Obstructions

Most of the duties of Referees involve rulings on Obstructions(R 24) and Abnormal Ground Conditions(R 25-1). The hard card of the tours will specify Immovable Obstructions. The additional Local Rules issued for each tournament will detail and exhaustively list the immovable obstructions. It is a prudent practice not to list movable obstructions. This gives some flexibility to players. In many courses, yardage and Hazard stakes are usually movable, but a few odd stakes will be grouted hard. The player has the option to treat such grouted stakes as immovable.

In some cases, the status of the obstruction is not clear. It is the duty of the committee to clarify the status of such obstructions. Decision 24/3(concrete base of boundary fence), Decision 24/7(stone serving as part of drain in bunker) are some examples.

KGA is rated as the best course in the country. Serious negotiations are underway to hold the Indian Open in 2012. KGA is a delight for any Tournament Administrator. The course marking is excellent, Water Hazards are well staked on the natural contours, yardages done scientifically and indicated on sprinkler heads, boundaries well defined. However, two issues need to be addressed and clarified:

1.    Nylon Netting- whenever there is a strong wind, the nylon net located outside the course intrudes into the course and causes interference. After a lengthy debate, matter was referred to R&A who clarified that in such cases, the nylon net will be an immovable obstruction and R 24-2 will apply. PGTI incorporated this in the Local Rule.

2.    Loose stone lining in Water hazard: Most of the water hazards are lined with loose stones placed closely (not cemented). Since these cut stones are designed to act as retainer wall for the hazard, this can be treated as an immovable obstruction. The issue (and this did take place in the recent IGU Junior tournament) is if the player entitled to remove the loosely placed stones under R 24-1? I denied such a request since the stone was not meant/designed to be moved and constituted a part of an immovable obstruction. My ruling is supported by Decision 13-2/32, Decision 24/7. I ignored decision 24/6 as in that case, the stone has broken away and no longer a part of the immovable obstruction. My ruling would have been easier if the status of these loose stones acting as retainer wall of the hazard has been clarified in the Local rule of the competition.