Chikka Rangappa and others. Many of the youngsters in this South Zone tournament are raw, but very eager and enthusiastic to learn.One such player encountered a situation when his ball was resting against a rake placed close, but outside the bunker.He was not clear about the procedure and a referee could not be contacted immediately.He marked the ball,picked up the ball first and then removed the Rake!Then, he replaced the ball. As his fellow competitors expressed some doubts about this procedure,he opted to play two balls under R 3-3.He dropped the second ball under the spot where it lay. He completed the hole with both the balls and reported the facts to the committee.
As the second ball did not comply with the procedure laid out in R 24-1, the score was ignored.The score with the original ball was taken and a penalty of 1 stroke was added, because he lifted the ball when not permitted by rule and breached R 18-2.
When a ball is resting against a movable obstruction, the obstruction may be removed(NOT THE BALL) and if the ball moves, it must be replaced.If the ball lies in or on an obstruction,the ball may be lifted, obstruction removed. The ball must be dropped under the spot where it originally lay.
Lifting Ball-Assisting/interfering(Rule 22)
My home club Bangalore Golf Club recently conducted its flagship MP Davis Cup. This is the only 4 day stroke play event of the club.The club makes all efforts to invite a strong field. David D'zouza, the evergreen hero of all Bangalore golfers, normally walks away with this coveted gold cup, except on a few rare occasions.
This year the field had a string of promising youngsters like Khalin Joshi, Trishul Chinnappa,Chikka Rangappa, Somiah and others. Khalin Joshi cantered away to a good start and maintained the tempo on all the days.On the final day, he had a clear lead and the Davis cup was almost in his pocket. Meanwhile, David D'zouza, after a poor start, clawed back. He was bracketed with Khalin and Trishul in the leader group for the final round draw.
David is still one of the fastest players in the circuit. Trishul is a trifle slow. He had some hiccups with his short putts on day 2 and 3.Since, he had a good chance of ending up as a runner up, he was taking his time on the greens. on hole no 14, David was already on the putting green, about 25 feet from the hole. Trishl's approach shot rested on the green but on the opposite side of the hole. He was walking towards his ball to mark it. David lost his patience, did not wait for Trishul to mark and putted.The ball missed the hole and was veering close towards Trishul's ball. Trishul ran and marked and lifted his ball. David and Trishul confirmed that David's ball did not touch the other ball and Trishul marked and lifted his ball just after David's ball came to a stop.Trishul was lucky. If he had lifted his ball before the other ball had come to a stop, he would have incurred a penalty of 2 strokes for breach of Rule 22 which prohibits a player to lift his ball when another ball is in motion. Even though Trishul ran to lift his ball with the good intention of saving a 2 stroke penalty for David( breach of Rule 19-5), Trishul himself would have suffered for his good Samaritan act,if he had lifted his ball a few seconds earlier before the other ball came to rest. I cautioned Trishul to avoid such approach in future.
Decision 16-1b/2 gives an interesting variation of the above scenario.If the player had initially lifted his ball under R 16-1b,replaces his ball and then realizes that another ball struck from the putting green will collide with his ball, he can lift his ball again with impunity. This second lifting is considered as an extension of his initial lifting under R 16-1b and overrides R 22.
This year the field had a string of promising youngsters like Khalin Joshi, Trishul Chinnappa,Chikka Rangappa, Somiah and others. Khalin Joshi cantered away to a good start and maintained the tempo on all the days.On the final day, he had a clear lead and the Davis cup was almost in his pocket. Meanwhile, David D'zouza, after a poor start, clawed back. He was bracketed with Khalin and Trishul in the leader group for the final round draw.
