Tuesday, 3 October 2017

When the Rules of Golf Can Help You

I have regularly drawn attention to incidents in which a professional golfer’s lack of knowledge of the Rules of Golf has resulted in them incurring a penalty. There were two more of these in the past couple of weeks;
1. Matthew Southgate was penalised for not replaying his putt when his ball in motion was diverted from the hole by a leaf that was blown against it by the wind. If only he had read my blog on the subject at this link
2. During The Presidents Cup, Jordan Spieth was penalised loss of hole when he purposely stopped his opponent, Louis Oosthuisen’s, ball in motion after it had passed the hole, reasoning that it would not count in the outcome of the hole, as Jason Day, had already made a birdie. There is a full video of the ruling and the animated discussion that followed at this Sky Sports link (after the ad!). (Edit: the original Golf Channel link was taken down)

I would like to redress the balance of these apparently inequitable rulings by highlighting some of the many ways where a player’s knowledge of a Rule can be a distinct advantage;

When taking relief from a lateral water hazard, always check out the option of dropping within two club-lengths of and not nearer the hole than a point on the opposite margin of the hazard equidistant from the hole to the point where the original ball last crossed the margin of the hazard (see the diagram above).
When taking relief under the Rules a player may choose to drop a ball on the fairway even if it was lifted from the rough, providing it is dropped within the permitted area.
It is worth understanding what animals are indigenous to the course you are playing, so that you can take advantage of the relief permitted from the abnormal ground condition of a hole, cast or runway made by a burrowing animal, reptile or bird (yes, some birds do nest in an underground burrow!).
When a ball being dropped under the Rules rolls twice into places requiring a re-drop you must place the ball on the spot where it hit the ground on the second drop. Consider carefully before choosing the best place to land the dropped ball, so that it is likely to roll to a more advantageous position.
You may draw a ring around the circumference of your golf ball to assist you in lining up putts and your intended line of play on the teeing ground.
You may test the condition of any bunker before a round, or during your round, providing your ball does not lie in or touch that or a similar bunker.
In match play, you may leave any ball on the putting green as a backstop, as there is no penalty if your ball strikes it wherever it is played from. But your opponents may require that the ball that could be of assistance to you is lifted before the stroke is made.
Also in match play, you may choose to cancel your stroke and play again if your ball is accidentally deflected by an opponent his caddie or his equipment.
You may clean a ball that has been lifted under the Rules with these three exceptions; a) to determine if it is unfit for play, b) for identification, c) because it is assisting or interfering with play.
You may have any other ball lifted if it interferes either physically or mentally with your play.
You may remove any easily movable obstruction (i.e. any artificial object) from anywhere on the course, including from bunkers and water hazards.
You may move any player’s equipment, or a removed flagstick, if you think that it might influence the movement of a ball that is in motion.
You may take relief from a wooden stake supporting a young tree, which is an immovable obstruction, even if there is no Local Rule providing relief from staked trees.
You may drop another ball under the Rules, without penalty, if it is known or virtually certain that the original ball is lost in an abnormal ground condition (e.g. GUR).
You may play on your own for all or any part of a four-ball match, or four-ball best-ball competition, if your partner is absent.
You may lean against a tree, or an immovable obstruction, to steady yourself whilst playing a stroke.
You may ask anyone the distance from any point A to any point B, as information on distance is not advice.
You may remove loose impediments in the area where you are going to drop a ball before dropping it.

Good golfing,



My two for one offer: Receive a bonus, complimentary copy of my eDocument, ‘99 Tips on Using the Rules of Golf to Your Advantage’, when you purchase either of my ‘999 Questions’ eBooks. Click here for details of how to purchase these eBooks.

The above content is strictly copyright to Barry Rhodes © 2017 and may not be copied without permission.

Tuesday, 19 September 2017

When a Rule is Breached in Stroke Play

There are four main situations that apply when a Rule of Golf is breached in a stroke play competition;

1. A player breaches a Rule and includes the appropriate penalty on the score card that they sign and return.
2. A player unknowingly breaches a Rule and signs and returns their score card. The breach is brought to the Committee’s attention before the competition has closed.
3. As in 2, but the breach is brought to the Committee’s attention after the competition has closed.
4. A player knowingly breaches a Rule, but does not include the penalty incurred on their score card

