Eagleton Golf resort is becoming popular. For the last two years, KGA and BGC golf courses were in various phases of renovation and Eagleton got the privilege to host many tournaments in Bangalore.A few months back, it hosted the All India Ladies Tournament.
Aditi Ashok is a budding young star hardly 8 years old.She is very serious about her golf.I see her regularly in my home course BGC, practicing, with her father Ashok. She won the match play in Ladies bronze category, beating many older seasoned Ladies. Aditi,is also a eager learner of Rules. She also participated in the Stroke Play for Ladies.
Eagleton has a lot of paved buggy paths.Free relief is provided under R 24-2 for these paved paths.
During her stroke play round,On par 4 ,Hole no 16,her ball was on a paved buggy path close to the Green. She was not sure about her rights about free relief under R 24-2.We had only 2 referees- Dasharathy and I.She could not get a ruling immediately. Rightly, she invoked R 3-3 and opted to play 2 balls- the original ball as it lay and a second ball with relief under R 24-2.Strangely, she announced that original ball to count, if rules permit.She scored a 5 with the original ball and a 4 with the second ball dropped under R 24-2. She checked with me , before submitting her card about which score to put for the hole. She confirmed she announced her original ball to count.Under the circumstances,I told her that her score for the hole will be 5 under
R 3-3b. Later I inferred that she probably misunderstood the term "to count"as a better score of the two balls she played rather than the advance nomination of her choice.
This incident also led to a heated debate between me and fellow referee Dasharathy.He argued that a player had no right to nominate the original ball to count.I pointed out that Rules should cover many situations. For example,if a ball is in GUR on the putting Green 1 foot from the hole and relief may take the ball to 3 ft from the hole and if the player is not sure about his rights, he may invoke R 3-3 and announce his original ball to count.Dasharathy also argued in Aditi's case, she could be docked under R 6-7(undue Delay) for invoking R 3-3 and then nominating the original ball! May be , he had a point there.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Ball At Rest Moved
Coimbatore in South India is a favourite place for me-not only for its climate which is very similar to my home town Bangalore,but also for providing interesting Rules episodes. Sampathchari,Tournament Director, PGTI and one of the best known tournament officials in the Indian and Asian circuit invited me to assist him as a referee in the Coimbatore Open conducted by PGTI from Aug 20-23. 08. Sampath Chari commands a lot of respect from the players and Referees.
The tournament was keenly fought and won by the mercurial Digvijay Singh narrowly.On the third day,after the cut, many of the seasoned pros were jockeying for a place at the top.Rafiq Ali, one of the veteran pros was fighting hard. On the par 3, Hole 14, his tee shot fell short of the green.The ball was at rest on a slight slope.The player , for purpose of measuring,paced his steps.When he was taking his strides, the ball moved about 6 inches from the original position and came to rest. The player called me for a Ruling.He confirmed that he had not addressed the ball and the ball when he was pacing his steps.I concluded that the players action of pacing close to the ball caused the ball to move and applied one stroke penalty under R 18-2.I was also guided by analogous decision 18-2a/30 when a ball in play is moved due to several practice swings about one foot from ball.However,Rafiq Ali appealed to Tournament Director Sampath Chari.After examining the issues, Sampath Chari gave the benefit of doubt to the player and reversed my decision and allowed the player to play the ball from its new position, without penalty.He also weighed in the wind factor, which was heavy and the slope. He was guided by decision 18/10.
