Speaking of Wrong Places...

One the Champions Tour today there was a wrong place penalty assessed to Bob Tway.  He was preparing for a chip shot with an awkward stance just outside a bunker, he grounded the club behind the ball and TV replay showed that the ball moved.  He did not replace the ball as required by Rule 18-2b and therefore instead of a one-stroke penalty for moving his ball at rest after address, he incurred a two-stroke penalty for a breach of Rule 18-2b.

The analysis and interview with the Champions Tour official showed that the main question was whether Tway had in fact soled his club behind the ball and therefore addressed it.  TV review indicated that he had.  Because there was no evidence that anything other than the player caused the ball to move, the new Exception to 18-2b did not apply.  They took their time and involved several officials in addition to the TV replay and the commentary was spot on.  They wanted to be sure he had addressed the ball, and once that was determined they were certain of the ruling.  Nice job, but another unfortunate turn of events for Mr. Tway whose bogey became a triple.

Peg Barnard Invitational Round 1

With day 1 in the books it's safe to take a look back at all the great things that happened.  First, the weather was amazing and it looks as though we're going to dodge a bullet with the potential frost.  But that isn't Rules news. 

We had a shotgun start in groups of 3 and the set pace of play was 4 hours and 41 minutes.  Not cheetah speed by any means, but no small feat for a collegiate shotgun either.  All groups finished under pace of play and all scorecards had been returned within 5 hours and 10 minutes.  If you've ever worked a collegiate shotgun your jaw probably just dropped.

Most of the rulings today were simple and typical.  Ground under repair, obstruction relief, french drain questions, the usual suspects.  One ruling stood out as it was complicated and thought provoking.

The 12th hole at Stanford University Golf Course is a par 5 with the tee shot over a ravine that transitions from a water hazard to lateral water hazard on both sides.  The player severely hooked her tee shot.  While the official went forward to pinpoint the location where it last crossed the margin of the lateral portion of the hazard, the player stepped forward and dropped and played under 26-1b with relation to where her ball last crossed the margin of the regular water hazard on the other side of the ravine. Unfortunately, that was not the correct place.  The rover was called in to address the wrong place ruling and here's where it got even more interesting.

First, there is a two-stroke penalty for a breach of 26-1 in addition to the initial one-stroke penalty for proceeding under 26-1. It was determined that because she played an unobstructed shot from a pristine lie rather than an obstructed shot from a horrible lie, the player gained a significant advantage and therefore her breach was a serious one and needed to be corrected in accordance with 20-7c.  She then dropped under 26-1c with relation to the correct reference point and played on.

The debate that ensues is what constitutes a serious breach.  Decision 26-1/21 details how a distance advantage can constitute a serious breach.  A player that plays several yards closer to the hole has not committed a serious breach, whereas a player that plays 50 yards closer has.  In this particular situation distance was not the main consideration as the player actually dropped incorrectly from about 50-80 yards farther from the hole.  However, Note 1 to 20-7c states, "A competitor is deemed to have committed a serious breach of the applicable Rule if the Committee considers he has gained a significant advantage as a result of playing from a wrong place."

Playing from a pristine lie from further away potentially allowed the player to use a longer club and advance the ball more successfully than where her drop should have been.  The Committee can also consider this a significant advantage and therefore a serious breach. It was an unfortunate turn of events for the player, and it stings even more that if she had proceeded under 26-1a (stroke and distance) instead of dropping 20 yards in front of the teeing ground under 26-1b, there would have been no wrong place penalty. 

"Where Was it?" "The Fairway"

Bubba Watson was a little wayward in the middle of his round today, and so was one of the carts driving around the course at Riviera CC in the Northern Trust Open.  The cart accidentally drove over Bubba's ball in the rough and moved it.  He then dropped it to put it back into play.  Some of you may wonder why it wasn't simply replaced...

First, Bubba's ball at rest was moved by an outside agency.  Rule 18-1 applies and the ball must be replaced.  However, his lie was altered and therefore we go to Rule 20-3b to get the ball back into play.  Through the green, except in a hazard the ball must be placed in the nearest most similar lie.  But wait...he dropped the ball!  Well, if we go to the Note it states, "If the original lie of the ball to be replaced has been altered and it is impossible to determine the spot where the ball is to be placed or replaced, Rule 20-3b applies if the original lie is known, and 20-3c applies if the original lie is not known."

