Many golfers are fairly clear about immovable obstructions and the relief procedures.But, when it comes to movable obstructions and Rule 24-1, many golfers get confused about the relief procedures.Relief under Rule 24-1 is one of the most liberal grants given by R&A to golfers with the least number of restrictions.You will not get relief for immovable obstructions/abnormal ground conditions nor can you touch or remove loose impediments in a water hazard.In a bunker,you cannot touch or remove loose impediments.Also, for free relief for immovable obstructions/abnormal ground conditions in a bunker, the ball has to be dropped in the bunker. A movable obstruction can be moved in a bunker, in a water hazard and even if it is located Out of Bounds. The only restriction imposed is that a player cannot move a movable obstruction when it will influence the movement of the ball.The equipment of any player and flagstick(when attended, held up or removed) are exempted.
The confusion arises when a ball is resting against or in/on a movable obstruction.
In the recently concluded South Zone Junior golf tournament at Eagleton, I was officiating as a referee.This preparatory tournament is the brainchild of Vijay Divecha and his initiatives has put some of the Southern India golfers in the top rung of the national circuit.His wards include Abhishek Jha, Anirbhan Lahiri, Chikka Rangappa and others. Many of the youngsters in this South Zone tournament are raw, but very eager and enthusiastic to learn.One such player encountered a situation when his ball was resting against a rake placed close, but outside the bunker.He was not clear about the procedure and a referee could not be contacted immediately.He marked the ball,picked up the ball first and then removed the Rake!Then, he replaced the ball. As his fellow competitors expressed some doubts about this procedure,he opted to play two balls under R 3-3.He dropped the second ball under the spot where it lay. He completed the hole with both the balls and reported the facts to the committee.
As the second ball did not comply with the procedure laid out in R 24-1, the score was ignored.The score with the original ball was taken and a penalty of 1 stroke was added, because he lifted the ball when not permitted by rule and breached R 18-2.
When a ball is resting against a movable obstruction, the obstruction may be removed(NOT THE BALL) and if the ball moves, it must be replaced.If the ball lies in or on an obstruction,the ball may be lifted, obstruction removed. The ball must be dropped under the spot where it originally lay.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Lifting Ball-Assisting/interfering(Rule 22)
My home club Bangalore Golf Club recently conducted its flagship MP Davis Cup. This is the only 4 day stroke play event of the club.The club makes all efforts to invite a strong field. David D'zouza, the evergreen hero of all Bangalore golfers, normally walks away with this coveted gold cup, except on a few rare occasions.
This year the field had a string of promising youngsters like Khalin Joshi, Trishul Chinnappa,Chikka Rangappa, Somiah and others. Khalin Joshi cantered away to a good start and maintained the tempo on all the days.On the final day, he had a clear lead and the Davis cup was almost in his pocket. Meanwhile, David D'zouza, after a poor start, clawed back. He was bracketed with Khalin and Trishul in the leader group for the final round draw.
David is still one of the fastest players in the circuit. Trishul is a trifle slow. He had some hiccups with his short putts on day 2 and 3.Since, he had a good chance of ending up as a runner up, he was taking his time on the greens. on hole no 14, David was already on the putting green, about 25 feet from the hole. Trishl's approach shot rested on the green but on the opposite side of the hole. He was walking towards his ball to mark it. David lost his patience, did not wait for Trishul to mark and putted.The ball missed the hole and was veering close towards Trishul's ball. Trishul ran and marked and lifted his ball. David and Trishul confirmed that David's ball did not touch the other ball and Trishul marked and lifted his ball just after David's ball came to a stop.Trishul was lucky. If he had lifted his ball before the other ball had come to a stop, he would have incurred a penalty of 2 strokes for breach of Rule 22 which prohibits a player to lift his ball when another ball is in motion. Even though Trishul ran to lift his ball with the good intention of saving a 2 stroke penalty for David( breach of Rule 19-5), Trishul himself would have suffered for his good Samaritan act,if he had lifted his ball a few seconds earlier before the other ball came to rest. I cautioned Trishul to avoid such approach in future.
