Oxford Country and Golf Club is a spectacular golf course located just outside Pune close to the Pune- Mumbai highway. The course is located on a hilly terrain, with sloping curves and a lot of dog legs. Oxford recently hosted the Western India Amateur for men and ladies.
The main challenge the course posed was tall red grasses, just off the fairways. If a player missed the fairways, he is in big trouble as it is difficult to find the ball. Even, if the ball was found, it was mostly unplayable and the unplayable ball Rule 28 was invoked frequently. The tournament witnessed a lot of delays and the round was taking nearly 6 hours to finish due to these factors.
As a Rules Official, I was invoved in an interesting incident. The 9th hole of Oxford had a lot of fairway bunkers. In the middle of the bunker, there was a mound of the signature tall red grasses and this portion of tall red grass was considered as through the green. One of the leading women player in contention for the title, teed off from the 9th tee and landed smack in the core of the mound of tall red grasses, surrounded on all sides by the bunker. She declared the ball unplayable. As the ball was lying through the green, I indicated the three available options- back to previous shot, in line with flag and ball, any distance behind or 2 clublengths from the ball not nearer the hole. She chose the 2 clublengths option. As the mound of tall grasses was a small concentric circle with a diameter of about 1 feet and the bunker was intervening in the drop area, the player was under the impression, she can drop ouside the bunker(2 clublengths from the edge of the bunker). I corrected her and told her she can drop the ball in the bunker, must be within 2 clublengths from the ball. She was under the wrong notion that since the original ball was through the green, the drop also should be through the green.My ruling in this case is also supported by decision 28/4.
Many players have the same wrong notion. The free relief options for Rule 24-2(Immovable obstructions) and R 25-1(Abnormal Ground conditions) spell out specific relief procedures for a ball lying through the Green, a ball in a bunker or a ball on the Putting Green. In the case of a penalty drop for Unplayable ball under R 28, no such restrictions apply for a ball lying through the Green or on a Putting Green. The only restriction for the drop under R 28 is for a ball in the bunker-for the inline /2 clublength option, the ball must be dropped in the bunker.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Water hazards and Bunkers
Rules and relief options are slightly different for a ball in a Water Hazard and in a Bunker. Rule 26 covers relief procedures for a ball in a Water Hazard or lateral water Hazard. Relief procedures for a ball in a bunker is covered under various applicable rules like R 24, R 25 etc. No specicic chapter has been allotted to Bunker situations. Rule 13-4 covers prohibited actions in a Hazard- both bunker and water hazards.
Some of the players wrongly assume the relief procedures are the same for a ball in a bunker or water hazard. Murthy, a seasoned player from Bangalore, playing in the recently concluded Tata Open pro event, found his ball lying in a water hazard. His ball was also close to a fixed metal pipe inside the water Hazard.He requested for a relief for the fixed pipe under R 24-2(Immovable Obstruction). I politely declined the relief and explained to Murthy that such relief is not available in a water hazard. He was under the wrong impression that as in a similar situation in a bunker, he would have got a free relief, though the ball has to be dropped in the bunker and he expected the same for a ball in a water hazard..
In general, no free relief is available under R24-2 or R 25, for a ball in a Water hazard/Lateral water hazard. The only relief available for a ball in a water hazard is that a movable obstruction can be moved under R 24-1, even if the ball is within the water hazard. This is another aspect which many players are unaware of and much of referee's time is spent on rulings on such issues. If the ball is in the water hazard, the player has to play the ball as it lies or proceed under Rule 26 with applicable penalty.
For a ball in a bunker, if there is interference under R 24-2(immovable obstruction) or under R 25-1(abnormal ground condition), he can get free relief but the ball has to be dropped in the bunker. If he wants to drop outside the bunker, he can do so in line with the ball but with a penalty stroke.
Another fine distinction between options in a bunker and water hazard is that a player cannot invoke R 28(Unplayable ball), if the ball is in a water hazard. he must proceed under R 26. If the ball is unplayable in a bunker, the player , with a penalty stroke, can drop 2 club lenghths or in line with the ball, but the ball must be dropped in the same bunker. He cal also go back to the spot of his previous stroke.
