Saucer Pass Stroke Ruled Illegal

James Lepp's saucer pass

It is not often that someone comes along with a revolutionary way to strike a golf ball; let’s not get into anchoring the putter or the Happy Gilmore stroke! But Canadian, James Lepp, did just that back in 2010. As a big ice hockey fan, he converted a commonly used hockey shot to chip balls from a tight fairway lie to the putting green. This was successfully demonstrated to the large and knowledgeable US TV golfing audience that followed last season’s ‘Big Break - Greenbrier’ on Golf Channel, during which Lepp used the his invented  short game stroke, which he named the ‘saucer pass’, to reach the final.

Here is a short video tutorial by James Lepp on the ‘saucer pass’ stroke;

 
If you are receiving this blog by email click here for the video.
 
Amongst the comments under this YouTube video is one from a poster named as, ‘USGARulesCommittee’ dated December 2012;

"In response to several inquiries, we have decided to comment on this video: The golf shot shown in the above video is -- in fact -- a 'push' and thus an illegal golf shot under the Rules of Golf. The USGA is also investigating the use of this shot, without penalty, in the television program The Big Break. Such inconsistent and erroneous application of the Rules of Golf in a public television forum poses significant threat to the integrity of Game."

Whilst there is still nothing relating to this stroke on the R&A or USGA web sites, it seems that following a meeting of a Joint Rules Committee last week, with representatives from the R&A, USGA and Golf Canada, the ‘saucer pass’ shot has now been ruled non-conforming. Dale Jackson, Chairman of Golf Canada’s Rules Committee confirmed;

"The rule that would be breached is Rule 14-1 that says in part the club can't be pushed, spooned or scraped, Scraped here basically means you are intentionally dragging or pulling the club along the ground before it hits the ball, which is what he (James Lepp) does."

According to Jackson, Golf Canada originally deemed the stroke legal, as Lepp has previously used it in competition, but his success on the reality TV show caused the issue to be revisited.

"We had dealt with the issue in Canada when James did his demonstration videos on his Web site and we felt it was a conforming stroke at that time," he added. "But when he did it on the Big Break, the USGA got a bunch of calls and they came to a different conclusion and as a result of that, the powers that be, the R&A, the USGA and Golf Canada, who all sit on the Joint Rules Committee, considered it and viewed it as non-conforming."

Lepp has declined to comment until he receives official word and an explanation of the ruling, but on 4th May he twittered;

“It's true. Saucer pass deemed illegal by governing bodies. Thankfully, fun, birdies, and cart girls still allowed...for now.”

Two days later he followed-up with;

"I should have called the Saucer Pass the 'Extended Chunk'. Then it would still be legal."

I cannot help feeling sorry for James Lepp, who came up with a stroke that could possibly have helped many high handicappers around the putting green. Personally, I am not convinced that the stroke does breach Rule 14-1, which states;

The ball must be fairly struck at with the head of the club and must not be pushed, scraped or spooned.

In my opinion, this clearly suggests that it is the ball that must not be scraped, whereas in the ‘saucer pass’ it is the club that is scraped along the ground until it strikes the ball. Presumably, one would need to use high-speed camera technology to see whether the ball leaves the clubface as soon as it is struck, or whether the scraping of the club means that the ball is also scraped along the ground for a short time after the initial point of impact. We may not have heard the end of this!

Good golfing,

 
Want to run a Rules Quiz in your Golf Club or Society? I have done all the work for you! Details at this link.

The above content is strictly copyright to Barry Rhodes © 2013 and may not be copied without permission.

Grounding a Club

Dustin Johnson infamously grounded his club in a bunker on the last hole of the 2010 PGA Championship at Whistling Straits

Here are 10 questions relating to a player grounding their club. The answers and Rules references are at the end of the blog.

1.    A player takes two practice swings in a water hazard, touching the ground each time. He incurs total penalties of four strokes for twice grounding his club in a hazard. True or False?

2.    In a match, a player accidentally moves their ball in the act of grounding their putter on the putting green. They lose the hole. True or False?

