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)
Monday, June 27, 2011
Monday, June 20, 2011
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).
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.
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.
Monday, February 7, 2011
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.
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.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Unplayable Ball- Rule 28
Oxford Country and Golf Club is a spectacular golf course located just outside Pune close to the Pune- Mumbai highway. The course is located on a hilly terrain, with sloping curves and a lot of dog legs. Oxford recently hosted the Western India Amateur for men and ladies.
The main challenge the course posed was tall red grasses, just off the fairways. If a player missed the fairways, he is in big trouble as it is difficult to find the ball. Even, if the ball was found, it was mostly unplayable and the unplayable ball Rule 28 was invoked frequently. The tournament witnessed a lot of delays and the round was taking nearly 6 hours to finish due to these factors.
As a Rules Official, I was invoved in an interesting incident. The 9th hole of Oxford had a lot of fairway bunkers. In the middle of the bunker, there was a mound of the signature tall red grasses and this portion of tall red grass was considered as through the green. One of the leading women player in contention for the title, teed off from the 9th tee and landed smack in the core of the mound of tall red grasses, surrounded on all sides by the bunker. She declared the ball unplayable. As the ball was lying through the green, I indicated the three available options- back to previous shot, in line with flag and ball, any distance behind or 2 clublengths from the ball not nearer the hole. She chose the 2 clublengths option. As the mound of tall grasses was a small concentric circle with a diameter of about 1 feet and the bunker was intervening in the drop area, the player was under the impression, she can drop ouside the bunker(2 clublengths from the edge of the bunker). I corrected her and told her she can drop the ball in the bunker, must be within 2 clublengths from the ball. She was under the wrong notion that since the original ball was through the green, the drop also should be through the green.My ruling in this case is also supported by decision 28/4.
Many players have the same wrong notion. The free relief options for Rule 24-2(Immovable obstructions) and R 25-1(Abnormal Ground conditions) spell out specific relief procedures for a ball lying through the Green, a ball in a bunker or a ball on the Putting Green. In the case of a penalty drop for Unplayable ball under R 28, no such restrictions apply for a ball lying through the Green or on a Putting Green. The only restriction for the drop under R 28 is for a ball in the bunker-for the inline /2 clublength option, the ball must be dropped in the bunker.
The main challenge the course posed was tall red grasses, just off the fairways. If a player missed the fairways, he is in big trouble as it is difficult to find the ball. Even, if the ball was found, it was mostly unplayable and the unplayable ball Rule 28 was invoked frequently. The tournament witnessed a lot of delays and the round was taking nearly 6 hours to finish due to these factors.
As a Rules Official, I was invoved in an interesting incident. The 9th hole of Oxford had a lot of fairway bunkers. In the middle of the bunker, there was a mound of the signature tall red grasses and this portion of tall red grass was considered as through the green. One of the leading women player in contention for the title, teed off from the 9th tee and landed smack in the core of the mound of tall red grasses, surrounded on all sides by the bunker. She declared the ball unplayable. As the ball was lying through the green, I indicated the three available options- back to previous shot, in line with flag and ball, any distance behind or 2 clublengths from the ball not nearer the hole. She chose the 2 clublengths option. As the mound of tall grasses was a small concentric circle with a diameter of about 1 feet and the bunker was intervening in the drop area, the player was under the impression, she can drop ouside the bunker(2 clublengths from the edge of the bunker). I corrected her and told her she can drop the ball in the bunker, must be within 2 clublengths from the ball. She was under the wrong notion that since the original ball was through the green, the drop also should be through the green.My ruling in this case is also supported by decision 28/4.
Many players have the same wrong notion. The free relief options for Rule 24-2(Immovable obstructions) and R 25-1(Abnormal Ground conditions) spell out specific relief procedures for a ball lying through the Green, a ball in a bunker or a ball on the Putting Green. In the case of a penalty drop for Unplayable ball under R 28, no such restrictions apply for a ball lying through the Green or on a Putting Green. The only restriction for the drop under R 28 is for a ball in the bunker-for the inline /2 clublength option, the ball must be dropped in the bunker.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Water hazards and Bunkers
Rules and relief options are slightly different for a ball in a Water Hazard and in a Bunker. Rule 26 covers relief procedures for a ball in a Water Hazard or lateral water Hazard. Relief procedures for a ball in a bunker is covered under various applicable rules like R 24, R 25 etc. No specicic chapter has been allotted to Bunker situations. Rule 13-4 covers prohibited actions in a Hazard- both bunker and water hazards.