So what are the considerations in each of these four scenarios?
1. This does not require any further explanation. It is what should happen every time a Rule is breached.
2. If the breach is brought to the attention of the Committee before the competition has closed, the player incurs the penalty prescribed by the applicable Rule and an additional penalty of two strokes, Exception to Rule 6-6d. 
3. If the breach is brought to the attention of the Committee after the competition has closed, a penalty must not be imposed by them unless the breach warranted disqualification under one of these four exceptions that are outlined in Rule 34-1b;
Exceptions: A penalty of disqualification must be imposed after the competition has closed if a competitor:
(i) was in breach of Rule 1-3 (Agreement to Waive Rules); or
(ii) returned a score card on which he had recorded a handicap that, before the competition closed, he knew was higher than that to which he was entitled, and this affected the number of strokes received (Rule 6-2b); or
(iii) returned a score for any hole lower than actually taken (Rule 6-6d) for any reason other than failure to include one or more penalty strokes that, before the competition closed, he did not know he had incurred; or
(iv) knew, before the competition closed, that he had been in breach of any other Rule for which the penalty is disqualification.
4. Call it what you like, but this is cheating. The player must be disqualified and the Committee should consider sanctioning them, e.g. by suspending them from all competitions for a period of time.

Of course, there are sometimes on-course situations where a player may be unsure as to how to proceed without breaching a Rule unnecessarily, e.g. whether they may take relief from equipment damage to the course, or when a fellow competitor tells them that they should be taking relief from a different place from where they think they are permitted to drop a ball. When a competitor is doubtful of their rights or the correct procedure during the play of a hole, they may, without penalty, complete the hole with two balls. If the player chooses to do so they must strictly follow the procedure set out in Rule 3-3;

The competitor should announce to his marker or a fellow-competitor:
• that he intends to play two balls; and
• which ball he wishes to count if the Rules permit the procedure used for that ball.
Before returning his score card, the competitor must report the facts of the situation to the Committee. If he fails to do so, he is disqualified.

If the competitor has taken further action before deciding to play two balls, he has not proceeded under Rule 3-3 and the score with the original ball counts. The competitor incurs no penalty for playing the second ball.

There is a more detailed explanation of Rule 3-3 in this blog of mine. 

Two Rules Situations from this week’s tournaments
For Rules enthusiasts, there were two fairly complicated Pro tournament rulings in the past week. I am providing two links to these incidents, rather than giving you my own detailed explanation;

Sergia Garcia getting relief from a really bad lie in a water hazard.

Ben Crane receiving two four-stroke penalties and then disqualification, because of the clubs he was carrying.

Good golfing,




The above content is strictly copyright to Barry Rhodes © 2017 and may not be copied without permission.

Wednesday, 6 September 2017

Taking Relief from a Path - Jordan Spieth

I am currently on vacation in the USA, where in the past 10 days I have been lucky enough to enjoy personal, guided tours of both Congressional CC and TPC Scottsdale. Long-term readers may remember that, with his permission, I have occasionally copied content from the newsletters of Paul Kruger, PGA Professional at The Canyon Club, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA, and am doing so again in this blog. Here is his overview of a recent interesting Rules incident involving Jordan Spieth that includes some useful reminders on taking relief from an artificial path.

“During the second round of the 99th PGA Championship held at the Quail Hollow Club in Charlotte, North Carolina, Jordan Spieth hit a wayward drive on the par-5 10th hole, and his ball ended up on an artificially-surfaced cart path.  Even though Jordan has probably taken relief from cart paths thousands of times, he still sought the assistance of a Rules Official to ensure that he was proceeding correctly.  Here are the Rules that applied to his situation.

When taking relief from an artificially-surfaced cart path, Rule 24-2 [Immovable Obstruction] instructs the player to determine the nearest point of relief, and then drop the ball within one club-length of, and no nearer the hole than, the nearest point of relief.  By Definition, the nearest point of relief is the point on the course nearest to where the ball lies on the cart path (i) that is not nearer the hole and (ii) where, if the ball were so positioned, no interference by the cart path would exist for the stroke the player would have made from the original position if the cart path were not there.  In other words, at the nearest point of relief there will be no interference from the cart path to the lie of the ball, the player’s stance, or the area of the player’s intended swing.

After Jordan correctly determined that the nearest point of relief from the cart path was just left of the cart path, he immediately took note of the fact that the area in the vicinity of the nearest point of relief, i.e., where he would be dropping his ball, was covered with pine straw.  At that point, he called over the Rules Official to find out how he might be able to avoid having to play from the pine straw.

The Rules Official advised Jordan that he could remove the pine straw which are loose impediments.  According to Rule 23-1 [Loose Impediments: Relief], “Except when both the loose impediment and the ball lie in or touch the same hazard, any loose impediment may be removed without penalty.” 