3.    Whilst taking a practice swing in a water hazard a player does not ground their club, but they do touch long grasses growing behind their ball on the backswing. They are penalised two strokes in stroke play. True or False?

4.    A player may use their club to prevent themselves from falling as they enter a bunker. True or False?

5.    A player has addressed their ball simply by grounding their club immediately in front of or behind their ball, regardless of whether or not they have taken their stance. True or False?

6.    When a player chooses to play their ball that has come to rest on a bridge within the margins of a water hazard, they may ground their club on the bridge in doing so. True or False?

7.    During a match, a player’s ball lies on the downslope of a bunker and they lightly brush the sand with their club in preparation for their stroke. They lose the hole. True or False?

8.    A player may not touch the water in a water hazard with their club on the backswing of their stroke. True or False?

9.    A player may place a spare club brought into a hazard on the ground in the hazard while they plays a stroke with another club. True or False?

10.    A player whose ball is plugged inside the margin of a water hazard may not wash their club in the water before making their stroke from within the hazard. True or False?

__________

Answer 1: False. Decision 1-4/12(3). Note: A single penalty is incurred when related acts result in one Rule being breached more than once.
Answer 2: False. The player only incurs a penalty of one stroke and must replace the ball. Rule 18-2a.
Answer 3: False. There is no penalty for touching grass, bushes, trees or other growing things with either a practice swing or a stroke, Note to Rule 13-4.
Answer 4: True. Rule 13-4 Exception 1(a). Providing that nothing is done that constitutes testing the condition of the hazard or improves the lie of their ball.
Answer 5: True. Definition of Address. Note: Stance is no longer a requirement for addressing the ball.
Answer 6: True. Decision 13-4/30. Grounding a club on a bridge is permissible, because an obstruction in a water hazard is not ground in the hazard.
Answer 7: True. Rule 13-4b. The player must not touch the sand in the hazard with their hand or club.
Answer 8: True. Rule 13-4b. The player must not touch the ground in a hazard or water in a water hazard with his hand or club before making a stroke at a ball that lies within the water hazard. A stroke is the forward movement of the club made with the intention of striking at and moving the ball.
Answer 9: True. Exception 1b to Rule 13-4. The player may place their clubs in a hazard without penalty, providing they do not test the condition of the hazard or improve their lie.
Answer 10: True. Rule 13-4b. When a player’s ball lies inside the margin of a water hazard they may not touch water in the hazard with their hand or a club, other than during a stroke.

All of these Q&As are included in my eBook, ‘999 Updated Questions on the Rules of Golf 2012-2015’. In my opinion, this is the easiest way for golfers to obtain a better understanding of the Rules of Golf. Click here for details on how you may obtain a copy of this eBook for your tablet, smart phone, computer or eReader.

Good golfing,

The above content is strictly copyright to Barry Rhodes © 2013 and may not be copied without permission.

Water Hazard Margins

There is obviously a stake missing on the left side of the photo.
Photo: Boleslav Bobcik

I have been asked to clarify the situation where a player is not absolutely sure whether their ball lies within the margin of a water hazard, or not. This can arise when a stake defining the margin of the hazard has either been wrongly positioned or is missing.

Part of the Definition of Lateral Water Hazard states;

When the margin of a lateral water hazard is defined by stakes, the stakes are inside the lateral water hazard, and the margin of the hazard is defined by the nearest outside points of the stakes at ground level.

That is fine when the stakes have been correctly positioned, but if it is obvious that the stakes have been improperly installed, or there is a stake missing, then Decision 26/2 applies;

Q. Stakes defining the margin of a water hazard were improperly installed. As a result, an area which clearly was part of the water hazard was outside the stakes and, thus, technically was outside the hazard. A player's ball came to rest in water in this area. The player claimed that, in view of the alignment of the stakes, his ball was in casual water through the green. Was the claim valid?

A. No. The Committee erred in not properly defining the margin of the hazard as required by Rule 33-2a, but a player is not entitled to take advantage of such an error. Since it was clear that the place where the player's ball lay was within the natural boundaries of the water hazard, the claim should not be upheld.