Because Bubba was not next to the ball when it was run over the original lie was not known, it was only known that the ball had been moved and the lie altered, he didn't know exactly where to put it back or what lie he had, therefore Rule 20-3c applies.  Rule 20-3c requires the ball through the green to be dropped as near as possible to where it lay but not in a hazard.  He was entitled to clean the ball before dropping it (see Rule 21).  You could also have reached this ruling by reading Note 3 under Rule 18-1 when it is impossible to determine the spot to replace the ball.

So the Tour official had Bubba drop the ball as near as possible to where it lay.  The first drop rolled closer to the hole and he was required to re-drop under Rule 20-2c.  He did, and there was a slight hesitation to determine if the ball had rolled closer to the hole again, but it had not so the ball was in play.

The best part of the procedure is when the official asked Bubba where the ball was before it had been run over and Bubba replied, "The fairway."  Nice try, Bubba.

The Amazing Spiderwoman

            Hopefully, by now you’ve heard about the amazing “Spiderwoman,” who essentially risked her life and played through intense pain just to finish a qualifying round. 

            On the fourth hole at the qualifier for the ISPS Handa Australian Open, the LPGA’s season opener, Daneila Holmqvist felt an intense stabbing pain just above her ankle.  She noticed a small eight-legged critter running from her and the caddies quickly identified it as a black widow.  Now the amazing part starts.  She grabbed a tee from her pocket to slice open the wound and squeezed as much of the venom out as possible.  “It was not the best looking thing I’ve done,” she said, “but I had to get as much out of me as I could.”

            Given that black widow bites are known to have been deadly to full grown adults as well as children, a trip to the hospital would seem like to most reasonable next step.  Instead, she kept playing – for fourteen more holes.  I’m reminded of Bill Murray in Caddyshack when the priest asks if he should continue in the pouring rain.  Bill’s character, Carl Spackler, replies in his now iconic accent, “I’d keep playing.  I don’t think the heavy stuff is gonna come down for quite a while.”  Daniela unfortunately shot 74 and did not qualify for the event, admitting she felt a bit dizzy and tired after the round.  I think she should be given a sponsor’s invite based on her merit in the situation alone (I suppose stupidity and ignorance for your safety can be considered merit in this case, I mean, she did at least squeeze the venom out). That isn’t the case and she’s on to her next event.

            The situation allows me to dig into my Rules book and go over two situations in particular that apply or could apply to her case.

Discontinuing Play

            Clearly, in Holmqvist’s case she had to act quickly, so the disruption of play may not have been long.  But there are instances when players are and are not permitted to discontinue play of their own accord.  Rule 6-8 gives us four main reasons a player may discontinue play:

1) The Committee has suspended play.  This is pretty clear, if the Committee tells you first that you may stop, then go ahead and stop.  In some cases, the Committee may suspend play requiring you to stop immediately because of a dangerous situation.

2)  The player believes there is danger from lightening.  So the player is able to stop play if he (or she) alone believes the thunder sound is just a bit too close.  Report to the Committee immediately.

3) The player is seeking a decision from the Committee on a doubtful or disputed point (see Rules 2-5 and 34-3).  There is a limit to this.  First, you must immediately report to the Committee.  If the Committee is not readily available, it is not acceptable to wait an undue amount of time for an official to arrive.  You may be allowed to discontinue play briefly under this clause, but there are plenty of situations where a player could be subject to an undue delay penalty (Rule 6-7) if they wait an inordinate amount of time.

4) There is some other good reason to discontinue play such as sudden illness.  Ken Venturi’s U.S. Open at Congressional comes to mind. This would also be the clause under which Daniela discontinued play.  Make sure you report to the Committee as soon as practicable.  The penalty for discontinuing play without a good reason to do so is disqualification.

Rule 6-8 also states that bad weather is not a good reason, of itself, to discontinue play.  Sorry fair weather fans.

            To cover Daniela specifically, Decision 6-8/3a rules on discontinuing play due to a physical problem:

Q. During a round, a player is incapacitated by heat exhaustion, a bee sting or because he has been struck by a golf ball.  The player reports his problem to the Committee and requests the Committee to allow him some time to recuperate.  Should the Committee comply with the request?

