As said in earlier posts, many rulings hinge on the correct definition of various terms used in Rules of Golf. R &A is fairly precise in its definitions and tries its best to define as many terms as possible.R&A is also consistent in its terminology. However, a few terms which are not listed in the Rules definition chapter leaves the referees making their own interpretation. This was brought to focus in a recent rules incident at the Southern India Amateur event conducted by the Indian Golf Union in Eagleton.
Kelly Rao and Akhil Rao, who are brothers, were slated to play--Kelly, a 1st tee starter and Akhil, from Tee 10. Both were practicing on the range. One of Akhils club, a 9 iron, was by mistake put into Kellys bag. Unaware, Kelly started his round from tee 1 with 15 clubs. After about 15 minutes, Akhil started his round from tee 10 with 13 clubs.After Hole 4, Kelly to his consternation, noticed the 15th club, declared it out of play and was duly docked 4 strokes penalty under R 4-4. Kelly also sent through somebody the excess 9 iron back to his brother.Kelly Rao also confirmed that till the time of declaring it out of play, he has not played a ny stroke with the 9 iron.Akhil received his 9 iron back on hole 11 and completed hole 12, when I met him. He indicated that till completion of hole 12,he has not used the 9 iron to make any stroke.I advised him that he too may be liable for penalties and he should not use the 9 iron till the matter is clarified. Akhil handed over the 9 iron to me.
As the matter was complicated, the issue was discussed with the members of the tournament committee.Decision 4-4a/1 was the key to resolve the issue.The operative part of this decision relevant to the ruling states that a player, who starts the round with fewer than 14 clubs must not add any club SELECTED FOR PLAY BY ANY OTHER PERSON PLAYING ON THE COURSE.My interpretation of this decision was that Akhil will be breaching Rule 4-4a, since his brother(with or without intent0 selected the said 9 iron for play of his round.Two other referees, who are also members of the tournament committee ,interpreted that any club selected for play meant a player should have used the club to make a stroke. Since Kel;ly Rao has not used the club for making a stroke, Kelly has not selected the club for play. Hence, they concluded that Akhil could add his 9 iron as per provisions of Rule 4-4a and Decision 4-4a/1 without any breach. I argued that selection for play and use of club for making strokes are two different events.Making a stroke is not a necessary condition for "Selecting a club for Play", as per my interpretation.
The matter was referred to higher authorities and the tournament committee( which included me and other referees) decided in equity Akhil should be allowed to retrieve his club and use it without breach of R 4-4a. I was directed to return the 9 iron to Akhil and he was advised about the ruling of the tournament committee.
As I had some lingering doubts about the ruling, I referred the matter to R & A and sought an unofficial clarification. R & A clarified that Kelly has selected the 9 iron for play for his round( though by default) and since Akhil has also started his round, he cannot add the said 9 iron as his 14th club. Akhil could have added his 9 iron without breach, provided he had received his 9 iron back, before teeing off on hole 10.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Thursday, June 3, 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Repair of Pitch/Ball Marks
Over a period of time many golfers develop some sound and some unsound swing techniques.Their coaches have to work hard in the range to see that they retain the best techniques and unlearn the worst ones. Similarly, the players also, in their minds, retain some strange notions of Rules and interpretations.If left without correction,when they breach certain rules inadvertently,they pay a heavy price for it.
Saeed Saquib, the budding junior star from Bangalore learnt a valuable lesson in the Northern Junior Golf tournament in Panchkula.Saeeqib, the third round leader, lost his momentum in the final round and trailing the eventual winner Tarundeep Chada by 3 strokes after 16th.On the par 3, 17th, his tee shot fell short of the green, created a pitch mark and rolled back a feet.He strode to the ball, saw his pitch mark on his line of play, perfunctorily informed Chada, his marker, that he is repairing the pitch mark and proceeded to do so, before I could intervene..
I was shocked by Saquibs action and penalized him 2 strokes under R 13-2 for improving his line of play. Saquib was under the impression that he was entitled to repair any pitch mark through the green. This was a total misconception as Rule 16-1c as it allows repair of pitch mark on the Putting Green only, even if the ball
lies outside the Green. Saquib misconstrued this rule to have a license to repair the pitch mark, even if the pitch mark is on his line of play through the Green.This error cost him the runner up position which went to his friend Rahul Ravi.