However, the Rules Official cautioned Jordan to be careful not to remove any of the soil underlying the pine straw when removing the pine straw.  That is because Rule 13-2 [Improving Lie, Area of Intended Stance or Swing, or Line of Play] states, in part, “A player must not improve or allow to be improved … the area of his intended stance or swing [or] the area in which he is to drop or place a ball … by any of the following actions … • creating or eliminating irregularities of surface [or] • removing or pressing down sand, loose soil ….”

Jordan cleared the area in which he intended to drop his ball by carefully picking up clumps of pine straw with his hand, and tossing the pine straw onto the cart path.  When he dropped his ball in the required area, the ball rolled down the slope and ended up back on the cart path.  Per Rule 20-2c [Dropping and Re-Dropping: When to Re-Drop], he was required to re-drop the ball because the ball rolled and came to rest “in a position where there is interference by the condition from which relief was taken under Rule 24-2b ….”  As you might expect, when Jordan re-dropped his ball, it once again ended up on the cart path.  In accordance with Rule 20-2c, Jordan was then permitted to place his ball “as near as possible to the spot where it first struck a part of the course when re-dropped.” 

In the third photograph, you will see that, after placing his ball, Jordan ended up with a near-perfect lie on the bare dirt.  However, the resulting shot was not to his liking.  Perhaps this was due to the fact that Jordan neglected to remove the pine straw in the area of his intended stance?”


My thanks again to Paul Kruger for his permission to occasionally reproduce content of his newsletters in my blogs.

Good golfing,



'999 More Questions on the Rules' - an interesting way to obtain a better understanding of the myriad of Rules incidents that golfers regularly encounter. Click here. Every purchaser will also receive a bonus of a free copy of my eDocument, '99 Tips on Using the Rules of Golf to Your Advantage'. Total price; $10.99, or £7.99, or €9.99.

Tuesday, 22 August 2017

Obstruction in a Water Hazard

This question, with its accompanying photo, is typical of several that I receive on the subject of course signage and the Rules. In this circumstance, there is an additional dimension in that the sign is located within the margin of a hazard.

Question: A ball came to rest inside a lateral water hazard close to a warning sign located inside the hazard. So, for a right hander player the ball is playable, but …
a)    May they take relief from the sign, without penalty?
b)    May they rotate the sign to face in a different direction?
c)    May the sign be completely removed before the stroke is made, as it mentally interferes with the player’s swing?

Answer:
a)    No. There is no line of play or mental relief from an obstruction.
b)    Yes, But it is not necessary, because …..
c)    Yes. … Movable obstructions may be removed anywhere on the course.


The sign is an obstruction, because it is an artificial object, Definition of Obstruction. It is obvious that the sign is intended to be easily movable and is therefore a movable obstruction, unless a Local Rule states otherwise. If the sign can be easily moved (and subsequently replaced!) the player may move it, as movable obstructions can be moved from anywhere on the course at any time (Rule 24-1). If it is not easily movable, it is an immovable obstruction, from which there is never relief if both the player's ball and the immovable obstruction lie inside the margin of the water hazard, Rule 24-2.

How to Love the Rules of Golf

Who can fail to take notice of a book titled, ‘How to Love the Rules of Golf?’ Long time US Rules official, Howard J. Meditz, has incorporated his many year of expertise into a book that he thinks will help golfers get more satisfaction from every round, score better under pressure and limit their frustration on the course. An interesting aspect of his book is that not only does it reflect the latest 2016 Rules and the 2017 updates, it also covers the 2019 modernisation proposals. The six chapter titles give a good indication of what you can expect from this publication;

1.    How to Embrace the Rules of Golf
2.    How to Get to Know the Rules
3.    How to Resolve Your Differences
4.    A Significant Rules Proposal for 2019
5.    How to Use the Rules for Your Own Selfish Purposes
6.    How to Get More Involved with the Rules
For more details on this book click on this link to my Recommended Golf Rules books page and then click again on the cover image for ‘How to Love the Rules of Golf’. This links to the Amazon page for the book and provides an opportunity to check out the opening content and read reviews of Howard's book.

Good golfing,


 


Special Offer! Purchase either of my ‘999 Questions’ eBooks (delivered in both .pdf and Kindle formats) and receive a bonus copy of my ‘999 Tips on Using the Rules of Golf to Your Advantage’. Click here for information on the eBooks and prices in $, £ and €.

The above content is strictly copyright to Barry Rhodes © 2017 and may not be copied without permission.


