Searching for Ball- Rule 12

                                 Searching For Ball- Rule 12
Referees who have attended the R&A Rules schools are familiar with the opening presentation. It covers Rule 12 and Rule 13. It is obvious that R&A considers adequate emphasis should be given to these two rules.
Many players are also not fully aware of the finer points of Rule 12. While searching,the player is given some leeway in bending grasses and bushes but he is not exonerated for moving a ball, except in some special circumstances.While searching,Rule 18-2a still applies.In stroke play, if the ball is moved by player/his caddie while searching, penalty is applicable.This penalty is exempt while searching for a ball believed to be covered by sand anywhere on the course including bunker.
Many players believe they are exempt from Rule 18-2a  while searching for a ball in a water hazard. In one such incident in the recent Pro event at Aambi valley, the caddie of the player moved the ball while searching for it in a water hazard. He was instructed to replace the ball and docked one stroke penalty under Rule 18-2a. The penalty is exempted only in a situation where the ball is believed to be lying in water in a water hazard and the ball is moved while probing for it.
Penalty is also now applicable for moving a ball while searching for it believed to be covered by loose impediments.Exemption applies only for replacement of loose impediments under Rule 12-1b.
One other exception for moving a ball while searching relates to ball within obstruction and abnormal ground condition.
The moral of the story- while searching for a ball, the player and his caddie should be extremely careful.He should encourage his fellow competitors and their caddies to to the active searching.

Virtual Certainty

                                                                     Virtual Certainty

Though decision 26-1/1 explains how to apply the term known or virtually certain, it is one of the most difficult exercises for referees. The gathering of evidence in India is mostly limited to getting it from players, caddies, and if available, fore caddies  We do not have a crew of photographers or spectators to support with credible evidence.

This situation was highlighted in the recent Poona Club PGTI event. On hole 11, we had marked a very large area as GUR. A player’s tee shot hit an adjacent tree. The ball could not be found. When I reached the spot, the search was in the GUR area. The player informed me that according to the fore caddie  the ball hit the tree and fell in the GUR area. Nobody else has seen the ball hitting the tree and the dropping of the ball. I was almost convinced that it was virtually certain that the ball not found was in the GUR. However, on persistent questioning the fore caddie changed his version. He could only confirm that the ball hit the tree which was bordering the GUR. He was about 75 yards away. He was not certain about the ball falling in the GUR area. The area close to the GUR area also had thick roughs. This revised evidence of the fore caddie changed the status drastically. The evidence did not pass the test of virtual certainty. I had no choice but to ask the player to proceed under stroke and distance Rule 27.

In another incident at Aamby valley, on hole 12, par 5, the 125 yard third shot of a player sailed over the green. A high ridge was bordering the green. Beyond the Green was a narrow strip marked as Lateral water Hazard. The depth of this hazard was about 5 yards. The water hazard was closing on a short metal fence which was the margin of the Out of Bounds. The player could not find his ball in the water hazard. The hazard did not have water but only contained thick grass. The player wanted to proceed under the water hazard Rule 26. I denied the request as it was not virtually certain that the ball not found was in the water hazard. It may be in the water hazard or it may have gone Out of Bounds which was close by. Nobody has seen the ball landing in the water hazard because of the contour and high ridge surrounding the green. The Player was required to proceed under lost ball Rule 27.

Another fellow referee who was officiating in the same tournament made a player to proceed under Rule 26 and dropped a ball at the point of entry of the lateral water hazard margin. After dropping and stroke played, the ball was found in the Out of bounds fenced area which was close to the lateral water hazard.

These incidents highlight that the test of virtual certainty has to very strict. It will be hard on the players. The R&A has good reasons for shifting the weight of evidence from reasonable to virtual certainty.

Ball sitting on a Broken Bottle-Rule 24-1

           Ball sitting on a Broken bottle                                           

Aamby valley is one of the most picturesque golf courses in the country. As per the current trend, this private Golf course is a designer course and ideal for major championship. PGTI recently hosted its player’s tournament and attracted a full field. The Delhi lad Vinod Kumar won the tournament. The Course had a good mix of water hazards, pot bunkers, roughs and a manicured fairway. We had a few interesting Rules incidents involving many referees.

I was called for a ruling involving a relief for ball lying on a movable obstruction. His ball was sitting on a broken glass bottle. The glass bottle was partly embedded in the ground. As per Rule 24-1, I asked the player to lift the ball, remove the glass bottle. The player then dropped the ball directly under the spot where the glass bottle lay. The ball came to rest on the old depression created by the removal of the embedded bottle. The player now demanded relief for embedded ball under Rule 25-2 and decision 25-2/2. The relief was denied as the ball did not get embedded as a result of impact created by the dropped ball but came to rest only on the old depression made by the removal of the bottle.

    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.