Some of the players wrongly assume the relief procedures are the same for a ball in a bunker or water hazard. Murthy, a seasoned player from Bangalore, playing in the recently concluded Tata Open pro event, found his ball lying in a water hazard. His ball was also close to a fixed metal pipe inside the water Hazard.He requested for a relief for the fixed pipe under R 24-2(Immovable Obstruction). I politely declined the relief and explained to Murthy that such relief is not available in a water hazard. He was under the wrong impression that as in a similar situation in a bunker, he would have got a free relief, though the ball has to be dropped in the bunker and he expected the same for a ball in a water hazard..
In general, no free relief is available under R24-2 or R 25, for a ball in a Water hazard/Lateral water hazard. The only relief available for a ball in a water hazard is that a movable obstruction can be moved under R 24-1, even if the ball is within the water hazard. This is another aspect which many players are unaware of and much of referee's time is spent on rulings on such issues. If the ball is in the water hazard, the player has to play the ball as it lies or proceed under Rule 26 with applicable penalty.
For a ball in a bunker, if there is interference under R 24-2(immovable obstruction) or under R 25-1(abnormal ground condition), he can get free relief but the ball has to be dropped in the bunker. If he wants to drop outside the bunker, he can do so in line with the ball but with a penalty stroke.
Another fine distinction between options in a bunker and water hazard is that a player cannot invoke R 28(Unplayable ball), if the ball is in a water hazard. he must proceed under R 26. If the ball is unplayable in a bunker, the player , with a penalty stroke, can drop 2 club lenghths or in line with the ball, but the ball must be dropped in the same bunker. He cal also go back to the spot of his previous stroke.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Club Selected for Play-Rule 4-4a
As said in earlier posts, many rulings hinge on the correct definition of various terms used in Rules of Golf. R &A is fairly precise in its definitions and tries its best to define as many terms as possible.R&A is also consistent in its terminology. However, a few terms which are not listed in the Rules definition chapter leaves the referees making their own interpretation. This was brought to focus in a recent rules incident at the Southern India Amateur event conducted by the Indian Golf Union in Eagleton.
Kelly Rao and Akhil Rao, who are brothers, were slated to play--Kelly, a 1st tee starter and Akhil, from Tee 10. Both were practicing on the range. One of Akhils club, a 9 iron, was by mistake put into Kellys bag. Unaware, Kelly started his round from tee 1 with 15 clubs. After about 15 minutes, Akhil started his round from tee 10 with 13 clubs.After Hole 4, Kelly to his consternation, noticed the 15th club, declared it out of play and was duly docked 4 strokes penalty under R 4-4. Kelly also sent through somebody the excess 9 iron back to his brother.Kelly Rao also confirmed that till the time of declaring it out of play, he has not played a ny stroke with the 9 iron.Akhil received his 9 iron back on hole 11 and completed hole 12, when I met him. He indicated that till completion of hole 12,he has not used the 9 iron to make any stroke.I advised him that he too may be liable for penalties and he should not use the 9 iron till the matter is clarified. Akhil handed over the 9 iron to me.
As the matter was complicated, the issue was discussed with the members of the tournament committee.Decision 4-4a/1 was the key to resolve the issue.The operative part of this decision relevant to the ruling states that a player, who starts the round with fewer than 14 clubs must not add any club SELECTED FOR PLAY BY ANY OTHER PERSON PLAYING ON THE COURSE.My interpretation of this decision was that Akhil will be breaching Rule 4-4a, since his brother(with or without intent0 selected the said 9 iron for play of his round.Two other referees, who are also members of the tournament committee ,interpreted that any club selected for play meant a player should have used the club to make a stroke. Since Kel;ly Rao has not used the club for making a stroke, Kelly has not selected the club for play. Hence, they concluded that Akhil could add his 9 iron as per provisions of Rule 4-4a and Decision 4-4a/1 without any breach. I argued that selection for play and use of club for making strokes are two different events.Making a stroke is not a necessary condition for "Selecting a club for Play", as per my interpretation.