I am surprised at how many courses I have played where the stakes surrounding a water hazard have been positioned incorrectly in that they are placed on the sloping bank leading down to the water. So a player who has to take relief from the hazard is not only penalised one stroke under Rule 26-1a, but then has to drop their ball on the slope, with the result that their ball is going to be either some way above or below their feet, depending on the direction they are playing, when they make their next stroke. Decision 33-2a/4 is relevant in this context;

Lines and stakes defining the margins of a water hazard should be placed as nearly as possible along the natural limits of the hazard, i.e., where the ground breaks down to form the depression containing the water.

This means that Committees should ensure that sloping banks should be included within the margins of the hazard, as it is their responsibility. Rule 33-2 states;

The Committee must define accurately:
(i) the course and out of bounds,
(ii) the margins of water hazards and lateral water hazards,
(iii) ground under repair, and
(iv) obstructions and integral parts of the course.

If your Committee is guilty of incorrectly positioning the stakes around water hazards, or if there are stakes missing, you should immediately bring it to their attention, for the benefit of other members and visitors playing the course.

Good golfing,

The above content is strictly copyright to Barry Rhodes © 2013 and may not be copied without permission.

Ignoring a Breach of Rule in Match Play

Pebble Beach : Jeff Gross / Getty Images

I am pleased to report that over the past month I have sold more copies of my new document, ‘So You Are Going to Play Match Play!’ than I expected and better still, have received several compliments from those that have already used it to their benefit (click here for details). I believe that one item of feedback that I received will be of interest, even to experienced match play participants. Unlike stroke play, where you have an obligation to your fellow competitors to report every breach of a Rule that you witness, there is no such obligation in match play, as you may disregard, or overlook any breach of a Rule by your opponent. The reason for this is that only you, or your side, are affected by any breach by an opponent; it does not affect any other entrant in the match play competition

You may ask why a player might want to ignore a breach of a Rule that they witness during their match. Well, there are occasions when a breach may not benefit an opponent in any way and you may consider that to raise it may cause unnecessary friction in an otherwise friendly contest. I had an example of this myself two weeks ago, when I noticed that a foursomes opponent did not mark his ball before lifting and cleaning it on the fairway, as was required by a Local Rule for Preferred Lies that was in operation. I did not want to call the one stroke penalty on the player, a fellow Club member, but I knew that it might upset my own game if I said nothing, as I could have been concentrating on observing whether he continued to breach the Rule, rather than on my own play. This is where you have to be careful. Whilst there is no compunction on you to call the penalty, you still must not say anything to your opponent(s) during play of the hole, as under Rule 1-3 players must not agree to exclude the operation of any Rule, or to waive any penalty incurred by either side. A simple remark to an opponent that you noticed him breach a Rule opens both sides to disqualification from the match, unless they insist on the penalty applying before they finish the hole. However, the breach may be openly discussed by both sides as soon as any player has made a stroke from the next teeing ground. The reason for this can be found in Rule 2-5, which outlines the procedure to follow if a doubt or dispute arises between players in match play. Part of that Rule states;

A claim is considered to have been made in a timely manner if, upon discovery of circumstances giving rise to a claim, the player makes his claim (i) before any player in the match plays from the next teeing ground, or (ii) in the case of the last hole of the match, before all players in the match leave the putting green, or (iii) when the circumstances giving rise to the claim are discovered after all the players in the match have left the putting green of the final hole, before the result of the match has been officially announced.

So, once the result of the hole has been decided and the players have commenced play of the next hole, any discussion on a penalty that may have previously been incurred does not affect that result, as there was no agreement between the sides to waive the Rule.

Returning to the personal situation that I described earlier, I waited until all players had teed off from the next hole and then advised the offending opponent’s partner that he should have a word with his playing partner, to explain that he must mark his ball on the fairway before lifting it. The breach was not repeated during the rest of the match, but had it been I would have felt fully justified in imposing the penalty.

I am not suggesting that players ignore all Rules breaches in match play just because they are in a friendly competition; it is up to each player to make up their own minds, depending on the situation. But please do not extend this choice, as to whether to call a penalty or not, to when you are playing the stroke play format, where you do have an obligation to protect the interests of every other player in the competition. Of course, as I have often said before, the best way to do this, in order to avoid the risk of an unpleasant incident, is to stop a player before he breaches a Rule. Giving information on the Rules is not advice and is to be encouraged in both stroke play and match play.