David is still one of the fastest players in the circuit. Trishul is a trifle slow. He had some hiccups with his short putts on day 2 and 3.Since, he had a good chance of ending up as a runner up, he was taking his time on the greens. on hole no 14, David was already on the putting green, about 25 feet from the hole. Trishl's approach shot rested on the green but on the opposite side of the hole. He was walking towards his ball to mark it. David lost his patience, did not wait for Trishul to mark and putted.The ball missed the hole and was veering close towards Trishul's ball. Trishul ran and marked and lifted his ball. David and Trishul confirmed that David's ball did not touch the other ball and Trishul marked and lifted his ball just after David's ball came to a stop.Trishul was lucky. If he had lifted his ball before the other ball had come to a stop, he would have incurred a penalty of 2 strokes for breach of Rule 22 which prohibits a player to lift his ball when another ball is in motion. Even though Trishul ran to lift his ball with the good intention of saving a 2 stroke penalty for David( breach of Rule 19-5), Trishul himself would have suffered for his good Samaritan act,if he had lifted his ball a few seconds earlier before the other ball came to rest. I cautioned Trishul to avoid such approach in future.
Decision 16-1b/2 gives an interesting variation of the above scenario.If the player had initially lifted his ball under R 16-1b,replaces his ball and then realizes that another ball struck from the putting green will collide with his ball, he can lift his ball again with impunity. This second lifting is considered as an extension of his initial lifting under R 16-1b and overrides R 22.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Unusual Equipment- Sequel
In my earlier posting on unusual equipment I have listed the incident where a player was using a shaft( without a head) as an aid to align his feet preparatory to making his stroke. He removed the shaft before making his stroke. The shaft was in addition to the 14 clubs he was carrying. Since many referees had different opinions about this practice, the matter was referred to R & A. R & A confirmed that use of such shaft by player to align his feet was a breach of Rule 14-3, with a penalty of disqualification.
Before the start of the PGTI Eagleton tournament, I discussed this matter with The tournament director Sampathchari.He indicated that some of the players in the circuit had developed the habit of aligning their feet with a shaft. His initial reaction was to notify the players to stop using such an aid.
However, Sampath who takes a practical approach, also looked at the players angle.He thought that such prohibition will be a bit harsh on the concerned players, who are used to this habit.He discussed the matter with other committee members.The committee decided to apply exception 1(c) to R 14-3 which seems to give the committee to exempt such practice if the player does not get any undue advantage over other players. The committee felt use of shaft does not give any undue advantage since decision 8-2a/1 sanctions such use, if the player uses one of his 14 clubs.
Suresh and I,as referees, concurred with this view.The committee did not enforce this prohibition.
Later, in the next tournament at KGA, we discussed this matter with Mickey Zarra,the renown USGA referee.Mickey does a lot of lateral thinking. Remember, his ruling on treating flooded bunkers as GUR through the Green? Mickey felt the exemption 1(c) under R 14-3 should be read with exception 1(a) and 1(b) which relate to medical condition. As such, the exemption relating undue advantage will be only in case of medical condition or medical reason.
I referred the matter to R & A who confirmed Mickeys view and indicated that that the committee can give this exemption 1(c) only for medical condition/medical reason.
I have forwarded the R & A opinion to Sampath. I am sure he will take the correct practical decision.
Before the start of the PGTI Eagleton tournament, I discussed this matter with The tournament director Sampathchari.He indicated that some of the players in the circuit had developed the habit of aligning their feet with a shaft. His initial reaction was to notify the players to stop using such an aid.
However, Sampath who takes a practical approach, also looked at the players angle.He thought that such prohibition will be a bit harsh on the concerned players, who are used to this habit.He discussed the matter with other committee members.The committee decided to apply exception 1(c) to R 14-3 which seems to give the committee to exempt such practice if the player does not get any undue advantage over other players. The committee felt use of shaft does not give any undue advantage since decision 8-2a/1 sanctions such use, if the player uses one of his 14 clubs.
Suresh and I,as referees, concurred with this view.The committee did not enforce this prohibition.
Later, in the next tournament at KGA, we discussed this matter with Mickey Zarra,the renown USGA referee.Mickey does a lot of lateral thinking. Remember, his ruling on treating flooded bunkers as GUR through the Green? Mickey felt the exemption 1(c) under R 14-3 should be read with exception 1(a) and 1(b) which relate to medical condition. As such, the exemption relating undue advantage will be only in case of medical condition or medical reason.
I referred the matter to R & A who confirmed Mickeys view and indicated that that the committee can give this exemption 1(c) only for medical condition/medical reason.
I have forwarded the R & A opinion to Sampath. I am sure he will take the correct practical decision.
