In the recent past as a referee, I was involved in a series of incidents involving flag stick.I was officiating as a referee in the recently concluded western India Juniors.I was assisted by two other referees. However, these two gentlemen were not full time referees and had other preoccupations.As a result, they have not updated with the latest changes in Rules and Decisions.
One of the referees noted that on the putting green, a player played a stroke and the ball in motion was heading towards the flastick removed and lying on the ground.He directed one of the fellow competitors to move the flagstick. The referee wanted to apply a penalty of 2 strokes under Rule 24-1. He was checking with me if the player or the fellow competitor incurs the penalty. I pointed out the amendments made in 2008 which exempts under Rule 24-1, movement of a flagstick when removed.Also, under Rule 17-2,the competitor is exempted since he moved the flagstick under the direction and knowledge of the player.
This brings up the question of updating and upgrading the knowledge of practicing referees.I am glad to note that IGU, the apex body of golf in India and R&A are working on this aspect.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Virtual Certainty
The 2008 Rules replaced the term reasonable evidence with virtual certainty. I was one of the referees for the western India Juniors in Pune.Aditya Suneja hit his tee shot which landed in the first cut and the landing was confirmed by all the players in the group. When he went to the ball, he could not find it , even after searching for 5 minutes.I was called at this stage. Inquiries revealed that nobody saw any crow picking up the ball. The fore caddy who was stationed also confirmed the landing of the ball, but did not know what happened afterwards.I applied rule 18-1 which demands knowledge or virtual certainty of the movement of the ball and not the landing. Otherwise , if the ball is not found, Rule 27-1 applies. As the case failed the test of virtual certainty and also the fact that this virtual certainty could not be confirmed within the 5 minute period,the stroke and distance 27-1 was applied.This displeased the player, but that was the only correct ruling applicable.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Flagstick----Double whammy
This incident occurred sometime in December, 2007 before the new rules came into effect from 1st January, 2008.The Western India Junior tournament was held in Bombay Presidency Golf course( BPGC). The final round leader pack consisted of the cream of the Indian junior golfers-Rashid Khan, Chikkarangappa and Rahul Bakshi. Rashid Khan was a clear leader and presiding over the concluding rites.The Indian Junior circuit has the stipulation that players shall not have caddies.On the 220 yard par 17th hole, Rashid,s tee shot was on the green, but nearly 30 feet from the flag fixed diabolically on the slopes on the top edge of the green.
Rashid removed the flagstick, put it on the edge of the green. His put was firm and the green was fast and sloping. The ball was careening towards the flagstick, after missing the hole.This was a double whammy situation-if the ball hits the removed flagstick, a 2 stroke penalty and if he moves the flagstick lying on the ground also a 2 stroke penalty under the then applicable rule. Rashid Khan was not aware of the implication of moving the flagstick lying on the ground. When he realized that the ball was heading towards the flagstick lying on the ground, he raced towards the flagstick and removed it. When informed, he still incurred the 2 stroke penalty under the then rule 24-1, he was crestfallen. Rule 24-1 is now amended with effect from 1-1-2008 to allow a removed flagstick to be moved when a ball is in motion.
Rashid removed the flagstick, put it on the edge of the green. His put was firm and the green was fast and sloping. The ball was careening towards the flagstick, after missing the hole.This was a double whammy situation-if the ball hits the removed flagstick, a 2 stroke penalty and if he moves the flagstick lying on the ground also a 2 stroke penalty under the then applicable rule. Rashid Khan was not aware of the implication of moving the flagstick lying on the ground. When he realized that the ball was heading towards the flagstick lying on the ground, he raced towards the flagstick and removed it. When informed, he still incurred the 2 stroke penalty under the then rule 24-1, he was crestfallen. Rule 24-1 is now amended with effect from 1-1-2008 to allow a removed flagstick to be moved when a ball is in motion.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Flagstick
Today was the final day of the South India Ladies Golf. My Home Club Bangalore Golf Club, was hosting this tournament. Our Ladies section led by Uma Maney , ably assisted by Bina Sridhar and Suparna Mahesh organized the tournament very well. Hats off to them, all the more for the reason that this is their first major effort.
I was given the responsibility of conduct of the tournament proper as Tournament Director. I was ably supported by Dasharathy and Krishna Prasad.
Gowri Monga won the tournament hands down with hardly any challenge.The ladies were required to tee off from the mens tee, as our course was short.Some of our local girls found it really tough.
The tournament went off without any major Rules incidents. However, an innocuous incident on the 17th green needs to be reported.On this par 5 hole, Maher Atwal, related to our reputed Indian Golfer, Arjun Atwal,chipped from the edge of the green.The ball missed the hole narrowly by a few inches, went past the hole and was still moving when the caddie of Gurbani singh, a fellow competitor in the leader group, pulled out the flagstick. As I was the referee with the leader group, I had observed this incident and after completion of the hole, investigated further with the concerned players. It was established that the caddie was not authorized to attend the flagstick.As the ball was drifting slowly past the hole, he just pulled out the flagstick.
I have to resolve the issue if the fellow competitor-Gurbani Singh was in breach of Rule 17-2-a penalty of 2 strokes.This breach is one of the few instances where the fellow competitor incurs a penalty in stroke play.In most cases, he escapes with the status of outside agency. Rule 17-2 condones this breach, if it does not influence the movement of the ball. If the caddie had removed the flagstick, before it crossed the hole, Gurbani would have incurred 2 stroke penalty, as there was a chance for the ball to hit the flagstick.This view is also supported by decision 17-2/2.
This incident also reminds me of another flagstick ruling where the Junior champion Rashid Khan was involved in BPGC. I will post this separately, if not done already.
I was given the responsibility of conduct of the tournament proper as Tournament Director. I was ably supported by Dasharathy and Krishna Prasad.
Gowri Monga won the tournament hands down with hardly any challenge.The ladies were required to tee off from the mens tee, as our course was short.Some of our local girls found it really tough.
The tournament went off without any major Rules incidents. However, an innocuous incident on the 17th green needs to be reported.On this par 5 hole, Maher Atwal, related to our reputed Indian Golfer, Arjun Atwal,chipped from the edge of the green.The ball missed the hole narrowly by a few inches, went past the hole and was still moving when the caddie of Gurbani singh, a fellow competitor in the leader group, pulled out the flagstick. As I was the referee with the leader group, I had observed this incident and after completion of the hole, investigated further with the concerned players. It was established that the caddie was not authorized to attend the flagstick.As the ball was drifting slowly past the hole, he just pulled out the flagstick.
I have to resolve the issue if the fellow competitor-Gurbani Singh was in breach of Rule 17-2-a penalty of 2 strokes.This breach is one of the few instances where the fellow competitor incurs a penalty in stroke play.In most cases, he escapes with the status of outside agency. Rule 17-2 condones this breach, if it does not influence the movement of the ball. If the caddie had removed the flagstick, before it crossed the hole, Gurbani would have incurred 2 stroke penalty, as there was a chance for the ball to hit the flagstick.This view is also supported by decision 17-2/2.
This incident also reminds me of another flagstick ruling where the Junior champion Rashid Khan was involved in BPGC. I will post this separately, if not done already.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Rule 3-3- Ball to Count
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)