Good golfing,

 

‘So You Are Going to Play Match Play!’ details here. Only $7.00, €5.50, or £4.50

The above content is strictly copyright to Barry Rhodes © 2013 and may not be copied without permission.

Tiger Woods Penalty at the Masters; Is Golf the Loser?

Tiger Woods after his 3rd round at the Masters (SkySports.com)

Having just posted a new blog on Friday evening I was not going to add to the ‘noise’ surrounding the Tiger Woods penalty incident, but I have now received so many requests for my opinion and explanation of the ruling that it is easier for me to blog again than to reply to each one individually.

When I was first advised of the circumstances of Tiger’s drop after finding water at the 15th on Friday (I was not watching it live), my first thought was that he must have correctly taken relief under option b) of Rule 26-1, which would have enabled him to drop back as far as he liked along an extension of the line from the hole through where his ball last crossed the margin of the hazard (which was the third time that it crossed the margin). I soon realised that this was not the case and that he had definitely made an invalid drop by dropping about two club-lengths behind where he had last played from, when option a) of Rule 26-1 requires that the ball is dropped ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played. At that point I was sure that Tiger would be disqualified; he played from a wrong place, did not correct the error, did not inform the Committee and he and his marker signed and returned a score that did not incur the penalty that he had incurred. Rule 6-6d states;

Wrong Score for Hole
The competitor is responsible for the correctness of the score recorded for each hole on his score card. If he returns a score for any hole lower than actually taken, he is disqualified. If he returns a score for any hole higher than actually taken, the score as returned stands.

What we were not aware of, as the controversy broke, is that the Masters Rules Committee, comprising Fred Ridley, chairman of the Masters competition committee, Jim Reinhart, an Augusta National member and a former Rules of Golf and chairman of the USGA, and Mark Russell vice president of competitions for the PGA Tour, had determined earlier in the evening that Tiger had not taken an improper drop (!!!). Obviously, video evidence is not as accurate as we had imagined. In a press conference on Saturday Ridley commented;

"Having determined that we did not feel there was a rules violation, we did not talk to Tiger, so he completed his round, signed his scorecard, and the first day was over,"

Unfortunately for the Rules Committee, after his round Tiger, who was unaware of either his invalid drop or of their ruling, opened up the can of worms by stating that he purposely dropped his ball two club-lengths further back from where he had previously played from, so as to improve his chances on his 5th stroke. This personal confirmation that he had dropped in a wrong place meant that the Rules Committee were forced to reconvene on Saturday morning to discuss the incident again in light of the admitted breach, and to determine the appropriate penalty. In his press conference Ridley explained;

"I told Tiger that in light of that information that we felt that he had, in fact, violated Rule 26 under the Rules of Golf and that he was going to have to be penalized," Ridley said. "I also told him because we had initially made the determination that he had not violated the rule … that under Rule 33-7 that there was ample reason not to impose the penalty of disqualification but to waive that penalty and impose a two-shot penalty. We had made a decision before he finished his round, before he finished his scorecard, and I think he's entitled to be protected by 33-7, and that's our decision, and others agree with us. Disqualification this morning was not even on the table."

The relevant part of Rule 33-7 states;

A penalty of disqualification may in exceptional individual cases be waived, modified or imposed if the Committee considers such action warranted.

Many reporters assumed that the Rules Committee had waived the penalty of disqualification under Decision 33-7/4.5, which they have confirmed was not the case. You can see from this extract from that Decision why this would have been embarrassing for the Committee after Tiger’s interview with ESPN;

….if the Committee is satisfied that the competitor could not reasonably have known or discovered the facts resulting in his breach of the Rules, it would be justified under Rule 33-7 in waiving the disqualification penalty prescribed by Rule 6-6d. The penalty stroke(s) associated with the breach would, however, be applied to the hole where the breach occurred.