Out of Bounds
One of the primary duties of tournament administrators is to define the boundaries of the course in clear cut terms. The Out of Bounds of the course definition is listed first in the Local Rules. In some courses, due to the nature of the course and various types of developments taking place,this exercise becomes a bit tricky. Sampathchari, the tournament director of PGTI, with whom I had the pleasure of working as a referee in the recent past,takes meticulous care in defining the out of Bounds of the course. I remember in the Tata open played in Golmori club, the left flank of hole no 7 was unmarked by the club, as some new construction was planned.Sampath took a practical decision to mark the bordering tree line as the OB line. Even though this burdened the green staff with extra work, this was a sound approach.
In the recently concluded Global Green Open conducted by PGTI in Karnataka golf Association, we had some problems in defining the OB. The club has erected tall towering fences supported by nylon netting on hole numbers 1 to 4.The club had defined the margin of the OB as the inside line of the base of the fence and drawn a white line. The club also posted white stakes along the white line. In some holes, only white stakes were posted, without white line.
Whenever there is a strong wind, the nylon net was intruding into the playing area of the course and caused interference to the intended stroke of the player. Since the club had defined the fence with net as the OB, we cannot give relief to the player as the fence with net is a fixed object and not an obstruction.Green staff found it difficult to tie the net, so that it does not intrude into the course. Sampath again found a practical solution.He moved the white line and white stakes marginally inside. For the tournament, he defined the OB margin as the white line and where both white stakes and white lines are present, the margin to be defined by the white line and the white stake to identify the OB. He specified that net will not define the OB and thus the player had the benefit of relief under R 24, if the nylon net interferes.
Still, we had one important incident involving definition of OB.On hole no 2,close to the OB white line, a player's ball was inside the course. But he had interference from a white stake identifying the OB. He called Mickey Zarra, one of the referees. Mickey allowed him to remove the white stake( movable obstruction under R 24-1). When Mickey discussed this ruling with me, I expressed my reservations with this ruling. Mickey felt that since OB was defined by the white line and not by the white stake, the stake can be treated as a movable obstruction.I pointed out that by definition even if white stakes identify OB and do not define the margin of OB, the OB stakes are fixed objects and not obstructions. We finally decided to settle our arguments by referring to R& A/ USGA.
I got a response from R & A confirming that such white stakes identifying OB are not obstructions.I am waiting for Mickey to tell me what is the answer from USGA. On many occasions, R& A and USGA interpret the rules differently.
In the recently concluded Global Green Open conducted by PGTI in Karnataka golf Association, we had some problems in defining the OB. The club has erected tall towering fences supported by nylon netting on hole numbers 1 to 4.The club had defined the margin of the OB as the inside line of the base of the fence and drawn a white line. The club also posted white stakes along the white line. In some holes, only white stakes were posted, without white line.
Whenever there is a strong wind, the nylon net was intruding into the playing area of the course and caused interference to the intended stroke of the player. Since the club had defined the fence with net as the OB, we cannot give relief to the player as the fence with net is a fixed object and not an obstruction.Green staff found it difficult to tie the net, so that it does not intrude into the course. Sampath again found a practical solution.He moved the white line and white stakes marginally inside. For the tournament, he defined the OB margin as the white line and where both white stakes and white lines are present, the margin to be defined by the white line and the white stake to identify the OB. He specified that net will not define the OB and thus the player had the benefit of relief under R 24, if the nylon net interferes.
Still, we had one important incident involving definition of OB.On hole no 2,close to the OB white line, a player's ball was inside the course. But he had interference from a white stake identifying the OB. He called Mickey Zarra, one of the referees. Mickey allowed him to remove the white stake( movable obstruction under R 24-1). When Mickey discussed this ruling with me, I expressed my reservations with this ruling. Mickey felt that since OB was defined by the white line and not by the white stake, the stake can be treated as a movable obstruction.I pointed out that by definition even if white stakes identify OB and do not define the margin of OB, the OB stakes are fixed objects and not obstructions. We finally decided to settle our arguments by referring to R& A/ USGA.