Tuesday, 1 August 2017

August Miscellany

Afterthoughts on Spieth’s penalty drop at The Open
Most readers will already have polarised opinions on how Jordan Spieth handled his unplayable lie on the 13th hole of his final round of The Open, at Royal Birkdale. I have received several emails asking me for my opinion, so here are some miscellaneous afterthoughts;
•    The time taken to obtain an official ruling does not count towards any possible undue delay, unless of course the circumstance is frivolous.
•    If Spieth and Kuchar had not been the final pair out on the course I am sure that they would have asked the following group through.
•    The point where Jordan elected to take a penalty drop under Rule 28b was on the flagline, which is an imaginary line drawn from the hole past where his ball deemed unplayable was at rest. Jordan, his caddie and the match official all spent time on top of the dune ensuring that this was so, which was the cause of much of the delay.
•    Jordan purposely went back sufficiently far along this flagline to ensure that the nearest point of relief from the TIOs (trucks) was on the short cut practice ground to the right and not in the rough to the left.
•    Having determined this relief point, which was on wooden flooring between two trucks, the referee correctly told him that there was no need to drop the ball there. The reason for this was that anywhere that was within two club-lengths of this point would have given the same nearest point of relief on the practice area (a ball has to be re-dropped if it rolls further than two club-lengths from the point where it was dropped).
•    Having determined the point of relief under penalty of one stroke, Jordan was then entitled to free relief from the temporary immovable obstructions (the trucks) under a Local Rule that is used at most tournaments, but is not relevant for most amateur competitions.
•    Matt Kuchar had no reason to complain about the delay, as seeking rulings from officials is common in the professional game. He was entitled to be frustrated, but his patient demeanour throughout the whole incident, and indeed subsequently, was impeccable.
•    Jordan Spieth demonstrated a complete understanding of Rule 28 relating to an unplayable ball and acted throughout the incident calmly, rationally and professionally; an example to us all.
•    A positive outcome to this well-publicised Rules incident is that thousands of golfers now have a better understanding of the Rule 28b option, which is often not considered by amateur golfers when they deem a ball unplayable.

If you still are unsure about any part of this ruling I recommend that you view the detailed explanation at this link, by David Rickman, Chief of Rules at R&A. 

What Constitutes a Concession? – Elizabeth Moon
Elizabeth Moon lost her semi-final match of the US Girls’ Junior title at Boone Valley GC, Missouri, in the cruelest of fashions. She missed a 6-foot putt to win the match on the first hole of sudden death and then without looking up, hooked her ball back from the lip to practice the stroke that she should have made. As she had not given Shepherd any opportunity to concede the putt before touching her ball in play, her action incurred a penalty of one stroke, meaning that she could not then halve the hole and so her opponent Erica Shepherd had won the match. It is almost certain that the putt would have been conceded had Shepherd been given the opportunity to do so, but she had not. The match referee quickly walked onto the putting green to explain to Moon that the penalty under Rule 18-2 had been incurred, because a valid concession cannot be given after the fact.

The important lesson here for all golfers is that you may not assume that your opponent will concede your next stroke, you must receive a positive indication that this is the case, from them and from no-one else (e.g. their caddie). Other points to remember about concessions are contained in Rule 2-4;

A player may concede a match at any time prior to the start or conclusion of that match.

A player may concede a hole at any time prior to the start or conclusion of that hole.

A player may concede his opponent's next stroke at any time, provided the opponent's ball is at rest. The opponent is considered to have holed out with his next stroke, and the ball may be removed by either side.

A concession may not be declined or withdrawn.

 

There is a video of this incident at this link (starting around at 4 mins 20 seconds). Erica Shepherd went on to win the final and the US Junior Girls’ title.

Drops from Bunker Linings – Charley Hoffman
On 29th May this year I blogged about Branden Grace using the Rules to his advantage by claiming (unfair?) relief from a rubber lining in the bunker in which his ball was plugged on an upslope lie (see this link). Well, here we go again! Charley Hoffman was faced with a plugged bunker lie at the RBC Canadian Open, shuffled his feet in the sand to take a stance and called over a Rules official, claiming that his feet were touching the ‘concrete’ lining of the bunker. You can make up your own mind as to whether Hoffman should have been given relief from this immovable obstruction, or if he should have been made to play from the bunker by viewing this video link (scroll down to the video).

Remember the days when bunkers were hazards in the non-golfing sense of the word? As a member of a Club that has new, concrete lined bunkers, I recommend that other Committees that have them should at least consider introducing a Local Rule along the following lines;

“The concrete bunker linings are integral parts of the course. The ball must be played as it lies or deemed unplayable (Rule 28)."

 
Good golfing,


 


The above content is strictly copyright to Barry Rhodes © 2017 and may not be copied without permission.