Some of the players wrongly assume the relief procedures are the same for a ball in a bunker or water hazard. Murthy, a seasoned player from Bangalore, playing in the recently concluded Tata Open pro event, found his ball lying in a water hazard. His ball was also close to a fixed metal pipe inside the water Hazard.He requested for a relief for the fixed pipe under R 24-2(Immovable Obstruction). I politely declined the relief and explained to Murthy that such relief is not available in a water hazard. He was under the wrong impression that as in a similar situation in a bunker, he would have got a free relief, though the ball has to be dropped in the bunker and he expected the same for a ball in a water hazard..
In general, no free relief is available under R24-2 or R 25, for a ball in a Water hazard/Lateral water hazard. The only relief available for a ball in a water hazard is that a movable obstruction can be moved under R 24-1, even if the ball is within the water hazard. This is another aspect which many players are unaware of and much of referee's time is spent on rulings on such issues. If the ball is in the water hazard, the player has to play the ball as it lies or proceed under Rule 26 with applicable penalty.
For a ball in a bunker, if there is interference under R 24-2(immovable obstruction) or under R 25-1(abnormal ground condition), he can get free relief but the ball has to be dropped in the bunker. If he wants to drop outside the bunker, he can do so in line with the ball but with a penalty stroke.
Another fine distinction between options in a bunker and water hazard is that a player cannot invoke R 28(Unplayable ball), if the ball is in a water hazard. he must proceed under R 26. If the ball is unplayable in a bunker, the player , with a penalty stroke, can drop 2 club lenghths or in line with the ball, but the ball must be dropped in the same bunker. He cal also go back to the spot of his previous stroke.
Some of the players wrongly assume the relief procedures are the same for a ball in a bunker or water hazard. Murthy, a seasoned player from Bangalore, playing in the recently concluded Tata Open pro event, found his ball lying in a water hazard. His ball was also close to a fixed metal pipe inside the water Hazard.He requested for a relief for the fixed pipe under R 24-2(Immovable Obstruction). I politely declined the relief and explained to Murthy that such relief is not available in a water hazard. He was under the wrong impression that as in a similar situation in a bunker, he would have got a free relief, though the ball has to be dropped in the bunker and he expected the same for a ball in a water hazard..
In general, no free relief is available under R24-2 or R 25, for a ball in a Water hazard/Lateral water hazard. The only relief available for a ball in a water hazard is that a movable obstruction can be moved under R 24-1, even if the ball is within the water hazard. This is another aspect which many players are unaware of and much of referee's time is spent on rulings on such issues. If the ball is in the water hazard, the player has to play the ball as it lies or proceed under Rule 26 with applicable penalty.
For a ball in a bunker, if there is interference under R 24-2(immovable obstruction) or under R 25-1(abnormal ground condition), he can get free relief but the ball has to be dropped in the bunker. If he wants to drop outside the bunker, he can do so in line with the ball but with a penalty stroke.
Another fine distinction between options in a bunker and water hazard is that a player cannot invoke R 28(Unplayable ball), if the ball is in a water hazard. he must proceed under R 26. If the ball is unplayable in a bunker, the player , with a penalty stroke, can drop 2 club lenghths or in line with the ball, but the ball must be dropped in the same bunker. He cal also go back to the spot of his previous stroke.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Club Selected for Play-Rule 4-4a
As said in earlier posts, many rulings hinge on the correct definition of various terms used in Rules of Golf. R &A is fairly precise in its definitions and tries its best to define as many terms as possible.R&A is also consistent in its terminology. However, a few terms which are not listed in the Rules definition chapter leaves the referees making their own interpretation. This was brought to focus in a recent rules incident at the Southern India Amateur event conducted by the Indian Golf Union in Eagleton.
Kelly Rao and Akhil Rao, who are brothers, were slated to play--Kelly, a 1st tee starter and Akhil, from Tee 10. Both were practicing on the range. One of Akhils club, a 9 iron, was by mistake put into Kellys bag. Unaware, Kelly started his round from tee 1 with 15 clubs. After about 15 minutes, Akhil started his round from tee 10 with 13 clubs.After Hole 4, Kelly to his consternation, noticed the 15th club, declared it out of play and was duly docked 4 strokes penalty under R 4-4. Kelly also sent through somebody the excess 9 iron back to his brother.Kelly Rao also confirmed that till the time of declaring it out of play, he has not played a ny stroke with the 9 iron.Akhil received his 9 iron back on hole 11 and completed hole 12, when I met him. He indicated that till completion of hole 12,he has not used the 9 iron to make any stroke.I advised him that he too may be liable for penalties and he should not use the 9 iron till the matter is clarified. Akhil handed over the 9 iron to me.