The matter was referred to higher authorities and the tournament committee( which included me and other referees) decided in equity Akhil should be allowed to retrieve his club and use it without breach of R 4-4a. I was directed to return the 9 iron to Akhil and he was advised about the ruling of the tournament committee.
As I had some lingering doubts about the ruling, I referred the matter to R & A and sought an unofficial clarification. R & A clarified that Kelly has selected the 9 iron for play for his round( though by default) and since Akhil has also started his round, he cannot add the said 9 iron as his 14th club. Akhil could have added his 9 iron without breach, provided he had received his 9 iron back, before teeing off on hole 10.
Kelly Rao and Akhil Rao, who are brothers, were slated to play--Kelly, a 1st tee starter and Akhil, from Tee 10. Both were practicing on the range. One of Akhils club, a 9 iron, was by mistake put into Kellys bag. Unaware, Kelly started his round from tee 1 with 15 clubs. After about 15 minutes, Akhil started his round from tee 10 with 13 clubs.After Hole 4, Kelly to his consternation, noticed the 15th club, declared it out of play and was duly docked 4 strokes penalty under R 4-4. Kelly also sent through somebody the excess 9 iron back to his brother.Kelly Rao also confirmed that till the time of declaring it out of play, he has not played a ny stroke with the 9 iron.Akhil received his 9 iron back on hole 11 and completed hole 12, when I met him. He indicated that till completion of hole 12,he has not used the 9 iron to make any stroke.I advised him that he too may be liable for penalties and he should not use the 9 iron till the matter is clarified. Akhil handed over the 9 iron to me.
As the matter was complicated, the issue was discussed with the members of the tournament committee.Decision 4-4a/1 was the key to resolve the issue.The operative part of this decision relevant to the ruling states that a player, who starts the round with fewer than 14 clubs must not add any club SELECTED FOR PLAY BY ANY OTHER PERSON PLAYING ON THE COURSE.My interpretation of this decision was that Akhil will be breaching Rule 4-4a, since his brother(with or without intent0 selected the said 9 iron for play of his round.Two other referees, who are also members of the tournament committee ,interpreted that any club selected for play meant a player should have used the club to make a stroke. Since Kel;ly Rao has not used the club for making a stroke, Kelly has not selected the club for play. Hence, they concluded that Akhil could add his 9 iron as per provisions of Rule 4-4a and Decision 4-4a/1 without any breach. I argued that selection for play and use of club for making strokes are two different events.Making a stroke is not a necessary condition for "Selecting a club for Play", as per my interpretation.
The matter was referred to higher authorities and the tournament committee( which included me and other referees) decided in equity Akhil should be allowed to retrieve his club and use it without breach of R 4-4a. I was directed to return the 9 iron to Akhil and he was advised about the ruling of the tournament committee.
As I had some lingering doubts about the ruling, I referred the matter to R & A and sought an unofficial clarification. R & A clarified that Kelly has selected the 9 iron for play for his round( though by default) and since Akhil has also started his round, he cannot add the said 9 iron as his 14th club. Akhil could have added his 9 iron without breach, provided he had received his 9 iron back, before teeing off on hole 10.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Referee's Decision-Rule34-2
Rule 34-2 clearly stipulates that if a referee is appointed by the committee, his decision is final..However, in practice, different variations are applied. To begin with, Referees are tagged as Rules officials, so that the committee can retain some overriding powers.However, in the same breath, most of the committees declare the rules officials are authorized to give final decisions, which in effect gives full powers to the rules official as contemplated by Rule 34-2.
Many players in the circuit are in a dilemma when they get an unfavorable ruling from a referee/rules official.In practice, most of the referees do consent for a second opinion from another referee, especially if there is some doubt about some interpretation of a question of fact.If the referee has no doubts in his mind, he will refuse the second opinion, as such incidents will lead to delay in the pace of play.