The tournament was keenly fought and won by the mercurial Digvijay Singh narrowly.On the third day,after the cut, many of the seasoned pros were jockeying for a place at the top.Rafiq Ali, one of the veteran pros was fighting hard. On the par 3, Hole 14, his tee shot fell short of the green.The ball was at rest on a slight slope.The player , for purpose of measuring,paced his steps.When he was taking his strides, the ball moved about 6 inches from the original position and came to rest. The player called me for a Ruling.He confirmed that he had not addressed the ball and the ball when he was pacing his steps.I concluded that the players action of pacing close to the ball caused the ball to move and applied one stroke penalty under R 18-2.I was also guided by analogous decision 18-2a/30 when a ball in play is moved due to several practice swings about one foot from ball.However,Rafiq Ali appealed to Tournament Director Sampath Chari.After examining the issues, Sampath Chari gave the benefit of doubt to the player and reversed my decision and allowed the player to play the ball from its new position, without penalty.He also weighed in the wind factor, which was heavy and the slope. He was guided by decision 18/10.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Rule 13-Ball Played as it Lies
Rule 13-2 is one of the fundamental foundation of golf Rules. It directs the player to play the ball as it lies except as permitted by Rules.Free relief is provided when the ball is in abnormal ground conditions, ball embedded in a closely mown area or a wrong putting green(R 25). The other major free relief is when there is interference by an Obstruction(R 24). In addition, he can remove loose impediments (R 23) and movable obstructions(R 24-1), without penalty. Relief under penalty situations involve Rule 26- ball in water hazard, R 27- ball lost/OB, R 28- ball unplayable.
The most common infringement is improving the area of intended stance.Rule 13-2 allows some concession for player to make minimum improvement in FAIRLY TAKING HIS STANCE.In the year 2005, I was officiating as a IGU referee in the Coimbatore amateur event. On the par 5 , 5th hole, Lt col. Lakhra missed his approach shot to the green and his ball was close to an ant hill and a sapling.The local rule did not provide free relief for ant hills or sapling.Consequently, I denied his request for relief for both conditions. Then,while taking his stance, he stepped on the sapling and broke it, thus unintentionally improving his area of intended stance.I was forced to impose a penalty of 2 strokes on the player under R 13-2, since he had not taken his stance in the least intrusive manner -a principle enunciated in Decision 13-2/1. He could have gone around the sapling in fairly taking his stance and causing minimum improvement.
Another common occurrence is the improvement in area of intended swing while taking practice swings.Knocking off leaves while taking practice swing is a common scene.While, Decision 13-2/22 lays down guidelines indicating in some cases, knocking down one leaf will be an infringement while knocking down many leaves will not be. Players have of late realized this aspect and are careful. In the recently concluded Eagleton Juniors, I have to dock 2 strokes penalty to Majumdar when his pracice swing dislodged a cluster of leaves on the 7th hole,In my opinion and I was in a good position to observe the incident, he improved his area of intended swing and hence the penalty. Players are well advised to stand quite a distance away when they take practice swings in such situations.
The most common infringement is improving the area of intended stance.Rule 13-2 allows some concession for player to make minimum improvement in FAIRLY TAKING HIS STANCE.In the year 2005, I was officiating as a IGU referee in the Coimbatore amateur event. On the par 5 , 5th hole, Lt col. Lakhra missed his approach shot to the green and his ball was close to an ant hill and a sapling.The local rule did not provide free relief for ant hills or sapling.Consequently, I denied his request for relief for both conditions. Then,while taking his stance, he stepped on the sapling and broke it, thus unintentionally improving his area of intended stance.I was forced to impose a penalty of 2 strokes on the player under R 13-2, since he had not taken his stance in the least intrusive manner -a principle enunciated in Decision 13-2/1. He could have gone around the sapling in fairly taking his stance and causing minimum improvement.
Another common occurrence is the improvement in area of intended swing while taking practice swings.Knocking off leaves while taking practice swing is a common scene.While, Decision 13-2/22 lays down guidelines indicating in some cases, knocking down one leaf will be an infringement while knocking down many leaves will not be. Players have of late realized this aspect and are careful. In the recently concluded Eagleton Juniors, I have to dock 2 strokes penalty to Majumdar when his pracice swing dislodged a cluster of leaves on the 7th hole,In my opinion and I was in a good position to observe the incident, he improved his area of intended swing and hence the penalty. Players are well advised to stand quite a distance away when they take practice swings in such situations.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Rule 16-2 Ball Overhanging Hole
In the recently concluded South Zone Junior Golf tournament in Coimbatore, there was an interesting Rules incident. Samrat Basu teed off from the par three. 7th hole.His ball went to the left. His chip shot left the ball overhanging the hole.He walked to the ball, waited for ten seconds- the ball failed to fall into the hall. The player marked the ball and lifted it. Later, when it was his turn to putt, he replaced the ball and the ball went to the hole within 5 seconds.The player concluded he holed out with his previous stroke and submitted his card for a score of 2 for the hole without adding a penalty.
