Ball in Motion Deflected

Recently, a rare incident occurred in a club level tournament in my home club-Bangalore Golf club(BGC). BGC was conducting a two day stroke play event “Centenary Cup”. The event attracted top local talent. I was called to the green of the par three hole no 6. It was reported that two players putted from the green and their balls collided in motion. I enquired whose turn it was to putt. They informed they did not check with each other and did not look at each other. Both of them assumed it was their turn to putt and did so almost simultaneously. There was a long debate and finally it was decided to measure. I measured from the respective original spots where the ball was. Finally, I informed one player who is a promising boy that he putted out of turn. I applied a two stroke penalty under R 16-1f- making a stroke while another ball in motion after a stroke from a putting green. In stroke play, normally there is no penalty if some player plays out of turn. This is one of the rare occasions when a penalty is imposed.
Also, the breach is applicable irrespective of the collision of the balls. I was so engrossed in determining the breach under R 16-1f and resolving the dispute about whose turn to putt, that I failed to give proper attention to the main breach- ball in motion deflected/stopped under R 19-5b. I permitted the players to complete the hole where the balls had come to rest a few feet from the hole. They did so and teed off from the next tee. As soon as they teed off, I realized that under R 19-5b, after a stroke from the putting green, if a ball in motion is deflected by another ball in motion, the stroke is cancelled and has to be replayed. In this case, both the players should have replayed the stroke.
As the breach was not serious and the competitors were not seriously disadvantaged and additionally they have also teed off from the next tee, as per decision 34-3/3.3 , the strokes made after the incorrect ruling stood and no penalties applied( for playing from a wrong place)
There is also an interesting sequel to this ruling. The young girl ,whose ball was the other ball involved in the collision ,checked with another senior international referee about the ruling. He interpreted that the young girl should have replayed the stroke but the boy who got the penalty under R 16-1f was not required to replay; the reasoning is if the stroke is cancelled under R 19-5b, the penalty under R 16-1f may not hold. The young girl who also did extremely well in the recent referee certification programme discussed this point with me. In my opinion, both players involved in the collision must replay the stroke as per R 19-5b. The penalty applied to the original stroke under R 16-1f is also valid, though the original stroke should have been cancelled and replayed. The note under R 19-5 specifies that nothing in this rule overrides the provisions of Rule 16-1f.