I got a response from R & A confirming that such white stakes identifying OB are not obstructions.I am waiting for Mickey to tell me what is the answer from USGA. On many occasions, R& A and USGA interpret the rules differently.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Bunker as GUR through the Green
For the last 5 weeks, I was busy with the Indian Golf Union(IGU), acting as a referee for their Junior tour and the Amateur Tour. The circuit was touring South India and tournaments were held in Eagleton Village, Karnataka Golf Association and Coimbatore.
For the Amateur event in Eagleton and KGA, our panel of Referees also incuded Mickey Zarra who volunteered his services and gave some quality time. Mickey is a USA PGA Referee and is currently based in Bangalore.
The Eagleton Amateur was progressing smoothly,with the local lad Chikka Rangappa leading all the way.After the end of the third round, during the night,a heavy downpour drenched the course. However, on the morning of the final day, when we did the course inspection, we found the course in good condition, except for a few bunkers.We cleaned up the bunkers and announced a delayed start of 30 minutes.The course staff did a wonderful work and made the start possible.But, we were told that the greenside bunker on the short par 3 hole number 5 will continue to be full of water and will not dry out, even if pumped out.There was an adjacent storage lake which was overflowing and filling up the bunker.
Decision 33-8/27 does not encourage a local rule allowing a player to take a free relief from a bunker full of casual water, contrary to rule 25-1b.However, in very extreme cases for specific bunkers, it makes some exceptions.The first part of the decision states that if specific bunkers are flooded prior to the commencement of the competition and there is no likelihood of the bunkers drying up during the competition, an exception can be made. Since the bunker was not flooded before the competition started, I was of the view that we cannot allow a free relief. But Mickey had a different view, since the last part of decision 33-8/27 states that such an exception can be made or rescinded between rounds, if the competition is played over one round.He opined that the pre condition of flooding before competition is applicable for a single round competition.
As I still had some reservations, he consulted an US open official in Alabama and explained the situation. The Alabama official, after some debate, confirmed that We can give free relief outside the bunker. We accordingly posted the notice that the Greenside bunker on hole 3 was GUR through the green and provided a drop zone for the free relief.
For the Amateur event in Eagleton and KGA, our panel of Referees also incuded Mickey Zarra who volunteered his services and gave some quality time. Mickey is a USA PGA Referee and is currently based in Bangalore.
The Eagleton Amateur was progressing smoothly,with the local lad Chikka Rangappa leading all the way.After the end of the third round, during the night,a heavy downpour drenched the course. However, on the morning of the final day, when we did the course inspection, we found the course in good condition, except for a few bunkers.We cleaned up the bunkers and announced a delayed start of 30 minutes.The course staff did a wonderful work and made the start possible.But, we were told that the greenside bunker on the short par 3 hole number 5 will continue to be full of water and will not dry out, even if pumped out.There was an adjacent storage lake which was overflowing and filling up the bunker.
Decision 33-8/27 does not encourage a local rule allowing a player to take a free relief from a bunker full of casual water, contrary to rule 25-1b.However, in very extreme cases for specific bunkers, it makes some exceptions.The first part of the decision states that if specific bunkers are flooded prior to the commencement of the competition and there is no likelihood of the bunkers drying up during the competition, an exception can be made. Since the bunker was not flooded before the competition started, I was of the view that we cannot allow a free relief. But Mickey had a different view, since the last part of decision 33-8/27 states that such an exception can be made or rescinded between rounds, if the competition is played over one round.He opined that the pre condition of flooding before competition is applicable for a single round competition.
As I still had some reservations, he consulted an US open official in Alabama and explained the situation. The Alabama official, after some debate, confirmed that We can give free relief outside the bunker. We accordingly posted the notice that the Greenside bunker on hole 3 was GUR through the green and provided a drop zone for the free relief.
