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.

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.