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 But Mickey had a different view, since the last part of decision 33-8/27 states that such an exception can be made or rescinded between rounds, if the competition is played over one round.He opined that the pre condition of flooding before competition is applicable for a single round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.

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.

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.

CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION

Tournament Administrators should be very careful and take meticulous care in framing conditions of competition. Care less and casual listing of condition of competition in the flagship All India Amateur Tournament in Kolkatta created an avoidable controversy. The conditions were drafted by the tournament director Mr.Krishna Prasad, who does not know the basics of Rules of Golf and muddles through one mistake after another.He does not understand that the definition of Rules includes conditions of competition.He should have consulted a rules official before finalizing the conditions.
The All India Amateur is the final closing event for the season and carries maximum weight for rankings. It is two round stroke play,qualifying match play event.One of the conditions prohibited practice between rounds as per Rule 7-2.The condition did not specify that the prohibition was limited to the 2 round of stroke play. Reena Singh and I were the official referees for the event. The tournament director insisted that practice putting will be allowed for match play.I referred to decision 33-1/1 which prohibited alterations in conditions after start of competition. The definition of competition, in the present context, included the 2 rounds of stroke play qualifying and match play. My view was supported by Mr. Eashwar Achanta,who is the icon of all Indian referees. Mr. Achanta is the only Indian to have officiated as a referee in the British Open. In spite of his directive, the tournament director Mr. Krishna Prasad foolishly pasted a revised conditions of competition, permitting practice putting between holes, for match play. He instructed the referees to follow his diktat and he cannot go by the books, all the time. This raised a strong question of ethics for referees. After some thinking, I firmly told Mr. Prasad that his alteration is illegal and fails the test of application of Rules of Golf. Reena and I will not apply the revised permission for practice between holes. We will enforce the penalties applicable under R 7-2, if we observe any breach or if any claim is made.Mr. Prasad lost his temper, shouted that that he will remove me forthwith as a referee. I kept my composure and cool, since I do do not report to Mr. Prasad and function independently under IGU. Mr. Achanta and Mr. Luthra, the then chairman of championship committee of IGU and present president of IGU have to intervene and restore the original conditions of competition, prohibiting practice between holes. Mr.Prasad once again looked sheepish.Mr. Pawan Kumar in 1sr round of match play and Mr. Shoel in the finals incurred the penalties under R 7-2.Mr. Shoel of Bangladesh was the eventual winner on the 38th hole.
This incident highlights the role of a tournament director. I am in the panel of referees for PGTI, the Indian pro golf tour.I work under the direction of Mr. Sampathchari.I strongly feel that he is the ideal role model for a good tournament director. He is a dedicated and hard worker, puts in 12 hours of work, has a strong and practical knowledge of rules, is on the field most of the time. His pin positions are balanced, course set up and markings excellent. It is not a surprise that his operations executives and referees respond in kind and a fine team work could be seen in all PGTI events. Mr. Prasad, most of the times comes one hour late, makes a courtesy round of the course, does not dirty his hand with field supervision or course check ups. He has got the cheek to play golf when the tournaments are going on. All the IGU council members were taken back when the quarter final and finals were on, the tournament director was playing a high stake betting 4 ball.I have raised strong objections to the extension of contract for Mr. Prasad as a tournament director.

Flagstick Saga

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.

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.

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.