Decision 16-1b/2 gives an interesting variation of the above scenario.If the player had initially lifted his ball under R 16-1b,replaces his ball and then realizes that another ball struck from the putting green will collide with his ball, he can lift his ball again with impunity. This second lifting is considered as an extension of his initial lifting under R 16-1b and overrides R 22.
This year the field had a string of promising youngsters like Khalin Joshi, Trishul Chinnappa,Chikka Rangappa, Somiah and others. Khalin Joshi cantered away to a good start and maintained the tempo on all the days.On the final day, he had a clear lead and the Davis cup was almost in his pocket. Meanwhile, David D'zouza, after a poor start, clawed back. He was bracketed with Khalin and Trishul in the leader group for the final round draw.
David is still one of the fastest players in the circuit. Trishul is a trifle slow. He had some hiccups with his short putts on day 2 and 3.Since, he had a good chance of ending up as a runner up, he was taking his time on the greens. on hole no 14, David was already on the putting green, about 25 feet from the hole. Trishl's approach shot rested on the green but on the opposite side of the hole. He was walking towards his ball to mark it. David lost his patience, did not wait for Trishul to mark and putted.The ball missed the hole and was veering close towards Trishul's ball. Trishul ran and marked and lifted his ball. David and Trishul confirmed that David's ball did not touch the other ball and Trishul marked and lifted his ball just after David's ball came to a stop.Trishul was lucky. If he had lifted his ball before the other ball had come to a stop, he would have incurred a penalty of 2 strokes for breach of Rule 22 which prohibits a player to lift his ball when another ball is in motion. Even though Trishul ran to lift his ball with the good intention of saving a 2 stroke penalty for David( breach of Rule 19-5), Trishul himself would have suffered for his good Samaritan act,if he had lifted his ball a few seconds earlier before the other ball came to rest. I cautioned Trishul to avoid such approach in future.
Decision 16-1b/2 gives an interesting variation of the above scenario.If the player had initially lifted his ball under R 16-1b,replaces his ball and then realizes that another ball struck from the putting green will collide with his ball, he can lift his ball again with impunity. This second lifting is considered as an extension of his initial lifting under R 16-1b and overrides R 22.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Unusual Equipment- Sequel
In my earlier posting on unusual equipment I have listed the incident where a player was using a shaft( without a head) as an aid to align his feet preparatory to making his stroke. He removed the shaft before making his stroke. The shaft was in addition to the 14 clubs he was carrying. Since many referees had different opinions about this practice, the matter was referred to R & A. R & A confirmed that use of such shaft by player to align his feet was a breach of Rule 14-3, with a penalty of disqualification.
Before the start of the PGTI Eagleton tournament, I discussed this matter with The tournament director Sampathchari.He indicated that some of the players in the circuit had developed the habit of aligning their feet with a shaft. His initial reaction was to notify the players to stop using such an aid.
However, Sampath who takes a practical approach, also looked at the players angle.He thought that such prohibition will be a bit harsh on the concerned players, who are used to this habit.He discussed the matter with other committee members.The committee decided to apply exception 1(c) to R 14-3 which seems to give the committee to exempt such practice if the player does not get any undue advantage over other players. The committee felt use of shaft does not give any undue advantage since decision 8-2a/1 sanctions such use, if the player uses one of his 14 clubs.
Suresh and I,as referees, concurred with this view.The committee did not enforce this prohibition.
Later, in the next tournament at KGA, we discussed this matter with Mickey Zarra,the renown USGA referee.Mickey does a lot of lateral thinking. Remember, his ruling on treating flooded bunkers as GUR through the Green? Mickey felt the exemption 1(c) under R 14-3 should be read with exception 1(a) and 1(b) which relate to medical condition. As such, the exemption relating undue advantage will be only in case of medical condition or medical reason.
I referred the matter to R & A who confirmed Mickeys view and indicated that that the committee can give this exemption 1(c) only for medical condition/medical reason.
I have forwarded the R & A opinion to Sampath. I am sure he will take the correct practical decision.
