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.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
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.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Provisional Ball
Many club level golfers and juniors sometimes fail to understand the finer points of the provisional ball procedures and options. The procedures are listed in Rule 27-2.Some of the most common errors made are:
a) The player will not clearly announce to the marker/fellow competitor that he is playing a provisional ball: In this case, he has put another ball in play, under stroke and distance of Rule 27-1.
b)When the player thinks that his ball may be Out of Bounds or lost(outside a water hazard), he will go forward to search for the ball and then come back and play another ball stating that he is playing a provisional ball. Once he has gone forward to search for his original ball, he has lost his right to play a provisional ball.Again,he is deemed to have invoked the stroke and distance option of Rule 27-1.It does not make any difference, even if the original ball is found within the 5 minute search period, once he has put another ball in play after going forward to search for it.
c) The main purpose of provisional ball is to save time.Many players play a provisional ball which may strike a tree and fall 150 yards short of the likely place of the original ball.They will walk forward to search for the original ball and if they do not find it, come back and continue with the provisional ball, wasting a lot of time.They are permitted to play as many strokes with the provisional ball till they reach the likely area of the original ball. Then they can search for the original ball for 5 minutes.
In certain circumstances, the player can exercise his option not to search for the original ball.For example, in a par 3 hole, if his tee shot may be lost in the woods, he plays a provisional and the provisional may land a few inches from the hole for a tap in 4. He can exercise this option, provided he taps in before his opponent or anybody else finds the original ball.
We had an interesting episode in my home club BGC in a tournament.One of the players in contention for the handicap title, teed off from Hole no 11, the most difficult long par 4 hole. His ball went towards a large garden area called as Kirloskar Hut, marked as GUR. There was a wooded area adjacent to this hut, but outside the marked GUR.The player felt the ball may be lost and rightly played his provisional, hit the sweet spot and it went soaring for 300 yards.Meanwhile, one of the sub committee members who was teeing of Hole no 10, saw the original ball land near a bush in the GUR garden.He conveyed this information to the player when they crossed each other.The player searched for the ball for 5 minutes, but could not find it.So, he continued with the provisional which became the ball in play . He completed the hole, finished his round and submitted his score.
When the sub committee member was apprised of this fact,he felt that the player had deliberately avoided proper search of his original ball.He interpreted that the player had played a wrong ball when he holed out with the provisional ball, not corrected his mistake and hence disqualified.
In this case,he was verbally informed by the sub committee member that his original ball was in some bush. the ball was not pin pointed or the spot specified, except for the approximate location.The player did search for his ball for 5 minutes.There was no concrete evidence that the player had deliberately not searched for the ball.At best It can be concluded it was virtually certain that the ball was lost in GUR.Decision 27-2c/1.5 indicates that the player in such a situation has the option of proceeding under R 27-2b with the provisional ball or under R 25-1c(i) when it is virtually certain that the ball is lost in GUR.Even with a good shot, he was still 3 off the tee and most certainly, he would have been in an equally good, if not better position, with the original ball.The sub committee member had given a wrong ruling. But, it was too late to correct as the player did not make a timely appeal.
a) The player will not clearly announce to the marker/fellow competitor that he is playing a provisional ball: In this case, he has put another ball in play, under stroke and distance of Rule 27-1.
b)When the player thinks that his ball may be Out of Bounds or lost(outside a water hazard), he will go forward to search for the ball and then come back and play another ball stating that he is playing a provisional ball. Once he has gone forward to search for his original ball, he has lost his right to play a provisional ball.Again,he is deemed to have invoked the stroke and distance option of Rule 27-1.It does not make any difference, even if the original ball is found within the 5 minute search period, once he has put another ball in play after going forward to search for it.
c) The main purpose of provisional ball is to save time.Many players play a provisional ball which may strike a tree and fall 150 yards short of the likely place of the original ball.They will walk forward to search for the original ball and if they do not find it, come back and continue with the provisional ball, wasting a lot of time.They are permitted to play as many strokes with the provisional ball till they reach the likely area of the original ball. Then they can search for the original ball for 5 minutes.
In certain circumstances, the player can exercise his option not to search for the original ball.For example, in a par 3 hole, if his tee shot may be lost in the woods, he plays a provisional and the provisional may land a few inches from the hole for a tap in 4. He can exercise this option, provided he taps in before his opponent or anybody else finds the original ball.