Rule 6-1 categorically states that the player and his caddie are responsible for knowing the Rules, so dropping in a place not permitted by the Rules would not qualify for the penalty of disqualification to be waived under this Decision.

So, to be absolutely clear, the Committee waived the penalty of disqualification, because they considered that this was an exceptional individual case where such a penalty would have been too harsh. I am not aware of any other situation where a player who did not know a Rule of Golf (or if they did, they forgot about it) has been favourably treated in this way. I am therefore surprised at the ruling and believe that it may have adverse consequences in the future in similar situations.

The most disappointing feature of this incident is that it could turn some people off the game because of the perceived complexity of the Rules and the way in which they are administered. More than a day after the penalty of only two strokes was confirmed the golfing public is totally divided as to whether Tiger should voluntarily withdraw from completing this year’s Masters. The results of a poll carried out on the esteemed golf journalist, Geoff Shackleford’s website, resulted in 47% saying he should withdraw, 50% saying he should not, with 3% unsure. I am one of the 47%, because I cannot help thinking that the Committee may have arrived at a different ruling if a less ‘noteworthy’ player had been involved. Also, I think that it will take a long time for the doubters amongst those that take an interest in Golf and its Rules, to forget this seemingly biased ruling. It is probable that Tiger may have won more respect and popularity by withdrawing from the Masters, acknowledging that he did in fact return a wrong score card and accepting the same penalty of disqualification that amateurs all over the world have suffered for similar innocent mistakes. One eminent player who believes that Tiger should withdraw and definitely has the right to make such a call, is Greg Norman, who twice disqualified himself while leading tournaments; once in the 1990 Palm Meadows Cup on the Gold Coast for an illegal drop two days earlier, and the other as defending champion in the 1996 Greater Hartford Open for using a possibly non-conforming ball. In both cases, he pulled out as soon as the potential infractions were brought to his attention.

I am writing this blog just before the final round starts, with Tiger lying 4 strokes off the lead. I am hoping that he does not win, as I think that there would be a tsunami of criticism against him, which could affect his future performances. There are occasions in sport where winning is not everything.
(Edit: On May 1st 2013, The R&A, USGA issued a statement addressing the Tiger Woods Ruling at the 2013 Masters Tournament. Click here for details.)

Good golfing,

The above content is strictly copyright to Barry Rhodes © 2013 and may not be copied without permission.

Practice Swings and Practice Strokes

Photo: swingmachineblog.com

Some golfers are confused as to the difference between a practice swing and a practice stroke, neither of which appear in the Definitions section of the Rules book. The main feature of a practice swing is that there is no intention by the player to move any ball. It occurs when a player simulates a stroke, usually in preparation for making one. It may also be used as a loosening-up or training exercise while waiting to play. Conversely, a practice stoke is made with the intention of striking at and moving a ball, even if it is a plastic ball. The only practice strokes that are permitted during a stipulated round of golf are practice putting or chipping on or near the putting green of the hole last played, a practice putting green, or the teeing ground of the next hole to be played in the round. But wait until your fellow competitors or opponents have also finished playing the hole before you indulge in practice chips or putts. A practice stroke may never be made from a hazard during a round (Rule 7-2) and the player must not unduly delay play because they are practicing (Rule 6-7). Strokes made in continuing the play of a hole, the result of which has been decided, are not practice strokes. Any other practice stroke made during a round that has not been suspended incurs a penalty of two strokes in stroke play or loss of hole in match play (Rule 7-2).

A practice swing may incur a penalty if the player stands too close to their ball while practicing and accidentally causes their ball to move. Unless this accidental striking of the ball occurs on a teeing ground, when the ball has not been put into play, there is a penalty of one stroke and the ball must be replaced. Otherwise, a practice swing is not a practice stroke and may be taken at any place on the course, provided the player does not breach the Rules.