Friday, March 27, 2009
UNUSUAL EQUIPMENT-RULE 14-3
The Indian Amateur circuit for the year was concluded. As a referee, I normally volunteer for club level tournaments for my home club-Bangalore Golf Club. BGC recently conducted a two round stroke play tournament termed as the Centenary Cup. I was the sole referee for the tournament.On Day 2, I observed Darshan Veeraraghavan, one of the regulars in the amateur circuit, placing a shaft on the ground to align his stance, but his caddy removed the shaft before he made a stroke.He confirmed that that shaft( without the club head) he was using to align his feet was in addition to the 14 clubs he was carrying.He further stated that this approach was cleared by G. Suresh, his coach and a referee in the IGU and PGTI panel. I have a high regard for G.Suresh who is one of the most practical and down to earth referees seen in the circuit.While Decision 8-2a/1 permits use of one of the clubs he is carrying to be used for aligning, I had reservations about the use of shaft and was of the opinion that the player was in breach of R 14-3.As Suresh could not be contacted immediately, I consulted other referees-all qualified from R&A. Three of the referees ruled there was no breach. One senior referee applied decision 4-4a/14( broken club) and opined the player should be disqualified.
Since enough doubts have been cast on the breach, I did not impose any penalty on the player.I contacted a senior R& A Rules official Mr. Barker who confirmed this approach by the player was breach of Rule 14-3, use of unusual equipment. I conveyed the R& A ruling to G. Suresh who will advise his ward accordingly.
Since enough doubts have been cast on the breach, I did not impose any penalty on the player.I contacted a senior R& A Rules official Mr. Barker who confirmed this approach by the player was breach of Rule 14-3, use of unusual equipment. I conveyed the R& A ruling to G. Suresh who will advise his ward accordingly.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Testing the Surface of the Putting Green
The recently concluded ALL India Amateur Golf did not pose many Rules incidents, except the controversial prohibition of practice putting between holes, illustrated in my last post.However, as a referee I have to deal with one referral in the Finals.Jha took a fast 4 up lead in the 36 hole hole final.Shoel, the eventual winner, clawed back and reduced the lead to 2 holes after 7th.After Shoel won the 8th hole, Jha claimed that while conceding a putt to him , Shoel tapped the ball back to him. Jha wanted to know if this action constituted a breach of Rule 16-1d-testing the surface of Green. I answered in the negative as casual rolling back or tapping the ball back, does not constitute a breach.( Decision 16-1d/1.)
The Question for referees will be what constitutes a breach of Rule 16-1d?Some guidelines are given in Decisions 16-1d/2.The test will be if the player purposely rolls the ball back and tries to assess the speed and break of the green. But, it is still a difficult task for the referee to establish this question of fact. The line separating will be the interpretation of the referee if the act is casual or deliberate.
The Question for referees will be what constitutes a breach of Rule 16-1d?Some guidelines are given in Decisions 16-1d/2.The test will be if the player purposely rolls the ball back and tries to assess the speed and break of the green. But, it is still a difficult task for the referee to establish this question of fact. The line separating will be the interpretation of the referee if the act is casual or deliberate.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION
Tournament Administrators should be very careful and take meticulous care in framing conditions of competition. Care less and casual listing of condition of competition in the flagship All India Amateur Tournament in Kolkatta created an avoidable controversy. The conditions were drafted by the tournament director Mr.Krishna Prasad, who does not know the basics of Rules of Golf and muddles through one mistake after another.He does not understand that the definition of Rules includes conditions of competition.He should have consulted a rules official before finalizing the conditions.
The All India Amateur is the final closing event for the season and carries maximum weight for rankings. It is two round stroke play,qualifying match play event.One of the conditions prohibited practice between rounds as per Rule 7-2.The condition did not specify that the prohibition was limited to the 2 round of stroke play. Reena Singh and I were the official referees for the event. The tournament director insisted that practice putting will be allowed for match play.I referred to decision 33-1/1 which prohibited alterations in conditions after start of competition. The definition of competition, in the present context, included the 2 rounds of stroke play qualifying and match play. My view was supported by Mr. Eashwar Achanta,who is the icon of all Indian referees. Mr. Achanta is the only Indian to have officiated as a referee in the British Open. In spite of his directive, the tournament director Mr. Krishna Prasad foolishly pasted a revised conditions of competition, permitting practice putting between holes, for match play. He instructed the referees to follow his diktat and he cannot go by the books, all the time. This raised a strong question of ethics for referees. After some thinking, I firmly told Mr. Prasad that his alteration is illegal and fails the test of application of Rules of Golf. Reena and I will not apply the revised permission for practice between holes. We will enforce the penalties applicable under R 7-2, if we observe any breach or if any claim is made.Mr. Prasad lost his temper, shouted that that he will remove me forthwith as a referee. I kept my composure and cool, since I do do not report to Mr. Prasad and function independently under IGU. Mr. Achanta and Mr. Luthra, the then chairman of championship committee of IGU and present president of IGU have to intervene and restore the original conditions of competition, prohibiting practice between holes. Mr.Prasad once again looked sheepish.Mr. Pawan Kumar in 1sr round of match play and Mr. Shoel in the finals incurred the penalties under R 7-2.Mr. Shoel of Bangladesh was the eventual winner on the 38th hole.