Before the start of the PGTI Eagleton tournament, I discussed this matter with The tournament director Sampathchari.He indicated that some of the players in the circuit had developed the habit of aligning their feet with a shaft. His initial reaction was to notify the players to stop using such an aid.
However, Sampath who takes a practical approach, also looked at the players angle.He thought that such prohibition will be a bit harsh on the concerned players, who are used to this habit.He discussed the matter with other committee members.The committee decided to apply exception 1(c) to R 14-3 which seems to give the committee to exempt such practice if the player does not get any undue advantage over other players. The committee felt use of shaft does not give any undue advantage since decision 8-2a/1 sanctions such use, if the player uses one of his 14 clubs.
Suresh and I,as referees, concurred with this view.The committee did not enforce this prohibition.
Later, in the next tournament at KGA, we discussed this matter with Mickey Zarra,the renown USGA referee.Mickey does a lot of lateral thinking. Remember, his ruling on treating flooded bunkers as GUR through the Green? Mickey felt the exemption 1(c) under R 14-3 should be read with exception 1(a) and 1(b) which relate to medical condition. As such, the exemption relating undue advantage will be only in case of medical condition or medical reason.
I referred the matter to R & A who confirmed Mickeys view and indicated that that the committee can give this exemption 1(c) only for medical condition/medical reason.
I have forwarded the R & A opinion to Sampath. I am sure he will take the correct practical decision.
Out of Bounds
One of the primary duties of tournament administrators is to define the boundaries of the course in clear cut terms. The Out of Bounds of the course definition is listed first in the Local Rules. In some courses, due to the nature of the course and various types of developments taking place,this exercise becomes a bit tricky. Sampathchari, the tournament director of PGTI, with whom I had the pleasure of working as a referee in the recent past,takes meticulous care in defining the out of Bounds of the course. I remember in the Tata open played in Golmori club, the left flank of hole no 7 was unmarked by the club, as some new construction was planned.Sampath took a practical decision to mark the bordering tree line as the OB line. Even though this burdened the green staff with extra work, this was a sound approach.
In the recently concluded Global Green Open conducted by PGTI in Karnataka golf Association, we had some problems in defining the OB. The club has erected tall towering fences supported by nylon netting on hole numbers 1 to 4.The club had defined the margin of the OB as the inside line of the base of the fence and drawn a white line. The club also posted white stakes along the white line. In some holes, only white stakes were posted, without white line.
Whenever there is a strong wind, the nylon net was intruding into the playing area of the course and caused interference to the intended stroke of the player. Since the club had defined the fence with net as the OB, we cannot give relief to the player as the fence with net is a fixed object and not an obstruction.Green staff found it difficult to tie the net, so that it does not intrude into the course. Sampath again found a practical solution.He moved the white line and white stakes marginally inside. For the tournament, he defined the OB margin as the white line and where both white stakes and white lines are present, the margin to be defined by the white line and the white stake to identify the OB. He specified that net will not define the OB and thus the player had the benefit of relief under R 24, if the nylon net interferes.
Still, we had one important incident involving definition of OB.On hole no 2,close to the OB white line, a player's ball was inside the course. But he had interference from a white stake identifying the OB. He called Mickey Zarra, one of the referees. Mickey allowed him to remove the white stake( movable obstruction under R 24-1). When Mickey discussed this ruling with me, I expressed my reservations with this ruling. Mickey felt that since OB was defined by the white line and not by the white stake, the stake can be treated as a movable obstruction.I pointed out that by definition even if white stakes identify OB and do not define the margin of OB, the OB stakes are fixed objects and not obstructions. We finally decided to settle our arguments by referring to R& A/ USGA.
I got a response from R & A confirming that such white stakes identifying OB are not obstructions.I am waiting for Mickey to tell me what is the answer from USGA. On many occasions, R& A and USGA interpret the rules differently.
In the recently concluded Global Green Open conducted by PGTI in Karnataka golf Association, we had some problems in defining the OB. The club has erected tall towering fences supported by nylon netting on hole numbers 1 to 4.The club had defined the margin of the OB as the inside line of the base of the fence and drawn a white line. The club also posted white stakes along the white line. In some holes, only white stakes were posted, without white line.