There are a few Rules myths about practice swings. It is a fallacy that a player must not make a practice swing on a teeing area, although some courses may wish to impose such a restriction so as to protect these areas. The casual flicking of a range ball for the purpose of tidying up the course, is not a breach (Decision 7-2/5), nor is hitting a ball to a player who is standing some way away as an act of courtesy (Decision 7-2/5.5), but a player who takes their usual stance and set-up before striking a stray ball back to the range area would incur the general penalty. Contrary to what many golfers might tell you, a penalty is not incurred when a player knocks down leaves of a tree while practicing his stroke, if there are still so many leaves or branches remaining that the area of intended swing has not been materially affected (Decision 13-2/0.5). See this earlier blog of mine for more detail on this situation.

When play of a competition has been suspended by the Committee, a player may practice anywhere other than on the competition course, until the resumption of play.

Good golfing

The Masters signals the start of a new season of golf for many of us in the Northern Hemisphere. If you are involved in Club or Society Golf Committees you may be interested in using one of my three quizzes to remind players of some of the most commonly breached Rules of Golf. There are three quiz sets; ‘General’, ‘Match Play’ and ‘Juniors’, each containing 36 questions and answers with the appropriate references for the doubters and a handy check sheet for fast and accurate marking of the answer sheets. Click here for details.

The above content is strictly copyright to Barry Rhodes © 2013 and may not be copied without permission.

Golf Can Be So Unfair!

There are probably over 60 million golfers worldwide and I guess that at least 59 million of them consider that the Rules of Golf have treated them unfairly at some time or other. Despite the fact that the R&A and USGA have been refining the Rules of Golf for more than 200 years, to deal equitably with every possible situation that can possibly happen on a golf course, I would guess that a large majority of players think that they are now unnecessarily complicated and work against players’ best interests. I should quickly point out that I am not one of them. I have learned that every Rule, no matter how inconsequential it may seem, is there for a logical reason, to minimise misinterpretation, misunderstandings, mistakes and even mischievousness!  I don’t pretend to have any inside information on the rationale behind any Rule or Decision, but I am aware of the huge amount of dedicated work that goes on behind the closed doors of many national golfing bodies around the world to provide informed input to the two Ruling Bodies. They in turn consider, appraise, formulate and then publish the bi-annual changes to the Decisions on the Rules of Golf and the four-yearly changes to the Rules of Golf, always acting in the best interests of the game and those that play it.

However, leaving the Rules aside, there are undoubtedly areas of our beloved game that favour one player over another. For example, those that can afford to do so may purchase the very latest technology drivers for additional length off the tee, use more expensive balls that impart more spin, employ local caddies with an intimate knowledge of the course being played, hire a motorised golf cart to preserve their energy, or more accurately decide on their club selection by reference to a state-of-the-art distance measuring device (where permitted by a Local Rule).

A personal bugbear of mine, as a high-handicapper (over 18), is that in cub competitions the prizes are geared in favour of the low-handicap players (less than 10), even though the majority of entrants are usually not in that category. It is much more difficult for a high handicapper to win a competition that extends over multiple rounds (e.g. match play events, leagues or golfer of the year), because they play to their handicap less frequently; the best golfers are more likely to win gross score, longest drive and nearest the pin competitions; and in four-ball competitions, where three-quarters of the full handicap is the norm, a 20-handicapper loses 5 strokes, whereas a 4-handicapper only loses 1 stroke; etc.

And then there are the commonplace, ‘unfair’ occurrences that can happen to any of us on the course; balls settling in a divot hole on the fairway; a ball rebounding off course signage or a stake; having to play a ball off a maintenance vehicle tyre track that we think should have been defined as ground under repair; a fellow competitor’s loud cough during a backswing; a mud ball; a gust of wind drifting a faded ball into a water hazard; the arrival of  a rainstorm at the start of an afternoon round following a morning of balmy sunshine; and having to drop a ball in a less favourable position when taking a mandatory drop under a Local Rule (e.g. from a staked sapling). Of course, in this respect, most of us remember these ‘unfair’ incidents on the golf course and conveniently forget that there are probably just as many occasions when lady luck appears to be on our side.

I will finish by repeating a story told by Sean Connery, who played the first James Bond and is a passionate golfer;

The great Jack Nicklaus summed things up neatly during a charity match on the Old Course at St. Andrews, where he and I were playing against Ben Crenshaw and Glen Campbell. I asked him what he considered to be the most important factor to overcome in the game of golf. His reply, "It's an unfair game."