A. The matter is up to the Committee.  Rule 6-8a(iv) permits a player to discontinue play because of sudden illness and the player incurs no penalty if he reports to the Committee as soon as practicable and the Committee considers his reason satisfactory.  It would seem reasonable for the Committee to allow a player 10 or 15 minutes to recuperate from such a physical problem but ordinarily allowing more time than that would be inadvisable.

A bite from a black widow is a bit more severe than a bee sting, so I think Holmqvist was clearly safe from penalty and had the right to discontinue play for a few minutes. 

Other Dangerous Situations

            There are two decisions under 1-4 that discuss dangerous situations as the term refers to wildlife or poisonous plants.  Decision 1-4/10 permits a player relief if his ball comes to rest in an area surrounded by bees or next to a rattlesnake or other dangerous wildlife.  “It is unreasonable to expect the player to play from such a dangerous situation and unfair to require the player to incur a penalty…”  Had Holmqvist been approaching her ball and found it near a black widow or several widows, this Decision would have exempted her from playing that ball and allowed her to substitute and play a ball in a safer spot (within one club-length from the nearest spot that is not dangerous).

            Decision 1-4/11 further clarifies the meaning of “Dangerous Situation” and rules that a ball coming to rest in an area of poisonous plants would not be a dangerous situation.  “Decision 1-4/10 contemplates a situation which is unrelated to conditions normally encountered on the course.  Unpleasant lies are a common occurrence which players must accept.”  In other words, with rattlers, bees and spiders, neither you nor course have control or knowledge of where they might be.  In the case of plants that are stationary, you shouldn’t be hitting it there.

Four-Ball Rules! I mean, the Rules of Four-Ball...

            So clearly the big news yesterday was the announcement of the U.S. Amateur Four-Ball Championships, starting in 2015.  From a Rules perspective, the fact that they will have a major championship with four-ball stroke play and four-ball match play is awesome.  To sum up the new events, there will be a men’s championship which will consist of 128 teams (or sides as the USGA’s John Bodenhamer correctly stated) that will be reduced to the low 32 teams after two rounds of stroke play.  It will conclude in an 18-hole match.  The women’s championship will start with 64 teams and follow the same structure the rest of the way.  They’re planning to hold the event early in the year (during the college season) which will break away from the traditional timing of USGA championships.  The time for qualifying will be complicated, but that’s an issue for another day.

            I certainly don’t want to downplay the retirement of the Amateur Public Links and Women’s Amateur Public Links, although I’m not going to take the negative outlook that some have put forth.  Because the name just shouts “public golf” it may look like another strike against Joe Everyday golfer but the truth is the event differed little from the U.S. Amateur in its field and participants.  It was getting much more difficult to determine who was a bona fide public golfer as many collegiate players, including champions of the event, no doubt had access (albeit not officially) to private facilities other than through their schools.  It will be sad to see these championships go, but it’s not a travesty either.

            What the announcement yesterday allows us to do is to open up a part of the Rule book so few people ever do – Rules 30 and 31.

            Rule 30 covers Three-Ball, Best-Ball and Four-Ball Match Play, while Rule 31 covers Four-Ball Stroke Play.  These forms of play need their own Rules because there are certain situations that need to be addressed that the rest of the Rules simply don’t.  So to best give an overview of these Rules, let’s highlight these differences and see how the Rules deal with them.

You’re playing with a Partner as a Side

            For both forms of Four-Ball this means there are several considerations to be addressed. 

·         Rules 30 and 31 tell you that the side can be represented by one or both partners at any time.  An absent partner, however, can only join between the play of two holes, not during a hole.

·         The side can play in any order it sees fit.  This means that a player with the ball closest to the hole could correctly play before other players if the side chooses to.  This isn’t as important in stroke play, but it is very important in match play.  A player could tap in a short putt for a half leaving the way for his partner to take an aggressive run to win the hole from farther away. 

·         Only one partner will incur a penalty if he accidentally plays the other’s ball (30-3c and 31-5).  That player will incur the general penalty for playing a wrong ball, “but his partner incurs no penalty even if the wrong ball belongs to him.”

Certain Penalty Breaches Apply to the Whole Side

            There are certain penalties that are considered egregious enough that the whole side gets the applicable penalty. 

·         If there is a maximum penalty for the round (Rule 4, Rule 6-4 or Local Rules/Conditions of Competition) the penalty will apply to both players.  So if one partner has 15 clubs, both players will incur the penalty.