This incident was reported to me the next day.The player claimed that since after replacement of the ball, it fell into the hole within 5 seconds, he did not add a penalty stroke.This incident is explained in Decision 16-2/0.5.Since the player marked the ball, lifted it and then replaced it, the ball should be considered at rest. Under R 16-2,if a ball overhanging the hole does not fall within 10 seconds, the ball should be considered at rest.If the ball falls into hole after 10 seconds, the player is deemed to have holed out with previous stroke and he must add a penalty stroke.This decision was applied and the player was disqualified for submitting a lower score for the hole under R6-5d. If on the other hand, when a ball is not overhanging the hole-say it is about 6 inches away when replaced,and the wind blows the ball into the hole, he would have been right in determining his score as 2, without adding a penalty stroke( Decision--20-3d/1).
This incident was reported to me the next day.The player claimed that since after replacement of the ball, it fell into the hole within 5 seconds, he did not add a penalty stroke.This incident is explained in Decision 16-2/0.5.Since the player marked the ball, lifted it and then replaced it, the ball should be considered at rest. Under R 16-2,if a ball overhanging the hole does not fall within 10 seconds, the ball should be considered at rest.If the ball falls into hole after 10 seconds, the player is deemed to have holed out with previous stroke and he must add a penalty stroke.This decision was applied and the player was disqualified for submitting a lower score for the hole under R6-5d. If on the other hand, when a ball is not overhanging the hole-say it is about 6 inches away when replaced,and the wind blows the ball into the hole, he would have been right in determining his score as 2, without adding a penalty stroke( Decision--20-3d/1).
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Repair of damaged Hole
Last week-from 5th Dec to 8thDec,2007, Eagleton golf resort near Bangalore hosted the prestigious Ladies European Masters. I was one of the three Indian referees invited to officiate in the tournament. The ladies European Tour(LET) had three professional tournament administrators-Mark Vandy Broek,Andy Lott and Rowland Hill. It was a pleasure to learn from them about many aspects of tournament administration.
Eagleton was a simple course. There were few issues regarding rulings. Moreover, the ladies were well versed in application of rules, especially relief procedures. Most of our time was devoted to ensure pace of play guide lines.
The holes cut in Eagleton, due to nature of the soil, tended to fray at the edges, causing some problems to players and administrators.On hole no 5, the edges of the hole was slightly damaged, but the dimension of the hole was was not changed materially.Becker had a 4 foot putt. When she was lining her putt, her caddy try to smooth the edges of the hole.This was brought to my notice.The player and the caddie confirmed the incident.I imposed a penalty of 2 strokes to Becker for breach of R 16-1a., confirmed by decision 16-1a/6.
In another rare incident related to damaged hole, hole no 4 on the third day was found to be badly damaged, after a few groups have played that hole.the tour director Andy Lott authorized the relocation of the hole within a yard in a similar position-exception to R 33-2b.
Rules Ravi
Eagleton was a simple course. There were few issues regarding rulings. Moreover, the ladies were well versed in application of rules, especially relief procedures. Most of our time was devoted to ensure pace of play guide lines.
The holes cut in Eagleton, due to nature of the soil, tended to fray at the edges, causing some problems to players and administrators.On hole no 5, the edges of the hole was slightly damaged, but the dimension of the hole was was not changed materially.Becker had a 4 foot putt. When she was lining her putt, her caddy try to smooth the edges of the hole.This was brought to my notice.The player and the caddie confirmed the incident.I imposed a penalty of 2 strokes to Becker for breach of R 16-1a., confirmed by decision 16-1a/6.
In another rare incident related to damaged hole, hole no 4 on the third day was found to be badly damaged, after a few groups have played that hole.the tour director Andy Lott authorized the relocation of the hole within a yard in a similar position-exception to R 33-2b.
