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.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)