This incident highlights the role of a tournament director. I am in the panel of referees for PGTI, the Indian pro golf tour.I work under the direction of Mr. Sampathchari.I strongly feel that he is the ideal role model for a good tournament director. He is a dedicated and hard worker, puts in 12 hours of work, has a strong and practical knowledge of rules, is on the field most of the time. His pin positions are balanced, course set up and markings excellent. It is not a surprise that his operations executives and referees respond in kind and a fine team work could be seen in all PGTI events. Mr. Prasad, most of the times comes one hour late, makes a courtesy round of the course, does not dirty his hand with field supervision or course check ups. He has got the cheek to play golf when the tournaments are going on. All the IGU council members were taken back when the quarter final and finals were on, the tournament director was playing a high stake betting 4 ball.I have raised strong objections to the extension of contract for Mr. Prasad as a tournament director.
The All India Amateur is the final closing event for the season and carries maximum weight for rankings. It is two round stroke play,qualifying match play event.One of the conditions prohibited practice between rounds as per Rule 7-2.The condition did not specify that the prohibition was limited to the 2 round of stroke play. Reena Singh and I were the official referees for the event. The tournament director insisted that practice putting will be allowed for match play.I referred to decision 33-1/1 which prohibited alterations in conditions after start of competition. The definition of competition, in the present context, included the 2 rounds of stroke play qualifying and match play. My view was supported by Mr. Eashwar Achanta,who is the icon of all Indian referees. Mr. Achanta is the only Indian to have officiated as a referee in the British Open. In spite of his directive, the tournament director Mr. Krishna Prasad foolishly pasted a revised conditions of competition, permitting practice putting between holes, for match play. He instructed the referees to follow his diktat and he cannot go by the books, all the time. This raised a strong question of ethics for referees. After some thinking, I firmly told Mr. Prasad that his alteration is illegal and fails the test of application of Rules of Golf. Reena and I will not apply the revised permission for practice between holes. We will enforce the penalties applicable under R 7-2, if we observe any breach or if any claim is made.Mr. Prasad lost his temper, shouted that that he will remove me forthwith as a referee. I kept my composure and cool, since I do do not report to Mr. Prasad and function independently under IGU. Mr. Achanta and Mr. Luthra, the then chairman of championship committee of IGU and present president of IGU have to intervene and restore the original conditions of competition, prohibiting practice between holes. Mr.Prasad once again looked sheepish.Mr. Pawan Kumar in 1sr round of match play and Mr. Shoel in the finals incurred the penalties under R 7-2.Mr. Shoel of Bangladesh was the eventual winner on the 38th hole.
This incident highlights the role of a tournament director. I am in the panel of referees for PGTI, the Indian pro golf tour.I work under the direction of Mr. Sampathchari.I strongly feel that he is the ideal role model for a good tournament director. He is a dedicated and hard worker, puts in 12 hours of work, has a strong and practical knowledge of rules, is on the field most of the time. His pin positions are balanced, course set up and markings excellent. It is not a surprise that his operations executives and referees respond in kind and a fine team work could be seen in all PGTI events. Mr. Prasad, most of the times comes one hour late, makes a courtesy round of the course, does not dirty his hand with field supervision or course check ups. He has got the cheek to play golf when the tournaments are going on. All the IGU council members were taken back when the quarter final and finals were on, the tournament director was playing a high stake betting 4 ball.I have raised strong objections to the extension of contract for Mr. Prasad as a tournament director.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)