Whenever there is a strong wind, the nylon net was intruding into the playing area of the course and caused interference to the intended stroke of the player. Since the club had defined the fence with net as the OB, we cannot give relief to the player as the fence with net is a fixed object and not an obstruction.Green staff found it difficult to tie the net, so that it does not intrude into the course. Sampath again found a practical solution.He moved the white line and white stakes marginally inside. For the tournament, he defined the OB margin as the white line and where both white stakes and white lines are present, the margin to be defined by the white line and the white stake to identify the OB. He specified that net will not define the OB and thus the player had the benefit of relief under R 24, if the nylon net interferes.
Still, we had one important incident involving definition of OB.On hole no 2,close to the OB white line, a player's ball was inside the course. But he had interference from a white stake identifying the OB. He called Mickey Zarra, one of the referees. Mickey allowed him to remove the white stake( movable obstruction under R 24-1). When Mickey discussed this ruling with me, I expressed my reservations with this ruling. Mickey felt that since OB was defined by the white line and not by the white stake, the stake can be treated as a movable obstruction.I pointed out that by definition even if white stakes identify OB and do not define the margin of OB, the OB stakes are fixed objects and not obstructions. We finally decided to settle our arguments by referring to R& A/ USGA.
I got a response from R & A confirming that such white stakes identifying OB are not obstructions.I am waiting for Mickey to tell me what is the answer from USGA. On many occasions, R& A and USGA interpret the rules differently.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Bunker as GUR through the Green
For the last 5 weeks, I was busy with the Indian Golf Union(IGU), acting as a referee for their Junior tour and the Amateur Tour. The circuit was touring South India and tournaments were held in Eagleton Village, Karnataka Golf Association and Coimbatore.
For the Amateur event in Eagleton and KGA, our panel of Referees also incuded Mickey Zarra who volunteered his services and gave some quality time. Mickey is a USA PGA Referee and is currently based in Bangalore.
The Eagleton Amateur was progressing smoothly,with the local lad Chikka Rangappa leading all the way.After the end of the third round, during the night,a heavy downpour drenched the course. However, on the morning of the final day, when we did the course inspection, we found the course in good condition, except for a few bunkers.We cleaned up the bunkers and announced a delayed start of 30 minutes.The course staff did a wonderful work and made the start possible.But, we were told that the greenside bunker on the short par 3 hole number 5 will continue to be full of water and will not dry out, even if pumped out.There was an adjacent storage lake which was overflowing and filling up the bunker.
Decision 33-8/27 does not encourage a local rule allowing a player to take a free relief from a bunker full of casual water, contrary to rule 25-1b.However, in very extreme cases for specific bunkers, it makes some exceptions.The first part of the decision states that if specific bunkers are flooded prior to the commencement of the competition and there is no likelihood of the bunkers drying up during the competition, an exception can be made. Since the bunker was not flooded before the competition started, I was of the view that we cannot allow a free relief. But Mickey had a different view, since the last part of decision 33-8/27 states that such an exception can be made or rescinded between rounds, if the competition is played over one round.He opined that the pre condition of flooding before competition is applicable for a single round competition.
As I still had some reservations, he consulted an US open official in Alabama and explained the situation. The Alabama official, after some debate, confirmed that We can give free relief outside the bunker. We accordingly posted the notice that the Greenside bunker on hole 3 was GUR through the green and provided a drop zone for the free relief.
For the Amateur event in Eagleton and KGA, our panel of Referees also incuded Mickey Zarra who volunteered his services and gave some quality time. Mickey is a USA PGA Referee and is currently based in Bangalore.
The Eagleton Amateur was progressing smoothly,with the local lad Chikka Rangappa leading all the way.After the end of the third round, during the night,a heavy downpour drenched the course. However, on the morning of the final day, when we did the course inspection, we found the course in good condition, except for a few bunkers.We cleaned up the bunkers and announced a delayed start of 30 minutes.The course staff did a wonderful work and made the start possible.But, we were told that the greenside bunker on the short par 3 hole number 5 will continue to be full of water and will not dry out, even if pumped out.There was an adjacent storage lake which was overflowing and filling up the bunker.