Thursday, 20 July 2017

Internal Out of Bounds at the 2017 Open Championship

An interesting Local Rule was introduced for the 2017 Open Championship at Royal Birkdale. During early practice rounds last week, officials realised that some players may be considering an alternative route on the 9th hole, aiming their tee shots towards the 10th fairway. This route (the dotted line in the photo) gave them a straight shot to a generous fairway with the potential of a shorter second shot to the putting green, avoiding having to take on the 9th's dog-leg fairway (the solid line in the photo). The R&A reacted quickly and on Tuesday their chief referee, David Rickman, notified players that the following Local Rule would apply for the duration of The Open;

Out of Bounds – 9th Hole
Please be advised that the following Local Rule is being introduced on safety grounds:

“When playing the 9th hole only, a ball on or beyond the 10th fairway (defined by the edge of the closely-mown area) is out of bounds.”

There will be no white stakes or lines used to define or indicate this boundary


Although this Local Rule states that there will be no stakes or lines to define or indicate the boundary, it is this Decision 33-2a/12 that provides permission for Committees to introduce an internal out of bounds;

Q. It is proposed to install boundary stakes between two holes as a safety measure. It would prevent players playing a dog-leg hole from driving onto the fairway of another hole in order to cut the "dog-leg." Is it permissible to establish such a boundary?

A. Yes. For the recommended status of such boundary stakes, see Decision 24/5.


The reference to Decision 24/5 is to recommend that in a situation where there are stakes defining an internal out of bounds, the Local Rule should deem them as immovable obstructions during play of the relevant hole. Note that for the 2017 Open Championship a ball played from anywhere on the 9th hole is only out of bounds if it comes to rest on the closely mown area of the 10th hole, or beyond, and not if it is in any rough, bunker, or putting green between the 10th fairway and anywhere on the 9th hole. (edited 21st July)
   
Not receiving ‘Rhodes Rules School’ emails?
Recently I have received more queries than usual from subscribers to my ‘Rhodes Rules School’ wondering whether I have stopped sending these free, weekly emails on the Rules of Golf. I should explain that over the past 8 years there have been over 10,000 subscribers to this service, some who are receiving their first issue and others that have received 375 issues and counting.

When I check into these queries I find that the emails are still being sent weekly by the service company, but from time to time email client providers (@gmail, @yahoo!, @hotmail, etc.) change their filtering policies on newsletter type emails, filtering them into the users’ spam or junk folders. So, if you realise that you are not now receiving these emails, please check into your filtered folders before contacting me.

If you would like to subscribe / re-subscribe to this free service, from which you can unsubscribe at any time, please use this link.

‘Tommy’s Honour’
I am not a regular filmgoer, but I recently made an exception. ‘Tommy's Honour’ is a historical drama film, depicting the lives and careers of, and the complex relationship between, the pioneering Scottish golfing champions, Old Tom Morris and his son Young Tom Morris, both of St. Andrews, the Home of Golf. As a film it is unremarkable and will probably not win any awards, though the scenic photography is stunning. But for anyone who has even a casual interest in the history of golf and two of golf’s founding fathers, it is time well spent. Perhaps surprisingly, my wife also greatly enjoyed the film, which aside from the golfing backdrop, thoughtfully handles class warfare, romance, and the sometimes hostile father and son relationship. I recommend it to all golf enthusiasts.

Good golfing,


 


The above content is strictly copyright to Barry Rhodes © 2017 and may not be copied without permission.

Tuesday, 11 July 2017

Marking Position of Ball during Play of a Hole

A question that some amateur golfers seem to have a problem with is which Rules situations require the position of a ball to be marked and which do not? An easy rule of thumb to assist you with this question is that when the ball is to be replaced at the same spot it was lifted from, it must be marked before it is touched.  

The ball has to be marked before being touched:
  • On the putting green, Rule 16-1b. 
  • For identification, Rule 12-2. Note that this is one of the most frequently breached Rules; you are not permitted to touch your ball in play to positively identify it without marking it first, even if you merely rotate the ball on its spot and do not lift it. 
  • Ball assisting play, Rule 22-1. Note that the ball-marker does not have to remain immediately behind where the ball was at rest. In order to avoid mental interference to the other player while the stroke is being made, once the ball-marker has been placed where the ball was at rest the player might measure one or two club-heads to the side, or even a club-length to the side, providing the routine is accurately reversed when it is being replaced. 
  • Ball interfering with play, Rule 22-2. (Note same as above). 
  • To determine whether relief under a Rule is available (e.g. whether a ball is embedded, or unfit for play), Rule 5-3 and Decision 20-1/0. (This bullet point was edited 13th July 2017.)
If a ball is not marked when the Rules require that it must be, the player incurs a penalty of one stroke and the ball must be replaced. If it is not accurately replaced before the next stroke is made at it, the penalty increases to two strokes in stroke play or loss of hole in match play, for playing from the wrong place, but there is no additional penalty under Rule 20-1. So, for example, there is no additional penalty if the ball was lifted because it was interfering with play of another ball, and then placed (or dropped) and played from a wrong place.