I recall a famous incident some years back involving the then amateur Shiv Kapur.Shiv kapur,an asian games medalist, was the star attraction in an IGU regional event hosted by Bangalore Golf club..I was one of referees in the panel headed by Divecha and Khashyap.Shiv, a 10th tee starter in the first round,found his ball in a sapling on old hole no 1 of BGC.As most of the saplings were close to the perimeter fence of the course, we have denied relief for any saplings in the Local rules for the competition.Shiv demanded free relief for the sapling from the referee Khashyap.Shiv claimed that the IGU tour precedents gives free relief for saplings less than 1 club length height.Khashyap firmly denied him relief. Shiv persisted and demanded a second opinion which was also denied by Khashyap.Shiv persisted and wanted to play two balls under R3-3--original ball without relief and second ball with relief.Khashyap stubbornly denied this privilege to Shiv.Shiv was furious and went against the ruling of the referee and played two balls under R 3-3.Khashyap slapped Shiv kapur a 2 stroke penalty for playing two balls without his consent under R 6-7 for undue delay, confirmed by decision 3-3/2.
Shiv Kapur threatened to walk out of the tournament. Vijay Divecha, defacto chief referee has to use all his diplomatic skills to calm down Shiv Kapur and explained the context of the ruling. Finally, Shiv relented and continued to play in the tournament. This incident also highlights how important it is for referees to convey harsh rulings to players.
Many players in the circuit are in a dilemma when they get an unfavorable ruling from a referee/rules official.In practice, most of the referees do consent for a second opinion from another referee, especially if there is some doubt about some interpretation of a question of fact.If the referee has no doubts in his mind, he will refuse the second opinion, as such incidents will lead to delay in the pace of play.
I recall a famous incident some years back involving the then amateur Shiv Kapur.Shiv kapur,an asian games medalist, was the star attraction in an IGU regional event hosted by Bangalore Golf club..I was one of referees in the panel headed by Divecha and Khashyap.Shiv, a 10th tee starter in the first round,found his ball in a sapling on old hole no 1 of BGC.As most of the saplings were close to the perimeter fence of the course, we have denied relief for any saplings in the Local rules for the competition.Shiv demanded free relief for the sapling from the referee Khashyap.Shiv claimed that the IGU tour precedents gives free relief for saplings less than 1 club length height.Khashyap firmly denied him relief. Shiv persisted and demanded a second opinion which was also denied by Khashyap.Shiv persisted and wanted to play two balls under R3-3--original ball without relief and second ball with relief.Khashyap stubbornly denied this privilege to Shiv.Shiv was furious and went against the ruling of the referee and played two balls under R 3-3.Khashyap slapped Shiv kapur a 2 stroke penalty for playing two balls without his consent under R 6-7 for undue delay, confirmed by decision 3-3/2.
Shiv Kapur threatened to walk out of the tournament. Vijay Divecha, defacto chief referee has to use all his diplomatic skills to calm down Shiv Kapur and explained the context of the ruling. Finally, Shiv relented and continued to play in the tournament. This incident also highlights how important it is for referees to convey harsh rulings to players.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Repair of Pitch/Ball Marks
Over a period of time many golfers develop some sound and some unsound swing techniques.Their coaches have to work hard in the range to see that they retain the best techniques and unlearn the worst ones. Similarly, the players also, in their minds, retain some strange notions of Rules and interpretations.If left without correction,when they breach certain rules inadvertently,they pay a heavy price for it.
Saeed Saquib, the budding junior star from Bangalore learnt a valuable lesson in the Northern Junior Golf tournament in Panchkula.Saeeqib, the third round leader, lost his momentum in the final round and trailing the eventual winner Tarundeep Chada by 3 strokes after 16th.On the par 3, 17th, his tee shot fell short of the green, created a pitch mark and rolled back a feet.He strode to the ball, saw his pitch mark on his line of play, perfunctorily informed Chada, his marker, that he is repairing the pitch mark and proceeded to do so, before I could intervene..