However, decision 13-2/8 lays down one exception. If after the players ball comes to rest and some other ball from a fellow competitor or any other player, creates a pitch mark, affecting his line of lie/line of play/stance, in equity(R 1-4), the player can repair this pitch mark. The principle that a player is entitled to the original lie/line of play/stance when his ball is at rest is illustrated in many other decisions.
Saeed Saquib, the budding junior star from Bangalore learnt a valuable lesson in the Northern Junior Golf tournament in Panchkula.Saeeqib, the third round leader, lost his momentum in the final round and trailing the eventual winner Tarundeep Chada by 3 strokes after 16th.On the par 3, 17th, his tee shot fell short of the green, created a pitch mark and rolled back a feet.He strode to the ball, saw his pitch mark on his line of play, perfunctorily informed Chada, his marker, that he is repairing the pitch mark and proceeded to do so, before I could intervene..
I was shocked by Saquibs action and penalized him 2 strokes under R 13-2 for improving his line of play. Saquib was under the impression that he was entitled to repair any pitch mark through the green. This was a total misconception as Rule 16-1c as it allows repair of pitch mark on the Putting Green only, even if the ball
lies outside the Green. Saquib misconstrued this rule to have a license to repair the pitch mark, even if the pitch mark is on his line of play through the Green.This error cost him the runner up position which went to his friend Rahul Ravi.
However, decision 13-2/8 lays down one exception. If after the players ball comes to rest and some other ball from a fellow competitor or any other player, creates a pitch mark, affecting his line of lie/line of play/stance, in equity(R 1-4), the player can repair this pitch mark. The principle that a player is entitled to the original lie/line of play/stance when his ball is at rest is illustrated in many other decisions.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Ball in Hazard-Prohbited actions
Rule 13-4 lists prohibited actions when the ball is in a hazard.It prohibits testing the condition of the hazard,touching the ground in the hazard, 0r water in the water hazard with his hand or club or touching or removing loose impediments, before making a stroke.
One of the common features in many tournaments is the player hitting the ground in the hazard with his club in frustration after hitting a poorshot from the hazard. Luckily, in most cases, the ball might have come out of the hazard and the player is not penalised. In a few case, when he fails to come out of the hazard, for such angry gestures, the player pays the penalty of 2 strokes under R 13-4.
A different variation of this incident was encountered by Sampathchari, the mercurial Tournament Director of PGTI in Panchkula Golf Course during the recent PGTI tournament. After a bad shot from a bunker, the ball barely came out of the bunker and slowly rolling back to the bunker.The player in frustration hit the ground of the bunker with his club. Sampath verified and found that this angry gesture took place while the ball was still outside the Hazard and was rolling down. He rightly applied Decision 13-4/35.5 and did not impose any penalty.
One of the common features in many tournaments is the player hitting the ground in the hazard with his club in frustration after hitting a poorshot from the hazard. Luckily, in most cases, the ball might have come out of the hazard and the player is not penalised. In a few case, when he fails to come out of the hazard, for such angry gestures, the player pays the penalty of 2 strokes under R 13-4.
A different variation of this incident was encountered by Sampathchari, the mercurial Tournament Director of PGTI in Panchkula Golf Course during the recent PGTI tournament. After a bad shot from a bunker, the ball barely came out of the bunker and slowly rolling back to the bunker.The player in frustration hit the ground of the bunker with his club. Sampath verified and found that this angry gesture took place while the ball was still outside the Hazard and was rolling down. He rightly applied Decision 13-4/35.5 and did not impose any penalty.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Failure to Hole Out- More Incidents
As stated in my last post, failure to hole out in stroke play competition invokes the penalty of disqualification. Many such breaches occur when the ball is nestling against the flagstick.
Jaiveer Singh, a tiny tot(less than 10 years old) making one of his first appearances in the Junior circuit in KGA had one such distressing incident. On the last hole,his ball, after a chip, was resting against the flag.He thought he had holed out, picked the ball and walked out of the Green.The fact that he walked out of the 18th Green was not established at the time when I was called and was apprised that the player had not holed out.I asked the player to correct his mistake as per R 17-4 and added a penalty of one stroke for lifting the ball. Later, eye witnesses including Vijay Divecha, one of the well known referee and coach,confirmed that the player had clearly left the 18th Green, after failing to hole out and the correction under R 17-4 was too late.. Under the circumstances,the committee had no choice but to disqualify him. The youngster was in tears as he missed out for one of the runner up prizes.