A ball does not have to be marked:

  • When it has been deemed unplayable, Rule 28. 
  • When relief is being taken from an immovable obstruction, Rule 24-2. 
  • When relief is being taken from a (lateral) water hazard, Rule 26-1. 
  • When relief is being taken from an abnormal ground condition, which includes ground under repair, casual water and hole, cast or runway made by a burrowing animal, Rule 25-1. 
  • When relief is being taken from a wrong putting green, Rule 25-2. 
  • Under some Local Rules, e.g. relief from a staked tree.
There are occasions when the Rules do not require that the position of a ball is marked, but when it might be advisable to do so:
  • Moving a movable obstruction, Rule 24-1. Note that if a ball moves while a movable obstruction is being moved it must be replaced, so it may be advisable, though not required by the Rules, to mark its position before removing the obstruction.
A ball to be lifted under the Rules may be lifted by the player, his partner or another person authorised by the player. In all these cases the player is responsible for any breach of the Rules, including not marking its position when the Rules require that it must be marked.

Of course you do not have to bother remembering any of the above regarding marking a ball before lifting it. If you take the precaution of always marking the ball before touching it you will avoid any penalty for getting it wrong.

Jon Rahm Marking Incident
At the Dubai Duty Free Irish Open in Portstewart last Sunday there was another marking and replacing Rules incident. It involved the latest Spanish golfing sensation and runaway winner, Jon Rahm. For a detailed explanation of the ruling by European Tour chief referee, Andy McPhee, click on this Sky Sports video link. I am not going to comment any further, other than to say that I supported the Lexi Thompson ruling last April and now support this Jon Rahm ruling.

Good golfing,


 


Please remember that if you have any questions on the Rules of Golf you can easily search the content of more than 400 blogs of mine, by entering a few relevant words in the ‘Search This Blog’ box on the right side of each of my blog pages.

The above content is strictly copyright to Barry Rhodes © 2017 and may not be copied without permission.

Tuesday, 27 June 2017

Thorbjørn Olesen Disagrees with Ruling

During the second round of the BMW International Open, the Danish Pro, Thorbjørn Olesen, asked for a ruling when his ball placed at rest rolled back into the water whilst he was walking up to the putting green to assess his chip. Subsequently, he criticised; the official that gave him the ruling that he didn’t like, previous officials who he said had given him wrong rulings “so many times this year”, and the Rule itself.

The details were that following his second stroke on the 4th hole Olesen’s ball had landed unplayable in water. On taking relief from the hazard he dropped and re-dropped his ball, which on both occasions rolled back inside the hazard. He then tried to place his ball where it had first touched the ground on the second drop, but had trouble trying to place it at rest on the sloping ground. Eventually, after several tries, he did get it to stay at rest and so he removed his hand and walked up to the putting green. The ball then slowly rolled back down the slope, across the hazard margin and into the water. Apparently, a Rules official who had witnessed the placing wrongly thought that the ball could be replaced where it was without penalty, but this was subsequently corrected by European Tour Senior Referee, Andy McFee. The ball should obviously have been dropped again under Rule 26, for a second penalty stroke, but the fact that the official had advised Olesen that he could place the ball meant that he avoided the penalty of two strokes for placing a ball instead of dropping it.

At the time of writing there are three separate videos on this incident on the same web page at this Golf Channel link; 1. Olesen explaining the incident to Andy McFee, with a replay of the incident with commentary, which for a change was spot on, 2. Olesen describing the incident and his problem with it, and 3. Andy McFee explaining the ruling.


Local Rule re Accidentally Moving Ball on Putting Green
Has your Club/Society introduced the Local Rule relating to accidentally moving a ball or ball marker on the putting green? If not, why not? Both the R&A and USGA have recommended that all competitions should now be played with this recommended Local Rule operating. See this blog of mine for more detail. Remarkably, it seems that despite the extensive media coverage on this issue, at least one professional golfer who earns their living from the sport, did not take it in and presumably did not bother to read the Local Rules pertaining to the WGC Match Play tournament last April at Austin, Texas.

