The
Goodwin had so many good things going that it warranted two separate
posts. The first post discussed
the amazing pace of play. This
post will cover the most interesting rulings that took place over the course of the
tournament.
The Power Line Ruling
On
several holes at Stanford Golf Course, power lines come in to play and so the
local Rule as prescribed in Decision 33-8/13 was in effect. As we found out, I had made one small
error: I did not specify that it should only apply to the 3 holes where power
lines are actually crossing the line of play or are on the course. The 8th hole at Stanford has
power lines directly adjacent to the course. A player hit his tee shot and it
bounced off the cart path and into one of the adjacent power lines, a rub of
the green that led to his ball coming to rest in bounds, but in a fairly
difficult position.
A large kudos goes to this player
who was initially asking for nearby obstruction relief and was denied because
he did not have interference under Rule 24-2a. He then pointed to his Notice to Competitors, which had the
local Rule on it and said, “But my ball hit the power line.” The local Rule does not specify HOW the
ball must strike the power line (in the air vs. on the bounce) only THAT it
strikes the power line. The player
was required to cancel the stroke and replay from the teeing ground. In the future the Notice will specify
Hole 1 & 2 for the application of the power line local Rule.
Conforming Grooves
We
had one unfortunate ruling that had to be made against a player following the
first round. An equipment rep was
at the event and asking players about their equipment and was speaking with a
player before the round when he noticed wedges that were from the pre-2010
groove Rule and did not conform with the requirements of Decision 4-1/1 which
is now on the NCAA Hard Card. The
player was under the misconception that the non-conforming grooves only applied
to USGA championships and that he could use them in NCAA play. He looked at his hard card and realized
his error. He found Coach Ray who
then found me and we went through the process of confirming that the grooves on
his wedges were in fact, not in accordance with the conforming grooves
condition. I confirmed this with
both the rep and the Informational Club Database from the USGA.
Being
a team event, the individual was disqualified from the first round, but per
Decision 33/8, the player was permitted to play and count his score for the
team event in the final two rounds (provided he used conforming wedges). He borrowed some conforming wedges and
continued on. Unfortunately for
the team this meant that they had to count an 81 instead of a 71 in the first
round and dropped 10 strokes in one fell swoop.
For
those worried about the use of those wedges in previous events, remember that
per Rule 34-1b once the competition is closed he would only be disqualified if
he had known that he was in breach of a Rule with a disqualification
breach. He was not aware that he
was in breach of the Rule, so the issue only applied to the current
competition.
Moving Ball After
Address
Last
fall I did a Rules presentation for the Stanford Men’s Team that covered all
kinds of topics, including the 2014 Decision changes, Rule 3-3 and Rule
18-2. The majority of questions revolved
around Rule 18-2b and when the ball should or should not be replaced.
Naturally,
during The Goodwin we had multiple rulings involving a ball moving before or
after address.
In on case, Rule 20-3d applied, the
ball came to rest after being replaced and then subsequently rolled closer to
the hole without anything causing it.
The ball must be played as it lies and 18-2 does not apply.
In another case, the player
addressed his ball and the ball moved slightly forward. The official on site correctly Ruled
and confirmed on the radio that the player incurred a one-stroke penalty and
must replace the ball. It was not
known or virtually certain that the player did not cause the ball to move, so
the Exception to Rule 18-2b did not apply.
We heard at Rules School this year
that Rule 18-2 will be undergoing some changes in 2016 and it was even implied
that 18-2b and the whole issue of before or after address will go away. I hope that is the case. The player either caused the ball to
move or not.
Lump of Sand?
I
was approached by a player at the turn about a situation that had occurred
several hole prior. Near a bunker
he noticed a hard clump of what was apparently sand which had been wet and
hardened into a single lump about ¾ the size of a golf ball. He removed the lump from about 8 inches
behind his ball and the lump did not break when removed. Due to the circumstances when
approached I needed to confirm what we were dealing with. 1) Does this constitute a loose
impediment? Sand and loose soil
are not loose impediments through the green, only on the putting green. Does this hardened clump of sand
qualify as sand, or a lump of earth (Decision 23/13)? If it was sand, why did
the player remove it? Did this improve his area of intended swing or lie?
A nearby coach later claimed he
witnessed the player sweep sand from both in front of the ball and behind the
ball, rather than lifting a solitary lump. This change of facts definitely changes the answer.
We came to the decision that if the
lump was as explained by the player, it would be a loose impediment and he was
entitled to remove it. So when the
player was interviewed at scoring we got another viewpoint from his
fellow-competitor who agreed that the player did not sweep sand but simply
removed one single clump that did not break and was about ¾ the size of a golf
ball. Regardless of the
composition the Committee agreed that this hardened clump constituted a loose
impediment and not sand or loose soil. Therefore the player incurred no penalty
because Rule 23-1 permits a player to remove loose impediments through the
green without penalty, even in an area protected by Rule 13-2, provided the
ball is not moved in the process. (For more on removal of loose sand on your
line of play see the earlier post about Keegan Bradley last week at Doral).
Unannounced
“Provisional”
After
playing his second shot into the par-5 first hole, the player’s ball came to
rest somewhere close to the boundary.
He was not sure so he took out another ball and announced to his
fellow-competitors that this ball was a Nike with a blue dot, the other ball
had a green dot. He did not say
anything else, dropped the ball and played it toward the green.
We
had an official in the area that was close enough to hear the statement but not
close enough to confirm with the player that it was intended to be a
provisional ball before he played.
Unfortunately, the announcement the player made did not qualify as a
statement that announces a provisional ball (see also Decision 27-2a/1). I had this exact situation an
announcement during 2009 PGA Tour Qualifying School and we took the situation
to Golf House who confirmed that particular announcement did not constitute an
acceptable provisional ball announcement.
The word provisional was not used and it did not make it clear that he
was proceeding under Rule 27-2a.
So
when the player asked if his first ball was in bounds, the player was informed
that his second ball was the ball in play under penalty of stroke and
distance. The ruling was correct
but there is one main thing I would have liked to have seen go differently:
-
In a situation where the player is disadvantaged
by the ruling (correct or incorrect), get on the radio. I did not like hearing
about this situation after the fact. This applies to a lot of situations. We know that it is sometimes difficult under the gun to get on the radio before issuing a ruling, but please try.
Movable Obstruction
We
received a call on the radio about a ball that had come to rest against several
stacked cart signs that were intended to be away from the normal course of
play. The official on site radioed
to confirm that the player could move the obstructions, and if the ball moved
he must replace it, without penalty. Movable obstructions are treated
similarly, but ultimately differently from loose impediments under the
Rules. Loose impediments through
the green may be moved, but the ball must not be moved in the process. Because movable obstructions are
artificial objects that don’t belong on the course, they may be removed
ANYWHERE, and if the ball is moved in the process there is no penalty but the
ball must be replaced.
Covered by Sand
We
received a call room the 6th hole that a player needed help with a
situation where his ball was covered by sand and could not be identified. Rule 12-1a to the rescue.
Coincidentally this occurred about two hours after the same situation happened
to Jimmy Walker during the Valero Texas Open.
The procedure is simple: the player
may dig with his hands or otherwise, into the sand to find the ball. Once found and identified, the player
must re-create the lie which includes replacing sand and re-covering the ball,
leaving only a small part of the ball visible. If the ball is moved in the process of searching for it,
there is no penalty and the ball must be replaced and the lie re-created.
No comments:
Post a Comment