A more complicated variation of this incident recently took place at the Eastern India Juniors in Tollygunge, Kolkatta.On the last hole,Khalin Joshi's chip on the par 3 18th, was resting against the flag.His fellow competitor Rommel Majumdar ran in and picked up the ball.All the players left the Green.Shetty, tournament Director and I saw a part of the ball from a distance.When we questioned Rommel, he was sure the ball was below the lip of the ball. Khalin was not sure about the status.One of the committee members indicated that because of the sloping nature of the Green, a part of the ball could be visible, even if it is below the lip of the hole.Allen Singh, one of the famous names in Indian golf and now assisting IGU in grooming young talent, recreated the scene and convinced both the referees that a part of the ball could be seen, even if all of it is below the lip of the hole.The error of parallax saved Khalin from disqualification.
Khalin would have learned a valuable lesson.In the above case,in case of doubt about the ball being holed out, the correct procedure for Khalin would be to invoke R 17-4 and place the ball against the flag. There would have been no penalty as the fellow competitor Rommel who picked up the ball is an outside agency.
Jaiveer Singh, a tiny tot(less than 10 years old) making one of his first appearances in the Junior circuit in KGA had one such distressing incident. On the last hole,his ball, after a chip, was resting against the flag.He thought he had holed out, picked the ball and walked out of the Green.The fact that he walked out of the 18th Green was not established at the time when I was called and was apprised that the player had not holed out.I asked the player to correct his mistake as per R 17-4 and added a penalty of one stroke for lifting the ball. Later, eye witnesses including Vijay Divecha, one of the well known referee and coach,confirmed that the player had clearly left the 18th Green, after failing to hole out and the correction under R 17-4 was too late.. Under the circumstances,the committee had no choice but to disqualify him. The youngster was in tears as he missed out for one of the runner up prizes.
A more complicated variation of this incident recently took place at the Eastern India Juniors in Tollygunge, Kolkatta.On the last hole,Khalin Joshi's chip on the par 3 18th, was resting against the flag.His fellow competitor Rommel Majumdar ran in and picked up the ball.All the players left the Green.Shetty, tournament Director and I saw a part of the ball from a distance.When we questioned Rommel, he was sure the ball was below the lip of the ball. Khalin was not sure about the status.One of the committee members indicated that because of the sloping nature of the Green, a part of the ball could be visible, even if it is below the lip of the hole.Allen Singh, one of the famous names in Indian golf and now assisting IGU in grooming young talent, recreated the scene and convinced both the referees that a part of the ball could be seen, even if all of it is below the lip of the hole.The error of parallax saved Khalin from disqualification.
Khalin would have learned a valuable lesson.In the above case,in case of doubt about the ball being holed out, the correct procedure for Khalin would be to invoke R 17-4 and place the ball against the flag. There would have been no penalty as the fellow competitor Rommel who picked up the ball is an outside agency.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Failure to hole out--Rule 3-2
Rule 3-2-Failure to hole out is very strictly applied in stroke play competition.The penalty for this breach is disqualification.Some players are unfortunate to incur this penalty of disqualification, though inadvertently.Many players fail to understand the definition of holing out and the correct procedure when the ball is nestling against the flagstick.
By definition, 'holed' means the ball must be at rest within the circumference of the hole and all of the ball should be below the level of the lip of the hole.
A few years back, Namith Gambhir, a budding young junior talent, was playing in an IGU sub junior event at BGC. His tee shot at the par 3, 10th hole was well short of the green. His chip hit the flagstick and resting against the flagstick, with half the ball inside the hole and the other half jutting out. Namith was ecstatic, thought he had a birdie.He ran and picked up his ball. The error was not pointed out at that time by his caddie or fellow competitors.He teed off from the next tee, without correcting the error and completed a few more holes.When the incident was brought to my notice later in the round,and investigations confirmed that the ball was half in and half out,I had no choice but to disqualify him.The correct procedure is detailed in Rule 17-4-Ball resting against the flagstick.In such cases, the player should move or remove the flagstick. If the ball falls into the hole, he is deemed to have holed out with his last stroke.Otherwise, if the ball is moved , it should be placed on the lip of the hole, without penalty and the hole should be completed.
If he has mistakenly picked the ball when it is not holed,the error must be corrected before teeing off from the next tee or in case of the last hole, before he leaves the putting green.The procedure is listed in Decision 17-4/1.The player incurs a penalty stroke under R 20-1 for lifting his ball without marking.The player must replace the ball against the flagstick and then apply R17-4.In the case of Namith Gambhir,if has done so before teeing off from the next tee, he could have scored a 3 or 4, if he had followed the procedure of R 17-4.
