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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)