Good golfing,

The above content is strictly copyright to Barry Rhodes © 2013 and may not be copied without permission.

I have had a great response to my new document, ‘So You Are Going to Play Match Play’. This 10-page document appears to have struck a chord with those of you that play match play golf and realise that several different Rules apply to this format. Click here for more information.

So You Are Going to Play Match Play!

 
I have a new, downloadable document that I think will be of interest to those readers that play, or are anticipating playing, match play golf. If you have been following my blogs on the Rules you will be aware that there are several Rules for match play that are significantly different to those for stroke play. More about this later.

First, I want to highlight one particular area of difference in these two formats of golf, which relates to the situation where one player observes another player breaching a Rule of Golf. In match play, players may choose to ignore any breach of the Rules made by an opponent, because only the players on each side of their match are involved; there is no responsibility to protect the interests of other players entered in the same competition. Whereas in stroke play, a competitor who knows that a fellow competitor has breached a Rule, even if they are not their marker, should bring to light the transgression by notifying the player, their marker or the Committee, because in this case the interests of every other player in the competition are affected if a competitor returns a score that does not include a penalty that they had incurred.

However, there is a very important aspect to this option of ignoring an opponent’s breach of a Rule in match play that I want to emphasise, as I have seen many players open themselves to disqualification by not being aware of it. A player who observes an opponent’s breach of Rule and does not want to penalise them for it, usually out of courtesy when the breach is something unintentional that does not result in any benefit, must keep quiet and not mention it, at least until one of them has teed off at the next hole (edited 29th March 2013). Because, if they do bring the breach to the attention of their opponent, but do not then penalise them for it, both sides should be disqualified for agreeing to waive a Rule. Decision 1-3/4 states;

Failure of Players to Apply Known Penalty
Q. In a match, a player discovers at the 2nd hole that he has 15 clubs in his bag contrary to Rule 4-4a, but his opponent refuses to apply the penalty. The extra club is declared out of play and the match continues. The Committee disqualifies both players. Is this correct?

A. Yes. Since the players agreed to waive the penalty, they should be disqualified under Rule 1-3.

Although, in the above Decision it was the player who realised that he had breached a Rule and the opponent acquiesced, the same principle applies if it was the opponent who had discovered the 15th club, had pointed it out to the player, but then said that he was not going to impose the penalty incurred. Both players are disqualified under Rule 1-3.

If the above has been of interest to you, I am sure that you will benefit from knowing all of the differences between match play and stroke play Rules. I have authored a comprehensive document detailing them over 19 headings. I am confident that by reading this document just once you will be better prepared for match play golf, whether you are a team manager, team member, or an individual who enters match play competitions. It could make the difference between you winning or losing!

The introductory price of ‘So You Are Going to Play Match Play!’ is just $7 (€5.50 / £4.50). Click on this link for more details and to purchase.

Good golfing,

The above content is strictly copyright to Barry Rhodes © 2013 and may not be copied without permission.

Marking a Ball on the Putting Green

Photo: Golf.About.com

Marking a ball on the putting green seems like a simple process that shouldn’t cause too many Rules issues, but it is worth considering what is permitted and what is not.

•    Lifting a ball from the putting green without marking its position first incurs a penalty of one stroke, Rule 16-1b.

A ball on the putting green may be marked, lifted and cleaned at any time, except that a ball that might influence the movement of the ball in motion must not be lifted.

•    The position of the ball must be marked before it is lifted.
•    There is no limit to the number of times that a player may mark and lift their ball from the putting green, providing they do not unduly delay play.
•    Before making their putt the player must replace their ball at the exact spot from where it was lifted.
•    A ball to be lifted under the Rules may be lifted by the player, their partner or another person authorisd by them, Rule 20-1.
•    If a ball is accidentally moved while it is being marked there is no penalty, provided the movement of the ball, or the ball-marker, is directly attributable to the specific act of marking the ball’s position or lifting it, Rule 20-1. 