Decision 33-8/27 does not encourage a local rule allowing a player to take a free relief from a bunker full of casual water, contrary to rule 25-1b.However, in very extreme cases for specific bunkers, it makes some exceptions.The first part of the decision states that if specific bunkers are flooded prior to the commencement of the competition and there is no likelihood of the bunkers drying up during the competition, an exception can be made. Since the bunker was not flooded before the competition started, I was of the view that we cannot allow a free relief. But Mickey had a different view, since the last part of decision 33-8/27 states that such an exception can be made or rescinded between rounds, if the competition is played over one round.He opined that the pre condition of flooding before competition is applicable for a single round competition.
As I still had some reservations, he consulted an US open official in Alabama and explained the situation. The Alabama official, after some debate, confirmed that We can give free relief outside the bunker. We accordingly posted the notice that the Greenside bunker on hole 3 was GUR through the green and provided a drop zone for the free relief.
Friday, March 27, 2009
UNUSUAL EQUIPMENT-RULE 14-3
The Indian Amateur circuit for the year was concluded. As a referee, I normally volunteer for club level tournaments for my home club-Bangalore Golf Club. BGC recently conducted a two round stroke play tournament termed as the Centenary Cup. I was the sole referee for the tournament.On Day 2, I observed Darshan Veeraraghavan, one of the regulars in the amateur circuit, placing a shaft on the ground to align his stance, but his caddy removed the shaft before he made a stroke.He confirmed that that shaft( without the club head) he was using to align his feet was in addition to the 14 clubs he was carrying.He further stated that this approach was cleared by G. Suresh, his coach and a referee in the IGU and PGTI panel. I have a high regard for G.Suresh who is one of the most practical and down to earth referees seen in the circuit.While Decision 8-2a/1 permits use of one of the clubs he is carrying to be used for aligning, I had reservations about the use of shaft and was of the opinion that the player was in breach of R 14-3.As Suresh could not be contacted immediately, I consulted other referees-all qualified from R&A. Three of the referees ruled there was no breach. One senior referee applied decision 4-4a/14( broken club) and opined the player should be disqualified.
Since enough doubts have been cast on the breach, I did not impose any penalty on the player.I contacted a senior R& A Rules official Mr. Barker who confirmed this approach by the player was breach of Rule 14-3, use of unusual equipment. I conveyed the R& A ruling to G. Suresh who will advise his ward accordingly.
Since enough doubts have been cast on the breach, I did not impose any penalty on the player.I contacted a senior R& A Rules official Mr. Barker who confirmed this approach by the player was breach of Rule 14-3, use of unusual equipment. I conveyed the R& A ruling to G. Suresh who will advise his ward accordingly.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Testing the Surface of the Putting Green
The recently concluded ALL India Amateur Golf did not pose many Rules incidents, except the controversial prohibition of practice putting between holes, illustrated in my last post.However, as a referee I have to deal with one referral in the Finals.Jha took a fast 4 up lead in the 36 hole hole final.Shoel, the eventual winner, clawed back and reduced the lead to 2 holes after 7th.After Shoel won the 8th hole, Jha claimed that while conceding a putt to him , Shoel tapped the ball back to him. Jha wanted to know if this action constituted a breach of Rule 16-1d-testing the surface of Green. I answered in the negative as casual rolling back or tapping the ball back, does not constitute a breach.( Decision 16-1d/1.)
The Question for referees will be what constitutes a breach of Rule 16-1d?Some guidelines are given in Decisions 16-1d/2.The test will be if the player purposely rolls the ball back and tries to assess the speed and break of the green. But, it is still a difficult task for the referee to establish this question of fact. The line separating will be the interpretation of the referee if the act is casual or deliberate.
The Question for referees will be what constitutes a breach of Rule 16-1d?Some guidelines are given in Decisions 16-1d/2.The test will be if the player purposely rolls the ball back and tries to assess the speed and break of the green. But, it is still a difficult task for the referee to establish this question of fact. The line separating will be the interpretation of the referee if the act is casual or deliberate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)