As the matter was complicated, the issue was discussed with the members of the tournament committee.Decision 4-4a/1 was the key to resolve the issue.The operative part of this decision relevant to the ruling states that a player, who starts the round with fewer than 14 clubs must not add any club SELECTED FOR PLAY BY ANY OTHER PERSON PLAYING ON THE COURSE.My interpretation of this decision was that Akhil will be breaching Rule 4-4a, since his brother(with or without intent0 selected the said 9 iron for play of his round.Two other referees, who are also members of the tournament committee ,interpreted that any club selected for play meant a player should have used the club to make a stroke. Since Kel;ly Rao has not used the club for making a stroke, Kelly has not selected the club for play. Hence, they concluded that Akhil could add his 9 iron as per provisions of Rule 4-4a and Decision 4-4a/1 without any breach. I argued that selection for play and use of club for making strokes are two different events.Making a stroke is not a necessary condition for "Selecting a club for Play", as per my interpretation.
The matter was referred to higher authorities and the tournament committee( which included me and other referees) decided in equity Akhil should be allowed to retrieve his club and use it without breach of R 4-4a. I was directed to return the 9 iron to Akhil and he was advised about the ruling of the tournament committee.
As I had some lingering doubts about the ruling, I referred the matter to R & A and sought an unofficial clarification. R & A clarified that Kelly has selected the 9 iron for play for his round( though by default) and since Akhil has also started his round, he cannot add the said 9 iron as his 14th club. Akhil could have added his 9 iron without breach, provided he had received his 9 iron back, before teeing off on hole 10.
Kelly Rao and Akhil Rao, who are brothers, were slated to play--Kelly, a 1st tee starter and Akhil, from Tee 10. Both were practicing on the range. One of Akhils club, a 9 iron, was by mistake put into Kellys bag. Unaware, Kelly started his round from tee 1 with 15 clubs. After about 15 minutes, Akhil started his round from tee 10 with 13 clubs.After Hole 4, Kelly to his consternation, noticed the 15th club, declared it out of play and was duly docked 4 strokes penalty under R 4-4. Kelly also sent through somebody the excess 9 iron back to his brother.Kelly Rao also confirmed that till the time of declaring it out of play, he has not played a ny stroke with the 9 iron.Akhil received his 9 iron back on hole 11 and completed hole 12, when I met him. He indicated that till completion of hole 12,he has not used the 9 iron to make any stroke.I advised him that he too may be liable for penalties and he should not use the 9 iron till the matter is clarified. Akhil handed over the 9 iron to me.
As the matter was complicated, the issue was discussed with the members of the tournament committee.Decision 4-4a/1 was the key to resolve the issue.The operative part of this decision relevant to the ruling states that a player, who starts the round with fewer than 14 clubs must not add any club SELECTED FOR PLAY BY ANY OTHER PERSON PLAYING ON THE COURSE.My interpretation of this decision was that Akhil will be breaching Rule 4-4a, since his brother(with or without intent0 selected the said 9 iron for play of his round.Two other referees, who are also members of the tournament committee ,interpreted that any club selected for play meant a player should have used the club to make a stroke. Since Kel;ly Rao has not used the club for making a stroke, Kelly has not selected the club for play. Hence, they concluded that Akhil could add his 9 iron as per provisions of Rule 4-4a and Decision 4-4a/1 without any breach. I argued that selection for play and use of club for making strokes are two different events.Making a stroke is not a necessary condition for "Selecting a club for Play", as per my interpretation.
The matter was referred to higher authorities and the tournament committee( which included me and other referees) decided in equity Akhil should be allowed to retrieve his club and use it without breach of R 4-4a. I was directed to return the 9 iron to Akhil and he was advised about the ruling of the tournament committee.
As I had some lingering doubts about the ruling, I referred the matter to R & A and sought an unofficial clarification. R & A clarified that Kelly has selected the 9 iron for play for his round( though by default) and since Akhil has also started his round, he cannot add the said 9 iron as his 14th club. Akhil could have added his 9 iron without breach, provided he had received his 9 iron back, before teeing off on hole 10.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)