The circumstance of the incident was that following the first round group matches, Englishman, Tyrrell Hatton, was in a play-off against Spaniard, Rafa Cabrera Bello, and American, Charles Howell III, to see which of them was going through to the next round. As Hatton was lining up his short par putt on the first hole of the playoff he accidentally moved his ball. Wrongly assuming that he had incurred a penalty, he tapped his ball into the hole and walked off the putting green leaving the others to complete the hole and the playoff. Had he known, or remembered, the new Local Rule, or consulted with a Rules official, he would have realised that he should have replaced his ball where it was before he accidentally caused it to move, without incurring any penalty.


History of Rules Changes
If you ever have a reason to research when a particular Rule of Golf was introduced, amended, or developed, I recommend the ‘Historical Rules of Golf’ web site at this link.  Kudos to John Hutchinson and all those that assisted him with their contributions to this excellent resource.


Club/Society Quiz Night

Why not run a quiz night for your members? I have done all the work for you by;
  • Eliminating the chore of composing suitable questions. 
  • Ensuring all answers are correct and not open to dispute. 
  • Providing the appropriate Rules references. 
  • Supplying helpful explanations, where necessary. 
  • Including a handy check sheet for fast and accurate marking of answer sheets.
Click here for details.

Good golfing,



The above content is strictly copyright to Barry Rhodes © 2017 and may not be copied without permission.

Tuesday, 13 June 2017

Tips on Match Play Rules

I regularly receive requests for rulings relating to match play situations after a player has lost a hole, or the match, due to a Rules incident that they were not sure about. Most golfers play far more rounds of stroke play golf than match play golf and do not realise that there are several important differences in the Rules of these formats. Below are my 12 tips that every player should understand and remember before commencing a match.

1. You may practice on the course on the day of a match (Rule 7-1).

2. You must not touch your opponent’s ball in play, unless you are helping to search for it (Rule 18-3).
Do not mark an opponent’s ball on the putting green, unless they ask you to.

3. A concession of a hole may be given at any time and cannot be declined or withdrawn (Rule 2-4).
You may putt out after receiving the concession, providing the action is not of assistance to your partner in in a four-ball or best-ball match.

4. Incorrect information (Rule 9-2).
If you give your opponent wrong information about your score you must correct it before they make their next stroke, or you lose the hole. Similarly, if they give you wrong information.


5. Order of Play (Rule 10-1).
If your opponent plays out of turn you may let their stroke stand, or require that they cancel the stroke and play again in the correct order. In four-ball match play, balls belonging to the same side may be played in the order that the side considers best.


6. After a stroke your ball hits your opponent, or their equipment (Rule 19-3).
You may choose to replay the stroke, or accept it and play your next shot from where the ball had come to rest.

7. Putt from the putting green hits a ball at rest on the putting green (Rule 19-5).
There is no penalty in match play, the other ball must be replaced and your ball played from where it comes to rest.

8. Four-ball match play – representation of side (Rule 30-3a).
One partner may play for any part, or all of a match, but if and when their partner arrives they must wait until the start of the next hole to join the match.

9. Four-ball match play – wrong ball (Rule 30-3c).
If a player makes a stroke at a wrong ball their partner may continue play of the hole without penalty. If it was the partner's ball that was played they must place a ball where it was wrongly played from.

10. Asking for and giving advice (Rule 8-1).
If a third party gives unsolicited advice no penalty is incurred, but you must request that they do not do so again. You may not give advice to any team member other than your partner.

11. Ignoring an opponent’s breach of Rule (Rule 1-3). In match play, you do not have to call a penalty on your opponent if you witness a breach of Rule by them.
But don’t discuss the breach with the opponent before teeing off at the next hole, or you could both be disqualified for agreeing to waive a Rule.

12. If you are unsure of a Rule or procedure try and resolve it with your opponent immediately (Rule 2-5).
But if you cannot agree, a claim has to be made before teeing-off at the next hole. You must notify your opponent that you are making a claim, agree the facts and ask the Committee for a ruling.

This last point is important. I receive several communications where a player was ‘bullied’ into accepting a ruling by their opponent, which was subsequently found to be incorrect - too late to affect the result. Opponents should not to get into an argument on the course, but should agree on the facts of the situation and seek an authoritative ruling from a Committee member, or someone else whose knowledge of the Rules can be trusted. If a timely official ruling is not received, the match should be continued and played to a conclusion whereby there is a definitive result, depending on whether the eventual ruling for the disputed hole was won by either side, or was halved.

Good golfing,



 

Special Offer! Purchase either of my 999 Questions eBooks (receiving both .pdf and Kindle formats) and receive a free copy of ‘999 Tips on Using the Rules of Golf to Your Advantage’. Click here for information on the eBooks and prices in $, £ and €.

The above content is strictly copyright to Barry Rhodes © 2017 and may not be copied without permission.

