Ground under Repair

The Indian Golf union recently conducted one of their categorized junior tournaments in Clover Greens. Clover Greens has the ideal topography for a golf course. It is technically situated in Tamil Nadu, but we held our Karnataka Juniors there! Competition was limited and there were only about 45 players. Amalraj won his first title. The tournament did not have many rules incidents, except for a tricky ruling to be given on the final day. On the short par 4, 17th hole most of the players were cutting the dog leg to the right to go for the green. But, the green was protected by well placed bunkers. One of the boys from last 4 batches, landed his ball in the bunker. His ball was in a difficult lie created by the negligence of the green staff. They have trimmed the grass on the wall of the bunker and left a channel of sand in the bottom corner of the bunker. They have neglected to level the channel with sand. The player asked for a free relief. One of the few discretion a referee has is to declare a badly and unusual damaged area(even if not marked) as GUR ( decreed by Decision 33-2a/2.) I studied the situation and concluded that the damage was not excessive or extensive to declare the area as GUR, especially in a bunker. I denied relief to the player and he played a decent shot from the difficult lie. While this matter was settled, I was concerned about the following groups who may land in the same situation. I consulted the Tournament Director if we could tidy up the bunker. The tournament director told me to make my call. I noticed that the adjacent bunker was also in the same condition. I had no information how many other bunkers were in the same condition. I decided not to repair the bunker as will not be a level playing field for the majority of the players who have already concluded the hole. As it happened, another player in one of the leading groups landed almost in the same area in the bunker. I have to be consistent with my ruling and denied the requested relief. Regarding referee’s discretion to declare GUR, the normal protocol followed is to ensure that not many players in the earlier groups have landed in the same area. Also, we cross check with other officials if any player has been denied/given relief. If the area warrants to be declared as GUR and relief is given to one player, the rules official will ensure that it is immediately marked as GUR.

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.

Rules School

The Indian Golf Union(IGU), the parent body for golf in India has taken a lot of initiatives in the recent past for golf development. IGU junior Coaching programs has yielded rich dividends and India has now some really promising talents in the asian circuit. Players like Anirbhan Lahiri, Bhullar were actively encouraged by the IGU junior development schemes.
IGU has now taken some keen initiatives to develop a strong team of Rules Officials. The first R&A Rules school was conducted in Delhi in 2003 and the next in 2007. As Golf is gaining more recognition in India, there is an increasing interest in learning about the Rules of Golf. The tournament administrators in the amateur and professional circuit require an efficient team of Rules officials. To cater to this need, IGU has collaborated with R&A to conduct atleast 3 Rules school every year in India. There will be a basic program, twice a year and an advanced course once a year. IGU concluded the two basic courses this year and received good response. The advance course will be in January, 2012.
IGU also recently concluded a program for rating of courses in collaboration with USGA. An intensive course for Greenkeepers is being conducted now in all the major cities.
IGU is moving in the right direction. These initiatives augur well for the future of Golf in India.

Virtual Certainty

Sometime back, R&A replaced the phrase "Reasonable Evidence" with "Virtual Certainty" in interpreting decisions related to R 18-1( Ball moved by an outside agency), Rule 26-1(Ball in water Hazard), R 24-3(ball in obstruction not found) and R 25-1c(ball in abnormal condition not found) Meaning of known or virtual certainty is explained in Decision 26-1/1.Strict interpretation of the term virtual certainty in most cases will go against the player.In PGA tours and majors, detailed camera coverage, large gallery and army of volunteers makes it easier for Rules officials to collect evidence and interpret decisions. This is not the case in India in many of the Amateur and Pro tournaments, except a few like the Indian Open.Most of the time we have to rely on evidence provided by the players,fellow competitors and caddies.Fore caddies are placed in strategic points to look for balls and confirm entry points for ball in water hazards. When there are not enough fore caddies or if they are not efficient, players suffer heavily as the chances of lost balls increase.Also, because of some doubts, players do not get rulings in their favour for ball in water hazard(R 26). They have to proceed under the ball lost rule(R 27)
AS said earlier, incompetent fore caddies escalate the problems for players. Recently in one of the Amateur tournaments in KGA, Bangalore, one player played his tee shot on Hole 5 towards the lateral water hazard on the right. The fore caddie stationed there categorically informed the player that the ball went to the hazard and the player in good faith dropped a ball under R 26-1 and proceeded further.one of the journalists covering the event noticed a ball near the 6Th fairway and informed me that this may be the ball deemed to have been in the water hazard. I went to the concerned player who was nearing the 5th green and took him with me to identify the ball on the 6th fairway. He confirmed that the ball was his.He claimed he dropped a ball under R 26 in good faith on the basis of the confirmed report of the fore caddie.On investigation with other fellow competitors, it was clear that the player had proceeded under R 26 with known or virtual certainty.I ruled that the player proceeded correctly under R 26, even though the original ball was subsequently found outside the water hazard.(Decision 26-1/3 and 26-1/3.5)