However, moving your ball-marker by accidentally dropping your ball or equipment (e.g. glove or cap) on it is not considered to be directly attributable to the act of marking the ball and incurs a penalty of one stroke, Decision 20-1/15. See this link for detail of Ian Poulter breaching this Rule in 2010.

•    When marking a ball before lifting it the player should use a small coin or other similar object as a ball-marker immediately and they should place it immediately behind the ball. 

Note that there is no penalty if a player uses some other object to mark their ball (e.g their putter head, a tee or a loose impediment), providing it is physically marked; it is not sufficient to use an existing mark on the ground to mark the position of a ball, Decision 20-1/16. 

Also, there is no penalty if the ball-marker is placed other than behind the ball, providing you do replace the ball in the correct position later. Naturally, the traditional method is to place the marker behind the ball and I strongly recommend that all golfers use this method to avoid confusion.

•    If the ball-marker interferes with the play, stance or stroke of another player, it should be placed one or more clubhead-lengths to one side. There is no restriction as to how a ball is marked to the side. Providing the ball is accurately replaced at the same spot by reversing the exact steps used to move it to the side.
•    If a ball is replaced at a spot on the putting green other than where it was lifted from and subsequently played from this wrong place, the player incurs a penalty of two strokes in stroke play or loss of hole in match play, Rule 20-7.

Good golfing,

Have you checked out my three quizzes on the Rules of Golf; General, Match Play and Juniors. Click here for details.


The above content is strictly copyright to Barry Rhodes © 2012 and may not be copied without permission.
 

Tiger’s Ball Unplayable in a Palm Tree

Tiger Woods suffered a minor setback on the 17th hole of his 3rd round at WGC - Cadillac Championship at the TPC Blue Monster Course at Doral Golf Resort & Spa in Miami, Florida. His faded tee shot kept drifting in the wind and dropped straight into one of several palm trees to the right of the fairway, lodging where the leaves grow from the stem.

If you are receiving this blog by email click on this link to view the PGA Tour video of Tiger's stroke into the palm tree.

There are a few interesting issues in this Rules situation. The first is whether the player is able to positively identify their ball. At the very start of the video clip the person to Tiger’s left appears to be using binoculars to locate the ball. Decision 14-3/3 confirms that standard eyeglasses and binoculars that have no range-finder attachments are not artificial devices within the meaning of the term in Rule 14-3 and may therefore be used by the player, or anyone else, to find and identify a ball. If a player can clearly see a ball in the tree, which is most likely theirs, but they cannot positively identify it by its markings, then they have to treat their ball as lost and proceed under penalty of stroke and distance (Rule 27-1).

Interestingly, the Rules permit a ball to be identified by the testimony of a spectator (Decision 27/12). I remember an incident involving Phil Mickelson in the 2001 NEC Invitational in Ohio when, although neither he nor his caddie had put his usual identification marks on a ball that he had played into deep rough, they received timely notification of TV camera evidence showing that a ball they had found in the area was indeed the ball that Phil had played and so he was permitted to continue with it.

Having identified his ball and wisely decided not to climb the tree to play it as it lay (!) Tiger deemed it unplayable and took relief under penalty of one stroke. In the circumstances, where the ball was lodged high in the palm tree, he obviously had to substitute another ball, but had he been able to retrieve his original ball he could have chosen to clean it and continue play with it. In taking relief, the reference point for the drop under Rule 28 options b) and c) is immediately below the place where the ball lay in the tree. The option that Tiger chose was to drop a ball within two club-lengths of that reference point not nearer the hole, but he also had the option of dropping a ball behind the reference point keeping that point directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped, with no limit to how far behind that point the ball may be dropped. Of course, the third option under Rule 28 is to proceed under the stroke and distance provision of Rule 27-1, by playing a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played, which in Tiger’s case was the teeing ground.

A final interesting Rules point is that if a player deems their ball unplayable in a tree overhanging a putting green and they opt to take relief under Rule 28c, they must drop their ball on the putting green; one of the few occasions where a ball does not have to be placed on the putting green (Decision 28/11).

Good golfing,

Free subscription link

For more details on my Rhodes Rules School photo series click here.

The above content is strictly copyright to Barry Rhodes © 2013 and may not be copied without permission.