 

Monday, 29 May 2017

Two Rules Incidents at BMW PGA Championship

There were at least two interesting Rules incident at last week’s BMW PGA Championship at Wentworth Club, Virginia Water, Surrey, both of which involved South African competitors.

Branden Grace Taking (Unfair?) Relief
After eagling his 12th hole, Branden Grace, was tied for the lead at 6 under when he found his ball plugged in the sand on the upslope of a greenside bunker, giving him a very difficult lie to make any reasonable stroke from. He took a stance, as though preparing for his stroke, shuffling and twisting his feet into the sand. But then he stepped away and called for a Rules official. He told him that when he took his stance his feet were touching the rubber lining to the bunker and that he was claiming free relief from this immovable obstruction, which is permitted by Rule 24-2b(ii). There is no doubt that a player may take relief from an immovable obstruction interfering with their stance, but would the lining have been exposed if Grace had taken his stance with less vigour? In the circumstance, the USGA rules official, Mark Hill, had little option but to permit Grace the free relief by dropping his ball in a more favorable area of the bunker, within one club-length of the nearest point of relief, not nearer the hole, but there was much criticism from commentators and players, including Paul McGinley, who as he watched the incident unfold said;

“It was ridiculous. If you twist your feet enough you’re bound to eventually reach the bunker lining. That means anytime a player wants relief from a poor lie he can simply twist his feet until he reaches the bunker lining. That can’t be right.”


Quite! I wonder if the official knew that Branden Grace had used the same Rule to obtain a similarly favourable relief 18 months ago. See this blog of mine for details. 


Incidentally, if an official had observed Grace digging into the sand with his feet and judged that he had done so in excess of what was necessary to obtain a firm stance for the intended stroke, he could have penalised him two strokes for a breach of Rule 13-4, as per Decision 13-4/0.5.

(Edit 30th May 2017: There is a video of this incident at this link. I note from this video that the official permitted Grace to smooth the footsteps in the sand that he had previously made in digging-in for his stroke. In my opinion, this should not have been permitted. In any case, having received relief without penalty, the permitted area of drop was within one club-length of the nearest point of relief from the uncovered lining, which was outside of the disturbed area of sand. My opinion is based on part of Decision 13-4/11, though this refers to footsteps made in searching for a ball).

Ernie Els Penalising Himself for Taking (Unfair?) Relief
Another interesting Rules incident happened at Wentworth on the same day, but this time no official was involved. Having reached the rough beside the green with his second stroke on the par-5 12th hole, Ernie Els was unsure as to whether his ball had plugged. Rule 25-2 only provides relief for an embedded ball in a ‘closely mown area’, but as is now the norm in most Pro competitions, the European Tour extends this relief by a Local Rule to ‘through the green’. Els was aware that he was entitled to lift his ball to determine whether it was embedded, which would entitle him to a relief drop, so he correctly announced his intention to his fellow competitors that he was going to mark and lift his ball to examine the lie. He quickly determined that the ball had not been embedded, so relief was not available. The Rules require that the ball must then be replaced with a fellow-competitor being given the opportunity to observe the replacement.

Despite having to chip from the rough, Els made an excellent contact with his ball and watched incredulously as the ball rolled across the green and into the hole for an eagle 3. The interview that he gave after the round explains what happened next;

"I just felt uncomfortable by the way the ball came out. The ball came out way too good, so I felt I didn't quite probably put it (back) exactly where I should have. Under the Rules you try and put it back the way you think it should be, but I still felt uncomfortable with it, so we took a two-shot penalty. I know deep down the ball wasn't quite where it should be and I wouldn't be able to live with myself."

So, it was the fact he made perfect contact with his ball, resulting in his chip shot being holed, that led him to believe that he could not possibly have replaced the ball in exactly the same lie as to where it had been embedded and although no-one else was doubting the replacement, including a European Tour Official, who he consulted after the round, he ultimately felt that the best resolution was for him to self-impose a penalty of two strokes, under Rule 20-7, for playing from a wrong place. Kudos to a great golfer who is also a great example to those of us that love the game.

Coincidentally, at the same time that many were complimenting Ernie Els for his absolute integrity in strictly following the Rules at Wentworth, others were raising questions as to whether Branden Grace had taken an unfair action to take advantage of them.

Good golfing,


 


Anyone purchasing my newest eBook, ‘999 More Questions on the Rules of Golf’ ($10.99/£7.99/€9.99) before Saturday 17th June, will receive a FREE copy of my eDocument, ’99 Tips on Using the Rules of Golf to Your Advantage’. Click here to purchase.

The above content is strictly copyright to Barry Rhodes © 2017 and may not be copied without permission.