Rule 6-8-- Discontinuance of Play

With the monsoon setting in, tournament administrators have a hard task to complete the stipulated rounds. It is particularly tough in crowded golf courses like KGA in Bangalore where categorised tournaments have to fit in with least disturbance to playing members. PGTI has recently equipped with Lightning detector, as a safety measure for the players. It is also important to plan evacuation procedures and ensure sirens are in working condition, in case of suspension of play under R 6-8.
We had a bit of a problem in Coimbatore recently. While Coimbatore gets gutsy winds,it rarely encounters heavy downpours.Most of the time, there will be light drizzles and play will continue without much ado. This was the case for three of the four days in a recent tournament.However on the final day morning, there was a sudden torrential rain accompanied by gale force winds.Due to some reason, the siren did not become functional and the committee informed the Referees to stop play which was duly conveyed to the playing groups.
Meanwhile,one group has just finished teeing off from tee 1 when the rains started. They were advised to stop play for sometime and not to proceed to the fairway for their second shot, till further instructions. In spite of this, two of the players in the group went forward, marked their balls and lifted them.
The committee discussed at length whether to apply a penalty stroke under R 6-8c and decision 6-8c/1. Eventually, the committee concluded that instruction to players to stop play is tantamount to suspension of play and under R 6-8a(i) and the opening remarks in decision 6-8c/1, the player has unfettered right to mark and lift his ball, when play is suspended.Good reason to lift,as elaborated in the second part of the decision 6-8c/1 applies to R 6-8a(ii),(iii) and (iv).

Hard Card

Most of the regular tours have well formulated conditions of competition and Local Rules for the tour season, as laid out in the appendix 1 of the Rules of Golf. The PGTI in India follows this religiously.In the amateur circuit,it is being implemented in the last two seasons. The purpose of the hard card- which is a hard copy of the Conditions of competition and Local Rules printed in an easy to carry hard card-is to make life a bit easy for the players. Players do not have to worry about varying set of Local Rules in different golf courses.Only a few pertinent Local Rules relevant to the specific course is added or modified to the Hard Card Local Rules.
For example, the Hard Card Local Rule will specify that stones in bunkers are movable obstructions. This will be extended to all the tournaments in the IGU Amateur Tour, even if some courses do not really have the problem of stones in bunkers. Similarly, though only a few courses have on course lighting systems, compulsory reshot, if a ball strikes a lighting system will be applicable to all tournaments in the circuit.
However, very few players make effort to read all the clauses of the Hard Card Local Rules or the additional Local Rules specific to tournament.
One such incident happened recently in the Amateur Tournament concluded in Coimbatore.On the third day, one of the leading players hooked his tee shot on Hole 3.The ball landed in a wooded area and was at rest adjacent to a retaining wall of a lateral water hazard. The outer face of the retaining wall was marked with red paint and it was clear that the retaining wall was within the hazard margin.As the ball was outside the hazard margin, the player demanded a free relief under Rule 24-2.Normally, he would have been entitled for this relief, but for the clause in the Hard Card Local Rule which deems such artificial retaining walls within the water hazards as integral parts of the course. When I denied the relief to him, he was upset and we have to explain the application of the hard card Local Rule.
This incident also highlights the importance of course markings.In this case, if the inner face of the retaining wall was painted red, the player would have got relief under R 24-2, as the outer face of the wall will be outside the hazard margin.

Practice Between Play of Two Holes-Rule 7-2

Last week was the concluding session of the Indian Golf union Amateur Golf season. The All India Amateur for Men was held in KGA and the All India Ladies in Bangalore Golf Club.
Chikka Rangappa won the men's title. Twelve year old Aditi Ashok became the youngest winner of the Biloo Sethi stroke play event for women. Gauri Monga won the womens title in the match play event.
I was deputed to officiate in the ladies event. IGU in the conditions of competition in the stroke play event qualifying match play, has prohibited practice on or near the putting green of the hole last played as per note 2 to R 7-2. During the second round of the stroke play event, near Tee 16, while waiting for the fairway to clear, one of the players went to the Toilet nearby. During that period, her caddy made some practice putts on the practice green nearby.
This incident was reported by the player before submitting her card. The Rules committee debated if any breach of R 7-2 was involved. Most of the members opined that since the intent of prohibiting practice between holes is to speed up play, practice on the practice green by the caddy is a breach. It was also clear that the player has to take the responsibility for her caddy's action.  I had some doubts that since not 2 to R 7-2 does not specifically prohibit practice on the practice green. we have also not specified prohibition of practice  on the practice green in our supplementary Local rules.
We consulted with the chairman of the IGU technical committee. He ruled that since note 2 to R 7-2 does not explicitly prohibit practice and considering the circumstances of the case, no penalty was applicable. Later another senior US open referee who was aware of this incident added that note 2 to R 7-2 does not empower the committee to prohibit pratice on the practice green, as long as there is no undue delay.