·         If any partner is disqualified for certain penalties, the whole side will be disqualified from the competition.  Examples that are common between both stroke and match play are Rules 1-3, 4, 5-1 or 2, 6-2, 6-4, 6-7, 11-1, 14-3 and 33-7.  So if either partner makes a stroke with a non-conforming club or off a non-conforming tee the whole side is disqualified.

·         If a player’s breach of a Rule assists his partner in playing the hole (or adversely affects an opponent’s play) then the partner will incur the applicable penalty as well.  So if I remove a loose impediment in a bunker where both my ball and my partner’s ball lay, we will both incur a two-stroke penalty under Rule 13-4.

Disqualification from the Hole

            Because only one of the two scores made by a side needs to be used, one partner could incur a penalty that would normally result in disqualification.  In Four-Ball, except for the specifically listed penalties in 30-3e and 31-7, a player can be disqualified for a hole only.  The earlier example of a wrong ball is perfect.  In match play, the player who strikes the wrong ball is disqualified for the hole only (normally loss of hole).  In stroke play that mistake must be corrected prior to playing from the next teeing ground.  If the mistake isn’t corrected, however, in four-ball the player would only be disqualified from the hole at which the wrong ball was played, not for the entire competition.  It is important, however, that both partners are not disqualified on the same hole.  That would result in the side being disqualified from the competition.

Advice

            Partners can give each other advice and otherwise help the other out.  There are some key points to remember though:

·         You cannot stand on an extension of your partner’s line (line of play or line of putt) behind him during a stroke. This is a breach of 14-2b that would apply to the partner playing the stroke, or to the side if the breach assisted the other.

·         You still can’t touch the putting green to indicate a line for putting for a stroke from the putting green.  This is a breach of 8-2b and the partner who is putting would incur the penalty.

·         If your partner attends the flagstick, it is authorized.  Make sure you know where your partner is and what he’s doing, or you could end up with a penalty for striking him (either under 17-3 or 19-2).

 

Hopefully this is a good introduction to the wonderful format of Four-Ball.  For further information or more in depth reading, look to Rules 30 and 31 and the applicable Decisions.

Another K.O. for Ko

            For those of you who were busy watching Bill Murray’s antics and the best argument for Phil to switch to soft spikes, over in New Zealand something far more awesome than anything that could happen in Monterey was taking place. 

            Officially, the LPGA doesn’t start until next week, but many Tour players were warming up with a solid field and event in the New Zealand Women’s Open.  The field included LPGA Tour winners Anna Norqvist, Christina Kim and Sydnee Michaels among other well-known players.  The field also included LPGA Tour Champion Lydia Ko, who at 14-years old became the youngest player ever to win a professional event, and then followed it with an LPGA Tour victory at the Canadian Women’s Open at 15-years old.  She added the U.S. Women’s Amateur title to that list and as of a few hours ago she also tacked on the national open title for her native homeland.

            Ko finished the 3 round event at 10-under par.  She was the only player in the field with 3 rounds of 70 or better including a pair of weekend 68s.  Her final round had only one bogey on the third hole as she completed her final 15 holes without a blemish. She hit 17 of 18 greens. It was truly a remarkable performance.

            In stark contrast to her LPGA Tour victory which was very much without contest on the final day, this was neck-and-neck all the way to the finish.  In fact, she was tied going into the final hole with American Amelia Lewis who three-putted the final green to drop to -9 in the penultimate group.  Ko, needing par to win, delivered and captured her third professional title at the age of 15.

            If you were following on Twitter, Ron Sirak, Randall Mell and Beth Ann Baldry all gave frequent updates and when the result was final the congratulations started pouring in.  I think one of the classiest things I’ve seen in the recent past is the string of Retweets from Lydia Ko who appears to have Retweeted every single congratulatory tweet sent her way.  For the Twitter-less, a Retweet is very much like a thank you because it resends your original tweet to the person’s own followers.   Not only is she already a veteran champion but she’s a class act as well. 

Ko has stated she’s interested in the normal college life and I think there are coaches everywhere who would love to have her on the team, but I’m not sure that would even be a challenge.  It’s clear she belongs amongst the very best in the game and I sure hope she stays interested in golf so we can watch for years to come.  Congratulations Lydia, good luck next week and into the future!