By definition, 'holed' means the ball must be at rest within the circumference of the hole and all of the ball should be below the level of the lip of the hole.
A few years back, Namith Gambhir, a budding young junior talent, was playing in an IGU sub junior event at BGC. His tee shot at the par 3, 10th hole was well short of the green. His chip hit the flagstick and resting against the flagstick, with half the ball inside the hole and the other half jutting out. Namith was ecstatic, thought he had a birdie.He ran and picked up his ball. The error was not pointed out at that time by his caddie or fellow competitors.He teed off from the next tee, without correcting the error and completed a few more holes.When the incident was brought to my notice later in the round,and investigations confirmed that the ball was half in and half out,I had no choice but to disqualify him.The correct procedure is detailed in Rule 17-4-Ball resting against the flagstick.In such cases, the player should move or remove the flagstick. If the ball falls into the hole, he is deemed to have holed out with his last stroke.Otherwise, if the ball is moved , it should be placed on the lip of the hole, without penalty and the hole should be completed.
If he has mistakenly picked the ball when it is not holed,the error must be corrected before teeing off from the next tee or in case of the last hole, before he leaves the putting green.The procedure is listed in Decision 17-4/1.The player incurs a penalty stroke under R 20-1 for lifting his ball without marking.The player must replace the ball against the flagstick and then apply R17-4.In the case of Namith Gambhir,if has done so before teeing off from the next tee, he could have scored a 3 or 4, if he had followed the procedure of R 17-4.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Movable Obstructions-Rule 24-1
In my earlier post,I have pointed out that that Relief for movable obstructions under Rule 24-1 is fairly liberal compared to other free reliefs. However, many players, even at the highest levels, fail to take advantage of this relief.
In the recent professional tournaments and Junior tournaments where I officiated, I noticed that many players are not fully aware of their entitlement to relief for stakes defining margins of Water Hazards and Lateral water hazards. Such stakes are movable, if they are easily movable and if not, immovable.If these stakes are easily movable, a player can move the stake, irrespective of the fact whether the ball is inside the water Hazard or outside it.I was called many times by players in the circuit to clarify this point.Many players seem to think that they cannot remove these stakes if the ball is inside the Hazard .
In many clubs,the committee makes a Local Rule that Water hazard Stakes are immovable,even if they are easily movable.The definition of obstructions under the Rules gives this authority to the committee.This Local Rule is made because many club players fail to replace the stake after removing it and burdening the Green staff with extra work.If these stakes are immovable or a local rule deems it immovable,a player will not get relief if his ball is inside the hazard and he has interference.He can only touch an immovable obstruction.If his ball is outside the water hazard and he has interference from these stakes which are immovable or deemed so by a local rule, he will get free relief under Rule 24-2.
The Local rule making the water hazard stakes immovable has some inherent dangers.A player inside the hazard and electing to play a ball close to these stakes runs the risk of the ball ricocheting and harming him physically or the stake itself hitting him or oher players nearby.
In the recent professional tournaments and Junior tournaments where I officiated, I noticed that many players are not fully aware of their entitlement to relief for stakes defining margins of Water Hazards and Lateral water hazards. Such stakes are movable, if they are easily movable and if not, immovable.If these stakes are easily movable, a player can move the stake, irrespective of the fact whether the ball is inside the water Hazard or outside it.I was called many times by players in the circuit to clarify this point.Many players seem to think that they cannot remove these stakes if the ball is inside the Hazard .
In many clubs,the committee makes a Local Rule that Water hazard Stakes are immovable,even if they are easily movable.The definition of obstructions under the Rules gives this authority to the committee.This Local Rule is made because many club players fail to replace the stake after removing it and burdening the Green staff with extra work.If these stakes are immovable or a local rule deems it immovable,a player will not get relief if his ball is inside the hazard and he has interference.He can only touch an immovable obstruction.If his ball is outside the water hazard and he has interference from these stakes which are immovable or deemed so by a local rule, he will get free relief under Rule 24-2.
The Local rule making the water hazard stakes immovable has some inherent dangers.A player inside the hazard and electing to play a ball close to these stakes runs the risk of the ball ricocheting and harming him physically or the stake itself hitting him or oher players nearby.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)