We had an interesting episode in my home club BGC in a tournament.One of the players in contention for the handicap title, teed off from Hole no 11, the most difficult long par 4 hole. His ball went towards a large garden area called as Kirloskar Hut, marked as GUR. There was a wooded area adjacent to this hut, but outside the marked GUR.The player felt the ball may be lost and rightly played his provisional, hit the sweet spot and it went soaring for 300 yards.Meanwhile, one of the sub committee members who was teeing of Hole no 10, saw the original ball land near a bush in the GUR garden.He conveyed this information to the player when they crossed each other.The player searched for the ball for 5 minutes, but could not find it.So, he continued with the provisional which became the ball in play . He completed the hole, finished his round and submitted his score.
When the sub committee member was apprised of this fact,he felt that the player had deliberately avoided proper search of his original ball.He interpreted that the player had played a wrong ball when he holed out with the provisional ball, not corrected his mistake and hence disqualified.
In this case,he was verbally informed by the sub committee member that his original ball was in some bush. the ball was not pin pointed or the spot specified, except for the approximate location.The player did search for his ball for 5 minutes.There was no concrete evidence that the player had deliberately not searched for the ball.At best It can be concluded it was virtually certain that the ball was lost in GUR.Decision 27-2c/1.5 indicates that the player in such a situation has the option of proceeding under R 27-2b with the provisional ball or under R 25-1c(i) when it is virtually certain that the ball is lost in GUR.Even with a good shot, he was still 3 off the tee and most certainly, he would have been in an equally good, if not better position, with the original ball.The sub committee member had given a wrong ruling. But, it was too late to correct as the player did not make a timely appeal.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Obstructions-Rule 24
Many golfers are fairly clear about immovable obstructions and the relief procedures.But, when it comes to movable obstructions and Rule 24-1, many golfers get confused about the relief procedures.Relief under Rule 24-1 is one of the most liberal grants given by R&A to golfers with the least number of restrictions.You will not get relief for immovable obstructions/abnormal ground conditions nor can you touch or remove loose impediments in a water hazard.In a bunker,you cannot touch or remove loose impediments.Also, for free relief for immovable obstructions/abnormal ground conditions in a bunker, the ball has to be dropped in the bunker. A movable obstruction can be moved in a bunker, in a water hazard and even if it is located Out of Bounds. The only restriction imposed is that a player cannot move a movable obstruction when it will influence the movement of the ball.The equipment of any player and flagstick(when attended, held up or removed) are exempted.
The confusion arises when a ball is resting against or in/on a movable obstruction.
In the recently concluded South Zone Junior golf tournament at Eagleton, I was officiating as a referee.This preparatory tournament is the brainchild of Vijay Divecha and his initiatives has put some of the Southern India golfers in the top rung of the national circuit.His wards include Abhishek Jha, Anirbhan Lahiri, Chikka Rangappa and others. Many of the youngsters in this South Zone tournament are raw, but very eager and enthusiastic to learn.One such player encountered a situation when his ball was resting against a rake placed close, but outside the bunker.He was not clear about the procedure and a referee could not be contacted immediately.He marked the ball,picked up the ball first and then removed the Rake!Then, he replaced the ball. As his fellow competitors expressed some doubts about this procedure,he opted to play two balls under R 3-3.He dropped the second ball under the spot where it lay. He completed the hole with both the balls and reported the facts to the committee.
As the second ball did not comply with the procedure laid out in R 24-1, the score was ignored.The score with the original ball was taken and a penalty of 1 stroke was added, because he lifted the ball when not permitted by rule and breached R 18-2.
When a ball is resting against a movable obstruction, the obstruction may be removed(NOT THE BALL) and if the ball moves, it must be replaced.If the ball lies in or on an obstruction,the ball may be lifted, obstruction removed. The ball must be dropped under the spot where it originally lay.
The confusion arises when a ball is resting against or in/on a movable obstruction.
In the recently concluded South Zone Junior golf tournament at Eagleton, I was officiating as a referee.This preparatory tournament is the brainchild of Vijay Divecha and his initiatives has put some of the Southern India golfers in the top rung of the national circuit.His wards include Abhishek Jha, Anirbhan Lahiri, Chikka Rangappa and others. Many of the youngsters in this South Zone tournament are raw, but very eager and enthusiastic to learn.One such player encountered a situation when his ball was resting against a rake placed close, but outside the bunker.He was not clear about the procedure and a referee could not be contacted immediately.He marked the ball,picked up the ball first and then removed the Rake!Then, he replaced the ball. As his fellow competitors expressed some doubts about this procedure,he opted to play two balls under R 3-3.He dropped the second ball under the spot where it lay. He completed the hole with both the balls and reported the facts to the committee.