Rules Ravi
Monday, October 15, 2007
can wrong ball be a second ball
As most referees know well, many correct decisions hinge on clarity in definitions.In interpreting Rules of golf, definitions like Ball in play, wrong Ball, Second ball,Substituted ball, Provisional ball, original ball etc often shape correct decisions. sometimes, these definitions overlap. Decisions on Rules of Golf lays down cases and guidelines in determining overlapping cases.Tthe following case study illustrates the point.
Bangalore Golf Club, my Home club, conducts its flagship 4 day stroke play tournament-The MP Davis Cup.The cup is literally made of Gold and is the most coveted by the local golfers. David D'zouza, the veteran golfer, walks away with the cup most of the time.However, this year-2007-after leading by 9 strokes, he unfortunately got disqualified on the 4th hole on the final day under R 20-7c. He played from the wrong place, committed serious breach and did not correct before teeing off from next hole. He took a 2 club length penalty drop under R 28 for a ball lying OB instead of under R 27-1- stroke and distance . This left the field open for other lesser mortals.
Sathya prasad, one of the contenders, at he time of submitting the cards, reported the following facts:
His tee shot on the 17th landed in the woods.He went forward and searched for his ball for 3 minutes,asked others to continue the search and went back to the tee box declaring he is playing a provisional ball!.After playing the substituted ball, he then found his original ball within the 5 minute search period.As he was not sure about his rights, he declared the original ball as his second ball UNDER R 3-3 and the second ball ball to count, if rules permit. He holed out with both balls- scoring 3 with the substituted ball and 5 with the original ball declared as his second Ball.
Decision: As the referee in charge, I gave the following decision:
When he substituted his original ball and played a stroke, he has invoked R 27-1 and the substituted ball has become the Ball in play, in spite of his invalid declaration as provisional ball.Later, when he found the original ball, that ball was no longer a ball in Play and is technically a wrong ball by definition. Now, when he invoked R 3-3, can he declare the wrong Ball as his second Ball? .A second ball declared under R 3-3 cannot be a wrong Ball. A wrong Ball is also defined as an original Ball no longer in play as in the above case. Now, the guideline in determining the precedence and which definition overrides is given in Decision 26-1/5. It illustrates that once the player invokes, R 3-3( second ball), and holes out with 2 balls, the second ball definition overrides the wrong ball definition and the penalty of playing a wrong ball is not applicable. Hence, the player was credited with the score under R 27-1.That means- his valid score was 5(3+2) under the lost ball rule R-27-1. No additional penalty was levied for holing out with the original ball no longer in play.
Rules Ravi
Bangalore Golf Club, my Home club, conducts its flagship 4 day stroke play tournament-The MP Davis Cup.The cup is literally made of Gold and is the most coveted by the local golfers. David D'zouza, the veteran golfer, walks away with the cup most of the time.However, this year-2007-after leading by 9 strokes, he unfortunately got disqualified on the 4th hole on the final day under R 20-7c. He played from the wrong place, committed serious breach and did not correct before teeing off from next hole. He took a 2 club length penalty drop under R 28 for a ball lying OB instead of under R 27-1- stroke and distance . This left the field open for other lesser mortals.
Sathya prasad, one of the contenders, at he time of submitting the cards, reported the following facts:
His tee shot on the 17th landed in the woods.He went forward and searched for his ball for 3 minutes,asked others to continue the search and went back to the tee box declaring he is playing a provisional ball!.After playing the substituted ball, he then found his original ball within the 5 minute search period.As he was not sure about his rights, he declared the original ball as his second ball UNDER R 3-3 and the second ball ball to count, if rules permit. He holed out with both balls- scoring 3 with the substituted ball and 5 with the original ball declared as his second Ball.
Decision: As the referee in charge, I gave the following decision:
When he substituted his original ball and played a stroke, he has invoked R 27-1 and the substituted ball has become the Ball in play, in spite of his invalid declaration as provisional ball.Later, when he found the original ball, that ball was no longer a ball in Play and is technically a wrong ball by definition. Now, when he invoked R 3-3, can he declare the wrong Ball as his second Ball? .A second ball declared under R 3-3 cannot be a wrong Ball. A wrong Ball is also defined as an original Ball no longer in play as in the above case. Now, the guideline in determining the precedence and which definition overrides is given in Decision 26-1/5. It illustrates that once the player invokes, R 3-3( second ball), and holes out with 2 balls, the second ball definition overrides the wrong ball definition and the penalty of playing a wrong ball is not applicable. Hence, the player was credited with the score under R 27-1.That means- his valid score was 5(3+2) under the lost ball rule R-27-1. No additional penalty was levied for holing out with the original ball no longer in play.
