Dropping Ball on the Putting Green

Normally, Referees are kept busy dealing with relief procedures-free or penalty. Seasoned players always call for a referee when one is readily available. If relief is taken with the consent of the Referee, the player is safe is from any subsequent consequences. Rule 34-2 gives fairly wide authority to the Referee.

Free relief under R 24-2 and R 25-1 details the relief procedure. The principle in this case is to determine the nearest point of relief which is related to the interference. Hence, a ball lying through the Green or on the teeing Ground, the nearest point should exclude hazards and the putting green. If a ball is in a bunker, the nearest point has to be in the bunker. No free relief is available under R 24-2 and R 25-1 for a ball in the water hazard/Lateral water hazard. If the ball is on the putting Green, the nearest point may be on or outside the Putting Green, not in a hazard and the ball must be placed. On the Putting Green, additionally, relief is also available for line of putt for R 24-2 and R 25-1

As far as Penalty drops are considered in R 26 and R 28, there is no concept of nearest point of relief. The flag line option for penalty relief under R 26 and R 28 and the two club length option under lateral water hazard relief in R 26 and R 28, gives a rare opportunity to a player to drop a ball on the Putting Green.

As a referee, I was itching to witness such a scene. At Prestige Golf shire, Hole 8 is ideally situated for such an event. The Putting Green borders a wide and long Water Hazard, marked lateral on the Greenside. It is a short par 4, if one carries the water. If one lays up, a wayward second shot will put the ball in the water. In the PGTI event concluded last month, one player landed in the water – his second shot. Part of the two club length relief was on the Putting Green. I was expecting him to drop on the Green, but he dropped just outside the green on the Apron and the ball rolled onto the Green .This provided an interesting ruling. Under R 20-2c (iii), if a dropped ball rolls onto the green, it has to be redropped. He redropped and again, it rolled onto the Green and then he placed the ball on the redropped spot. If he has first dropped the ball on the Putting Green and the ball has stayed on the green/ outside the green within two club lengths of the dropped spot, the ball would be in play.

However, in the Ladies WGAI event concluded yesterday at Prestige my dreams came true. On the same 8^th hole, one of the ladies encountered a similar situation. As she is also a qualified referee, she promptly dropped the ball on the green and the ball stayed on the green within two club lengths from the dropped spot. She proceeded to putt from there.

Obstructions

Most of the duties of Referees involve rulings on Obstructions(R 24) and Abnormal Ground Conditions(R 25-1). The hard card of the tours will specify Immovable Obstructions. The additional Local Rules issued for each tournament will detail and exhaustively list the immovable obstructions. It is a prudent practice not to list movable obstructions. This gives some flexibility to players. In many courses, yardage and Hazard stakes are usually movable, but a few odd stakes will be grouted hard. The player has the option to treat such grouted stakes as immovable.

In some cases, the status of the obstruction is not clear. It is the duty of the committee to clarify the status of such obstructions. Decision 24/3(concrete base of boundary fence), Decision 24/7(stone serving as part of drain in bunker) are some examples.

KGA is rated as the best course in the country. Serious negotiations are underway to hold the Indian Open in 2012. KGA is a delight for any Tournament Administrator. The course marking is excellent, Water Hazards are well staked on the natural contours, yardages done scientifically and indicated on sprinkler heads, boundaries well defined. However, two issues need to be addressed and clarified:

1.    Nylon Netting- whenever there is a strong wind, the nylon net located outside the course intrudes into the course and causes interference. After a lengthy debate, matter was referred to R&A who clarified that in such cases, the nylon net will be an immovable obstruction and R 24-2 will apply. PGTI incorporated this in the Local Rule.

2.    Loose stone lining in Water hazard: Most of the water hazards are lined with loose stones placed closely (not cemented). Since these cut stones are designed to act as retainer wall for the hazard, this can be treated as an immovable obstruction. The issue (and this did take place in the recent IGU Junior tournament) is if the player entitled to remove the loosely placed stones under R 24-1? I denied such a request since the stone was not meant/designed to be moved and constituted a part of an immovable obstruction. My ruling is supported by Decision 13-2/32, Decision 24/7. I ignored decision 24/6 as in that case, the stone has broken away and no longer a part of the immovable obstruction. My ruling would have been easier if the status of these loose stones acting as retainer wall of the hazard has been clarified in the Local rule of the competition.

Ball at Rest Moved by Outside Agency

The above rule stipulates that in order to apply this rule, it must be known or virtually certain that that an outside agency has moved the ball. In my home club, BGC, crows picking up the ball and flying away is a common occurrence. In KGA, eagles and kites used to flirt with the ball and move it a few paces. Of late, it is reported that the eagles/kites have also progressed to the habit of picking up the ball with their claws and carrying it away. At present, the southern regional IGU event for juniors is underway. On the par 5, 14th hole, the second stroke of a player was seen by all the players to be heading towards the centre of the fairway. When the player reached the area, he could not find the ball. He called for a ruling. After reaching the spot and ascertaining the facts, I enquired if any of the players in the group saw the ball at rest. The answer was in the negative as the distance was about 250 yards and there was a small gradient in the landing area. I further checked if they saw any eagles/kite in the area and the answer was again in the negative. The player claimed there was a dog nearby which was not corroborated by other players in the group. We checked with the group in front, who were probably on the green when the ball landed. We did not get any confirmation from the earlier group about seeing the ball at rest or the presence of any birds or dog. Under these circumstances, we concluded that the test of virtual certainty was not passed. It was ruled the player has to proceed under the ball lost rule 27-1. Evaluating if the situation meets the test of virtual certainty is subjective and a difficult exercise for referees. R&A’s curt phrase “It is a question of fact” is the core of a referee’s job. Most of the application of rules revolves around this principle. Till sometime back, in a situation like a crow picking up the ball, unless supported by an eyewitness, I used to reject such claims. But, R&A clarified that in situation where even if nobody has seen the outside agency move/lift the ball but if somebody has seen the ball at rest, and later could not be found, it could be concluded as virtually certain that an outside agency has moved the ball.