As the second ball did not comply with the procedure laid out in R 24-1, the score was ignored.The score with the original ball was taken and a penalty of 1 stroke was added, because he lifted the ball when not permitted by rule and breached R 18-2.
When a ball is resting against a movable obstruction, the obstruction may be removed(NOT THE BALL) and if the ball moves, it must be replaced.If the ball lies in or on an obstruction,the ball may be lifted, obstruction removed. The ball must be dropped under the spot where it originally lay.
Lifting Ball-Assisting/interfering(Rule 22)
My home club Bangalore Golf Club recently conducted its flagship MP Davis Cup. This is the only 4 day stroke play event of the club.The club makes all efforts to invite a strong field. David D'zouza, the evergreen hero of all Bangalore golfers, normally walks away with this coveted gold cup, except on a few rare occasions.
This year the field had a string of promising youngsters like Khalin Joshi, Trishul Chinnappa,Chikka Rangappa, Somiah and others. Khalin Joshi cantered away to a good start and maintained the tempo on all the days.On the final day, he had a clear lead and the Davis cup was almost in his pocket. Meanwhile, David D'zouza, after a poor start, clawed back. He was bracketed with Khalin and Trishul in the leader group for the final round draw.
David is still one of the fastest players in the circuit. Trishul is a trifle slow. He had some hiccups with his short putts on day 2 and 3.Since, he had a good chance of ending up as a runner up, he was taking his time on the greens. on hole no 14, David was already on the putting green, about 25 feet from the hole. Trishl's approach shot rested on the green but on the opposite side of the hole. He was walking towards his ball to mark it. David lost his patience, did not wait for Trishul to mark and putted.The ball missed the hole and was veering close towards Trishul's ball. Trishul ran and marked and lifted his ball. David and Trishul confirmed that David's ball did not touch the other ball and Trishul marked and lifted his ball just after David's ball came to a stop.Trishul was lucky. If he had lifted his ball before the other ball had come to a stop, he would have incurred a penalty of 2 strokes for breach of Rule 22 which prohibits a player to lift his ball when another ball is in motion. Even though Trishul ran to lift his ball with the good intention of saving a 2 stroke penalty for David( breach of Rule 19-5), Trishul himself would have suffered for his good Samaritan act,if he had lifted his ball a few seconds earlier before the other ball came to rest. I cautioned Trishul to avoid such approach in future.
Decision 16-1b/2 gives an interesting variation of the above scenario.If the player had initially lifted his ball under R 16-1b,replaces his ball and then realizes that another ball struck from the putting green will collide with his ball, he can lift his ball again with impunity. This second lifting is considered as an extension of his initial lifting under R 16-1b and overrides R 22.
This year the field had a string of promising youngsters like Khalin Joshi, Trishul Chinnappa,Chikka Rangappa, Somiah and others. Khalin Joshi cantered away to a good start and maintained the tempo on all the days.On the final day, he had a clear lead and the Davis cup was almost in his pocket. Meanwhile, David D'zouza, after a poor start, clawed back. He was bracketed with Khalin and Trishul in the leader group for the final round draw.
David is still one of the fastest players in the circuit. Trishul is a trifle slow. He had some hiccups with his short putts on day 2 and 3.Since, he had a good chance of ending up as a runner up, he was taking his time on the greens. on hole no 14, David was already on the putting green, about 25 feet from the hole. Trishl's approach shot rested on the green but on the opposite side of the hole. He was walking towards his ball to mark it. David lost his patience, did not wait for Trishul to mark and putted.The ball missed the hole and was veering close towards Trishul's ball. Trishul ran and marked and lifted his ball. David and Trishul confirmed that David's ball did not touch the other ball and Trishul marked and lifted his ball just after David's ball came to a stop.Trishul was lucky. If he had lifted his ball before the other ball had come to a stop, he would have incurred a penalty of 2 strokes for breach of Rule 22 which prohibits a player to lift his ball when another ball is in motion. Even though Trishul ran to lift his ball with the good intention of saving a 2 stroke penalty for David( breach of Rule 19-5), Trishul himself would have suffered for his good Samaritan act,if he had lifted his ball a few seconds earlier before the other ball came to rest. I cautioned Trishul to avoid such approach in future.
Decision 16-1b/2 gives an interesting variation of the above scenario.If the player had initially lifted his ball under R 16-1b,replaces his ball and then realizes that another ball struck from the putting green will collide with his ball, he can lift his ball again with impunity. This second lifting is considered as an extension of his initial lifting under R 16-1b and overrides R 22.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)