When you’re working as a Rules
Official, the most important thing when making a ruling is to make sure you get
the facts. At every seminar I’ve
attended with the USGA’s Jeff Hall as an instructor I’ve heard him say, “If
you change the facts, you get a different answer.” At last year’s Western Intercollegiate, I was
involved in a ruling that eventually circulated with different facts, resulting
in the coach and player believing an incorrect ruling had been made. Many, many conversations later, I’m no longer
positive what actually happened, I only know what I was originally told…and
ruled on.
I was at the 10th green
at Pasatiempo, a great junction as a Rules Official because I had quick access
to the 10th hole, 16th hole, 11th hole and 17th
hole, all of which have a variety of
rulings every round. Patrick Cantlay’s
group had just arrived at the green with the entourage (last year’s tournament
was one week removed from Cantlay’s fine performance at the Masters), and
Cantlay was first to play from an awkward position behind the flag. He hit an incredible shot that nicked the
overhanging tree limb and settled about a foot from the hole.
It was then I saw his teammate Pedro
Figuerido waving me over. He explained
to me that his ball-marker had moved as he had knocked it with his putter. I asked him to go through the facts and he
explained he had moved his ball-marker in making his practice strokes, waving
his putter over the ball-marker. I
confirmed that with him and explained that he incurred a one-stroke penalty for
moving the marker and had to replace it.
He asked if I was sure and I said, “Yes, but I will confirm over the
radio with my rovers as well for you.”
I repeated the situation clearly
over the radio so that Pedro could hear me.
I stated he had moved his ball-marker in the process of making practice
swings with his putter and wanted to confirm the one-stroke penalty. The rovers confirmed and I moved on. This was during the first round of the
36-hole day and he saw me later in the day during the second round and asked
again if I was sure. I said yes and
moved on.
At the end of the day, one of my
rovers came to me with an odd situation that occurred later. In Cantlay’s same group, a player of a
different team accidentally moved his ball-marker in the process of brushing
away loose impediments on the putting green.
The rover correctly ruled there was no penalty in this instance and the
marker must be replaced. Cantlay spoke
up, “That’s not what we were told earlier.”
The rover, who had answered my call earlier for confirmation, explained
the difference in the two situations and Cantlay said, “But that’s not what
happened.”
The story then became that Pedro had
been brushing loose impediments away with his putter and in the process moved
his ball-marker. There would have been
no penalty for this, but as you read before, that’s not what I was told
originally.
This difference in facts lead to
multiple conversations with the team’s head coach, who was very cordial and
understanding, just trying to figure out what happened. I explained I ruled based on what was told to
me. If those weren’t the facts, I needed
to be told. As I had repeated the
situation over the radio that would have been a good time for Pedro to step in
and say, “Wait, that’s not quite right.”
At that point mid-way through the third and final round, it was no
longer clear I had been told the correct facts.
What I didn’t want, was to change the ruling based on hearsay. If Pedro wanted to approach me and explain
the true facts I would have been inclined to correct that Committee mistake and
rescind the penalty stroke as the competition had not closed (see Decision
34-3/1). I’m not positive that the facts
that were originally given were incorrect in the first place.
This situation serves as a reminder
to officials and players alike, if you change the facts you get a different
answer, so make sure you give or obtain the right facts.
No comments:
Post a Comment