I was shocked by Saquibs action and penalized him 2 strokes under R 13-2 for improving his line of play. Saquib was under the impression that he was entitled to repair any pitch mark through the green. This was a total misconception as Rule 16-1c as it allows repair of pitch mark on the Putting Green only, even if the ball
lies outside the Green. Saquib misconstrued this rule to have a license to repair the pitch mark, even if the pitch mark is on his line of play through the Green.This error cost him the runner up position which went to his friend Rahul Ravi.
However, decision 13-2/8 lays down one exception. If after the players ball comes to rest and some other ball from a fellow competitor or any other player, creates a pitch mark, affecting his line of lie/line of play/stance, in equity(R 1-4), the player can repair this pitch mark. The principle that a player is entitled to the original lie/line of play/stance when his ball is at rest is illustrated in many other decisions.
Saeed Saquib, the budding junior star from Bangalore learnt a valuable lesson in the Northern Junior Golf tournament in Panchkula.Saeeqib, the third round leader, lost his momentum in the final round and trailing the eventual winner Tarundeep Chada by 3 strokes after 16th.On the par 3, 17th, his tee shot fell short of the green, created a pitch mark and rolled back a feet.He strode to the ball, saw his pitch mark on his line of play, perfunctorily informed Chada, his marker, that he is repairing the pitch mark and proceeded to do so, before I could intervene..
I was shocked by Saquibs action and penalized him 2 strokes under R 13-2 for improving his line of play. Saquib was under the impression that he was entitled to repair any pitch mark through the green. This was a total misconception as Rule 16-1c as it allows repair of pitch mark on the Putting Green only, even if the ball
lies outside the Green. Saquib misconstrued this rule to have a license to repair the pitch mark, even if the pitch mark is on his line of play through the Green.This error cost him the runner up position which went to his friend Rahul Ravi.
However, decision 13-2/8 lays down one exception. If after the players ball comes to rest and some other ball from a fellow competitor or any other player, creates a pitch mark, affecting his line of lie/line of play/stance, in equity(R 1-4), the player can repair this pitch mark. The principle that a player is entitled to the original lie/line of play/stance when his ball is at rest is illustrated in many other decisions.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Ball in Hazard-Prohbited actions
Rule 13-4 lists prohibited actions when the ball is in a hazard.It prohibits testing the condition of the hazard,touching the ground in the hazard, 0r water in the water hazard with his hand or club or touching or removing loose impediments, before making a stroke.
One of the common features in many tournaments is the player hitting the ground in the hazard with his club in frustration after hitting a poorshot from the hazard. Luckily, in most cases, the ball might have come out of the hazard and the player is not penalised. In a few case, when he fails to come out of the hazard, for such angry gestures, the player pays the penalty of 2 strokes under R 13-4.
A different variation of this incident was encountered by Sampathchari, the mercurial Tournament Director of PGTI in Panchkula Golf Course during the recent PGTI tournament. After a bad shot from a bunker, the ball barely came out of the bunker and slowly rolling back to the bunker.The player in frustration hit the ground of the bunker with his club. Sampath verified and found that this angry gesture took place while the ball was still outside the Hazard and was rolling down. He rightly applied Decision 13-4/35.5 and did not impose any penalty.
One of the common features in many tournaments is the player hitting the ground in the hazard with his club in frustration after hitting a poorshot from the hazard. Luckily, in most cases, the ball might have come out of the hazard and the player is not penalised. In a few case, when he fails to come out of the hazard, for such angry gestures, the player pays the penalty of 2 strokes under R 13-4.
A different variation of this incident was encountered by Sampathchari, the mercurial Tournament Director of PGTI in Panchkula Golf Course during the recent PGTI tournament. After a bad shot from a bunker, the ball barely came out of the bunker and slowly rolling back to the bunker.The player in frustration hit the ground of the bunker with his club. Sampath verified and found that this angry gesture took place while the ball was still outside the Hazard and was rolling down. He rightly applied Decision 13-4/35.5 and did not impose any penalty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)