Searching for Ball- Rule 12

                                 Searching For Ball- Rule 12
Referees who have attended the R&A Rules schools are familiar with the opening presentation. It covers Rule 12 and Rule 13. It is obvious that R&A considers adequate emphasis should be given to these two rules.
Many players are also not fully aware of the finer points of Rule 12. While searching,the player is given some leeway in bending grasses and bushes but he is not exonerated for moving a ball, except in some special circumstances.While searching,Rule 18-2a still applies.In stroke play, if the ball is moved by player/his caddie while searching, penalty is applicable.This penalty is exempt while searching for a ball believed to be covered by sand anywhere on the course including bunker.
Many players believe they are exempt from Rule 18-2a  while searching for a ball in a water hazard. In one such incident in the recent Pro event at Aambi valley, the caddie of the player moved the ball while searching for it in a water hazard. He was instructed to replace the ball and docked one stroke penalty under Rule 18-2a. The penalty is exempted only in a situation where the ball is believed to be lying in water in a water hazard and the ball is moved while probing for it.
Penalty is also now applicable for moving a ball while searching for it believed to be covered by loose impediments.Exemption applies only for replacement of loose impediments under Rule 12-1b.
One other exception for moving a ball while searching relates to ball within obstruction and abnormal ground condition.
The moral of the story- while searching for a ball, the player and his caddie should be extremely careful.He should encourage his fellow competitors and their caddies to to the active searching.

Virtual Certainty

                                                                     Virtual Certainty

Though decision 26-1/1 explains how to apply the term known or virtually certain, it is one of the most difficult exercises for referees. The gathering of evidence in India is mostly limited to getting it from players, caddies, and if available, fore caddies  We do not have a crew of photographers or spectators to support with credible evidence.

This situation was highlighted in the recent Poona Club PGTI event. On hole 11, we had marked a very large area as GUR. A player’s tee shot hit an adjacent tree. The ball could not be found. When I reached the spot, the search was in the GUR area. The player informed me that according to the fore caddie  the ball hit the tree and fell in the GUR area. Nobody else has seen the ball hitting the tree and the dropping of the ball. I was almost convinced that it was virtually certain that the ball not found was in the GUR. However, on persistent questioning the fore caddie changed his version. He could only confirm that the ball hit the tree which was bordering the GUR. He was about 75 yards away. He was not certain about the ball falling in the GUR area. The area close to the GUR area also had thick roughs. This revised evidence of the fore caddie changed the status drastically. The evidence did not pass the test of virtual certainty. I had no choice but to ask the player to proceed under stroke and distance Rule 27.

In another incident at Aamby valley, on hole 12, par 5, the 125 yard third shot of a player sailed over the green. A high ridge was bordering the green. Beyond the Green was a narrow strip marked as Lateral water Hazard. The depth of this hazard was about 5 yards. The water hazard was closing on a short metal fence which was the margin of the Out of Bounds. The player could not find his ball in the water hazard. The hazard did not have water but only contained thick grass. The player wanted to proceed under the water hazard Rule 26. I denied the request as it was not virtually certain that the ball not found was in the water hazard. It may be in the water hazard or it may have gone Out of Bounds which was close by. Nobody has seen the ball landing in the water hazard because of the contour and high ridge surrounding the green. The Player was required to proceed under lost ball Rule 27.

Another fellow referee who was officiating in the same tournament made a player to proceed under Rule 26 and dropped a ball at the point of entry of the lateral water hazard margin. After dropping and stroke played, the ball was found in the Out of bounds fenced area which was close to the lateral water hazard.

These incidents highlight that the test of virtual certainty has to very strict. It will be hard on the players. The R&A has good reasons for shifting the weight of evidence from reasonable to virtual certainty.

Ball sitting on a Broken Bottle-Rule 24-1

           Ball sitting on a Broken bottle                                           

Aamby valley is one of the most picturesque golf courses in the country. As per the current trend, this private Golf course is a designer course and ideal for major championship. PGTI recently hosted its player’s tournament and attracted a full field. The Delhi lad Vinod Kumar won the tournament. The Course had a good mix of water hazards, pot bunkers, roughs and a manicured fairway. We had a few interesting Rules incidents involving many referees.

I was called for a ruling involving a relief for ball lying on a movable obstruction. His ball was sitting on a broken glass bottle. The glass bottle was partly embedded in the ground. As per Rule 24-1, I asked the player to lift the ball, remove the glass bottle. The player then dropped the ball directly under the spot where the glass bottle lay. The ball came to rest on the old depression created by the removal of the embedded bottle. The player now demanded relief for embedded ball under Rule 25-2 and decision 25-2/2. The relief was denied as the ball did not get embedded as a result of impact created by the dropped ball but came to rest only on the old depression made by the removal of the bottle.