Ground under Repair

The Indian Golf union recently conducted one of their categorized junior tournaments in Clover Greens. Clover Greens has the ideal topography for a golf course. It is technically situated in Tamil Nadu, but we held our Karnataka Juniors there! Competition was limited and there were only about 45 players. Amalraj won his first title. The tournament did not have many rules incidents, except for a tricky ruling to be given on the final day. On the short par 4, 17th hole most of the players were cutting the dog leg to the right to go for the green. But, the green was protected by well placed bunkers. One of the boys from last 4 batches, landed his ball in the bunker. His ball was in a difficult lie created by the negligence of the green staff. They have trimmed the grass on the wall of the bunker and left a channel of sand in the bottom corner of the bunker. They have neglected to level the channel with sand. The player asked for a free relief. One of the few discretion a referee has is to declare a badly and unusual damaged area(even if not marked) as GUR ( decreed by Decision 33-2a/2.) I studied the situation and concluded that the damage was not excessive or extensive to declare the area as GUR, especially in a bunker. I denied relief to the player and he played a decent shot from the difficult lie. While this matter was settled, I was concerned about the following groups who may land in the same situation. I consulted the Tournament Director if we could tidy up the bunker. The tournament director told me to make my call. I noticed that the adjacent bunker was also in the same condition. I had no information how many other bunkers were in the same condition. I decided not to repair the bunker as will not be a level playing field for the majority of the players who have already concluded the hole. As it happened, another player in one of the leading groups landed almost in the same area in the bunker. I have to be consistent with my ruling and denied the requested relief. Regarding referee’s discretion to declare GUR, the normal protocol followed is to ensure that not many players in the earlier groups have landed in the same area. Also, we cross check with other officials if any player has been denied/given relief. If the area warrants to be declared as GUR and relief is given to one player, the rules official will ensure that it is immediately marked as GUR.

Ball in Motion Deflected

Recently, a rare incident occurred in a club level tournament in my home club-Bangalore Golf club(BGC). BGC was conducting a two day stroke play event “Centenary Cup”. The event attracted top local talent. I was called to the green of the par three hole no 6. It was reported that two players putted from the green and their balls collided in motion. I enquired whose turn it was to putt. They informed they did not check with each other and did not look at each other. Both of them assumed it was their turn to putt and did so almost simultaneously. There was a long debate and finally it was decided to measure. I measured from the respective original spots where the ball was. Finally, I informed one player who is a promising boy that he putted out of turn. I applied a two stroke penalty under R 16-1f- making a stroke while another ball in motion after a stroke from a putting green. In stroke play, normally there is no penalty if some player plays out of turn. This is one of the rare occasions when a penalty is imposed.
Also, the breach is applicable irrespective of the collision of the balls. I was so engrossed in determining the breach under R 16-1f and resolving the dispute about whose turn to putt, that I failed to give proper attention to the main breach- ball in motion deflected/stopped under R 19-5b. I permitted the players to complete the hole where the balls had come to rest a few feet from the hole. They did so and teed off from the next tee. As soon as they teed off, I realized that under R 19-5b, after a stroke from the putting green, if a ball in motion is deflected by another ball in motion, the stroke is cancelled and has to be replayed. In this case, both the players should have replayed the stroke.
As the breach was not serious and the competitors were not seriously disadvantaged and additionally they have also teed off from the next tee, as per decision 34-3/3.3 , the strokes made after the incorrect ruling stood and no penalties applied( for playing from a wrong place)
There is also an interesting sequel to this ruling. The young girl ,whose ball was the other ball involved in the collision ,checked with another senior international referee about the ruling. He interpreted that the young girl should have replayed the stroke but the boy who got the penalty under R 16-1f was not required to replay; the reasoning is if the stroke is cancelled under R 19-5b, the penalty under R 16-1f may not hold. The young girl who also did extremely well in the recent referee certification programme discussed this point with me. In my opinion, both players involved in the collision must replay the stroke as per R 19-5b. The penalty applied to the original stroke under R 16-1f is also valid, though the original stroke should have been cancelled and replayed. The note under R 19-5 specifies that nothing in this rule overrides the provisions of Rule 16-1f.

Rules School

The Indian Golf Union(IGU), the parent body for golf in India has taken a lot of initiatives in the recent past for golf development. IGU junior Coaching programs has yielded rich dividends and India has now some really promising talents in the asian circuit. Players like Anirbhan Lahiri, Bhullar were actively encouraged by the IGU junior development schemes.
IGU has now taken some keen initiatives to develop a strong team of Rules Officials. The first R&A Rules school was conducted in Delhi in 2003 and the next in 2007. As Golf is gaining more recognition in India, there is an increasing interest in learning about the Rules of Golf. The tournament administrators in the amateur and professional circuit require an efficient team of Rules officials. To cater to this need, IGU has collaborated with R&A to conduct atleast 3 Rules school every year in India. There will be a basic program, twice a year and an advanced course once a year. IGU concluded the two basic courses this year and received good response. The advance course will be in January, 2012.
IGU also recently concluded a program for rating of courses in collaboration with USGA. An intensive course for Greenkeepers is being conducted now in all the major cities.
IGU is moving in the right direction. These initiatives augur well for the future of Golf in India.

Virtual Certainty

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)