Rules Ravi
Friday, August 24, 2007
Rule 13-4. Loose impediments in Hazard
Coimbatore golf course in South india is one of the toughest golf courses in India. Strong winds, not often seen in India, is the major factor to contend with. This golf course regularly hosts the Indian golf union categorised tournaments for the Amateurs.As this forms a regular part of the South India circuit, most of the top amateurs in the country participate in it.
An interesting Rules incident occurred in this championship, when I was officiating as a Referee.Shaurya Singh, one of the leading amateurs at that time, on a par 5 hole, hit his second shot into a lateral water hazard. The ball was partly covered by a leaf, a loose impediment, but the ball was clearly visible. The ball was also in a playable lie. The player removed the loose impediment and then belatedly realised that infringed R 13-4(c).He told his marker that he is proceeding under lateral water hazard rule 26-1c and took a penalty drop accordingly and completed the hole.The player thought by invoking R 26-1c, he will escape with a one stroke penalty under R26-1c rather than a 2 stroke penalty under R 13-4c, if he has played from the lateral hazard, after removing the loose impediment.
The above facts were reported to me before submission of score card.The player contented that he removed the leaf for identifying his ball. After confirmation that the ball was his, he decided that his better option was to take a penalty drop under R 26-1c. Hence, he pleaded that he should be docked only 1 stroke penalty under R 26-1c.
Referees Decision: After weighing in all evidence from the player, marker, caddies and others, I imposed a penalty of three strokes for the player for hole no 5. The Ball was in play, when the player removed the loose impdiment in the hazard. The player was not entitled to identify his ball in a hazard as claimed by him( R 12-2).Also, even if the ball was not his( wrong ball), he still incurs the 2 stroke penalty( Decision 13-4/16). Moreover, he cannot escape the penalty incurred under r 13-4c by proceeding under R 26-1c( Decision 13-4/17) Hence, he was imposed a penalty of 2 strokes under R13-4c and 1 stroke underR 26-1c, totalling three strokes for his action.
Rules Ravi
An interesting Rules incident occurred in this championship, when I was officiating as a Referee.Shaurya Singh, one of the leading amateurs at that time, on a par 5 hole, hit his second shot into a lateral water hazard. The ball was partly covered by a leaf, a loose impediment, but the ball was clearly visible. The ball was also in a playable lie. The player removed the loose impediment and then belatedly realised that infringed R 13-4(c).He told his marker that he is proceeding under lateral water hazard rule 26-1c and took a penalty drop accordingly and completed the hole.The player thought by invoking R 26-1c, he will escape with a one stroke penalty under R26-1c rather than a 2 stroke penalty under R 13-4c, if he has played from the lateral hazard, after removing the loose impediment.
The above facts were reported to me before submission of score card.The player contented that he removed the leaf for identifying his ball. After confirmation that the ball was his, he decided that his better option was to take a penalty drop under R 26-1c. Hence, he pleaded that he should be docked only 1 stroke penalty under R 26-1c.
Referees Decision: After weighing in all evidence from the player, marker, caddies and others, I imposed a penalty of three strokes for the player for hole no 5. The Ball was in play, when the player removed the loose impdiment in the hazard. The player was not entitled to identify his ball in a hazard as claimed by him( R 12-2).Also, even if the ball was not his( wrong ball), he still incurs the 2 stroke penalty( Decision 13-4/16). Moreover, he cannot escape the penalty incurred under r 13-4c by proceeding under R 26-1c( Decision 13-4/17) Hence, he was imposed a penalty of 2 strokes under R13-4c and 1 stroke underR 26-1c, totalling three strokes for his action.
Rules Ravi
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)