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.