This post won’t nearly be in high
demand as the last, but there is another tournament going on this weekend
besides that one down in my old stomping grounds of Georgia…
Today was the first day of the 67th
annual Western Intercollegiate, known as the oldest collegiate event west of
the Mississippi at famed Pasatiempo Golf Course, also known as the last home of
the architect of that course the pros are playing on this weekend. Today was the 36 hole day, where the players
play 36 consecutive holes in a shotgun start.
It’s always tough, and the wind in the afternoon made it even
tougher. But I’m not going to talk about
the battle at the top between #1 ranked Cal and 5th ranked UCLA, the
leaderboard does the talking for them. I’m
interested in the rulings that happened out on the course.
Double Obstruction
My first ruling of the day came
early, just long of the 10th hole.
There is a split-rail fence near the road that is not an
obstruction. You can see in the pictures
below, the ball came to rest directly underneath the fence and the player
clearly was entitled to relief. Because
of a local rule that made the road and fence one obstruction, the nearest point
of relief was going to be on the grass left of the fence. The only issue with that is the player would
have to stand on a cart path (which was a separate obstruction) or play off of
it if he dropped there. I explained that
relief from the cart path would then take him back underneath the fence, and by
Decision 1-4/8 at that point we would go to the nearest point of relief for
both obstructions which would be in dirt and tufts of grass left of the cart
path.
The player decided to try and drop
in the small area of grass he had that would be within his legal dropping
area. His first drop bounced and hit his
leg. That required a re-drop under Rule
20-2a with no limit to how many times he could re-drop (meaning it was a “no
drop”). The next drop did not land in
the legal dropping area. He was required
to correct the error by dropping again under Rule 20-6. The next drop bounced and again hit his leg
(unlimited re-drop under Rule 20-2a).
The next drop landed in the dropping area but rolled closer to the hole
than his nearest point of relief. That
required a re-drop under Rule 20-2c, but at least this one counted. For the scoreboard that’s 1 good drop so
far. Drop 5 did not land in the dropping
area, he had to correct the mistake under Rule 20-6. Drop 6 bounced and hit his leg for the third
time, again requiring a re-drop. Drop 7
finally landed within the dropping area and did not roll closer to the
hole. Even better for the player it
stayed on the grass and he was able to get a clean shot on it. I don’t need to go into the fact that it came
to rest where he had interference from a sprinkler head and had to take relief
again…
Giving Us the Turn-Around
I soon was called to the 1st
hole which is lined on the left hand side by a large driving range net. The posts of the driving range net define out
of bounds. This player’s ball came to
rest precariously close to being out of bounds.
In fact, if we’d drawn a string from post to post it’s possible the ball
was out but by my eye and the other official with me, part of the ball was
touching the course so it was not out of bounds. Next to the ball was a large cable-wire
running from the top of the driving range post to about a yard in bounds and
right of the player’s ball. I asked the
player what shot he would play if the cable were not there. After discussing with his coach, he stated
the most reasonable shot for him to play would be to punch out diagonally
backwards. He took his stance for that
stroke, it was definitely reasonable, and he had interference from the
cable. Decision 24-2b/17 tells us that
if a player has interference from an obstruction for an abnormal stroke, and
the abnormal stroke is reasonable under the circumstances that the player is
entitled to relief. So I gave him
relief.
That same decision also tells us
that the player could then turn around and play a normal stroke and if he then
has interference from the obstruction he would be entitled to relief
again. The player turned around for a
normal stroke and had interference. So I
gave him relief. By sheer dumb luck, the
player was entitled to relief that moved him completely away from a boundary
net and gave him a decent escape route from a sticky situation. If this sounds fishy see Decision 24-2b/6
which tells is that it is perfectly fine if a player incidentally gets relief
from a boundary fence when taking relief from an obstruction. I’m telling you, the Rules really are here to
help…
Drop the Ball – Fido
The fun ruling of the day was
unfortunately not mine, but one of our other officials on the 6th
hole (next to Dr. MacKenzie’s old home).
Before a player was able to play his shot from the fairway, a dog ran
out and stole his ball! They gave chase
for a bit and finally got the ball back from the dog. In this situation Rule 18-1 applies. There is no penalty for the outside agency
moving the ball and the ball had to be replaced. Because they knew the exact spot to replace
the ball, the player simply had to replace it on the spot and there was no need
to turn to Rule 20-3c.
Pace of Play – Again
Let’s put it this way, we have an 88
player field, playing in groups of 4 in a 36 hole shotgun, on a difficult golf
course. The final time was an average of
about 5 hours and 20 minutes per round, which in the grand scheme of things was
actually pretty solid. It would’ve been
quicker had the wind not started blowing 20-25 mph.
Several groups were put on the clock
throughout the day, pretty much only in the first round. In the group I ended up timing, I issued two
official warnings for bad times. One
player took 45 seconds over a tee shot and another took 56 seconds over a
putt. This doesn’t sound horrendous but
I am also fairly generous about when I start the stopwatch so when a player
gets a bad time, it was a bad time.
What I found interesting is that notifying the players they were out of
position and behind pace only quickened their step slightly. Issuing the official warnings was like
jumpstarting a speed-bike. They were
back on time within a hole of the warnings.
So how about Tianlang Guan? The policy in effect at the Western is very
similar to the policy that penalized Guan.
A player has 40 seconds to play a stroke once their group is out of
position and behind time. According to
the reports, Guan was warned about slow play on the 12th and 16th
holes before he received a penalty on the 17th. I don’t know the exact policy, but either the
players are given two warnings or he was first warned that the group was out of
position and would be timed on the 12th and then had a bad time and
an official warning on the 16th.
Either way, he had two chances to play a little more quickly.
Could the argument be made that it
was a poor application of the policy?
Perhaps. I think Morgan Pressel
had a stronger argument. Bottom line is
that the Rule is the Rule and Guan took it exactly that way. For the way he handled it that kid should be
highly praised and I wish him the best for years to come. The only thing I want now is for that policy
to be enforced regularly. The only way
to speed up play is to actually enforce the policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment