Thursday at the 78^th Oregon Junior Amateur at Bandon Dunes Golf Resort, two players approached the par 5 ninth green. One had hit a great second to 35 feet and his opponent was lying three 20 feet from the hole. In match play, Rule 10-1b, Order of Play; During Play of Hole, states:

“After both players have started play of the hole, the ball farther from the hole is played first.”

Accordingly, the player laying two, 35 feet away was to play first. He did and lagged his eagle putt to 2 feet and, before marking his ball, I believed he looked to his opponent and asked if he could hole out. I believed his opponent said, “Yes.” I was walking with the group for the entire round as a Rules Official. I wrote in postings for the 99^th Oregon Amateur about the differences between a match that has a Referee appointed and a match that does not. In this case, I had not been appointed as a Referee. Decision USGA/34-3/100, Committee Intervention in Match Play, states:

“In the absence of a referee, a Committee has no authority to intervene in match play unless there is a reason to believe Rule 1-3 is being infringed or a breach of Rule 6-7 is involved. When there is no referee, the player must protect their own right by invoking Rule 2-5 and by referring to the Committee any dispute they cannot resolve.”

I talked with the players before they began their round and told them I would be available to assist should they request it but, without a request, I was simply a spectator. The above decision states that even if I was to observe a Rule being breached, unless the opponent or the player breaching the Rule asked for assistance, I would not act . . . except during a breach of Rule 6-7, Undue Delay; Slow Play or Rule 1-3, Agreement to Waive Rules.

Going back to the scenario on the 9^th green, the player asked his opponent if he could play while he was clearly closer to the hole and his opponent agreed to allow him to putt out. Rule 1-3 states:

“Players must not agree to exclude the operation of any Rule or to waive any penalty incurred. Penalty for breach of Rule 1-3: Match Play – Disqualification of both sides.”

The main purpose of Rules Officials during a tournament is to 1) prevent players from incurring penalties and 2) to enforce the Rules of Golf. I talked with the players once they left the 10^th teeing ground and asked them what had occurred on the 9^th green and were they aware that the farthest from the hole was to play first. The confirmed what I had believed I saw on the 9^th green. The players had agreed to waive a Rule of Golf for which the penalty statement reads, disqualification of both sides. Again as Rules Officials our number one purpose is to prevent players from incurring a penalty. The Decisions book lays out many scenarios in which the Committee should waive a disqualification penalty if the breach was not malicious and does not have a signification impact on the outcome of the match. Decision 1-3/1, Players Agree Not to Tee Off in Prescribed Order to Save Time, states:

“Q. In match play, A wins the 4^th hole. On his way to the 5^th tee, he returns to retrieve a club left at the 4^th green and suggest that his opponent B play first to save time, which B does. Are the players in breach of Rule 1-3?

A. In order to waive a Rule, players must be aware that they are doing so. Therefore, the answer depends on whether the players knew that the Rules do not allow them the option as to who plays first from the tee.

If the players were ignorant of the Rules, there is no penalty.

If the players were aware of the Rules and agreed not to follow them, they are in breach of Rule 1-3 for agreeing to exclude the operation of Rule 10-1a. However, in these circumstances, the Committee would be justified in waiving the disqualification penalty under Rule 33-7. If the players subsequently agreed to exclude the operation of Rule 10-1a, they should be disqualified.”

Because there was a breach of 1-3, even though there was no referee for the match, the Committee would be right to intervene for two reasons. One to let them know they had breached Rule 1-3 and, most importantly, to let them know that the Committee does not believe their breach justifies disqualification though, should they commit a breach of Rule 10-1b again, both players would be disqualified.

The players completed their match without additional incidents and one will be playing this morning in the Championship Final or the 78^th Oregon Junior Amateur.

Immovable Obstruction Relief

A right handed player’s ball came to rest behind a tree on a down slope just off the left side of a cart path during play of the ninth hole. When the player arrived at his ball he asked if he would be entitled to relief. A cart path is defined as an immovable obstruction,

An “obstruction” is anything artificial, including the artificial surfaces and sides or roads and paths and manufactured ice, except:

a. Objects defining out of bounds, such as walls, fences, stakes and railings;

b. Any part of an immovable artificial object that is out of bounds;

c. Any construction declared by the Committee to be an integral part of the course.

An obstruction is a movable obstruction if it may be moved without unreasonable effort, without unduly delaying play and without causing damage. Otherwise, it is an immovable obstruction.

Rule 24, Obstructions grants a player relief if there is interference through either the lie of ball, stance, or the area of the player’s intended swing. After probing with a tee near the ball, it was determined that the cart path did not interfere with the lie of the ball. The player was then asked what type of shot he intended to play. The player initially decided to play a fade around a tree with a driver. This would allow both his stance and the area of his intended swing to be clear of the cart path and relief was not granted. The player, an experienced tournament player, backed away and consulted his caddie. She felt a driver from a downhill lie around a tree might be too risky a play. The player then grabbed a two iron and decided he would play a draw around the same tree and back into the fairway. Rule 24-2 includes an exception on obstruction relief:

A player may not take relief under this Rule if (a) it is clearly unreasonable for him to make a stroke because of interference by anything other than an immovable obstruction or (b) interference by an immovable obstruction would occur only through use of an unnecessarily abnormal stance, swing or direction of play.

At a competition for player’s of this caliber, it is more difficult to decide what a player can and cannot pull off, regarding shots, on the golf course. A hard draw off a downhill side hill lie is one of the most difficult shots in golf. But, knowing the player, this was certainly a shot the player was capable of executing. Under the circumstances this was not considered unreasonable and the player was then granted relief under Rule 24-2b. Whether or not the player knew he would get relief by changing his shot, I do not know, though is perfectly within his rights and a good example of when knowing your options under the Rules can get you out of a tough spot.

The player found his nearest point of relief no nearer the hole and was allowed to drop within one club length of this point, no nearer the hole. Unfortunately, the player missed advancing to match play by a single stroke.

The staff of the Oregon Golf Association owes a huge thanks to our many dedicated volunteers. Without the help of volunteer Rules Officials and Tag Team volunteers, the Amateur, and the rest of the events in our Championship schedule, would fail to meet the level of excellence that our competitors have become accustomed. A great example of the applications of many Rules of Golf is detailed below as occurred between a player and a dedicated volunteer Rules Official today at the Amateur.

A player called over a nearby Rules official to determine if his ball was embedded in the rough and he would be entitled to free relief. The Rules of Golf allow a player free relief for a ball embedded in its own pitch mark in any closely mown area through the green (Rule 25-2). Most tournaments and golf courses adopt a Local Rule allowing relief for an embedded ball through the green. Through the green is defined as the whole area of the course except:

a. The teeing ground and putting green of the hole being played; and

b. All hazards on the course.

The Local Rule for embedded ball through the green is found in Appendix I, part B/4/a. The Local Rule reads:

“Through the green, a ball that is embedded in its own pitch-mark in the ground may be lifted, without penalty, cleaned and dropped as near as possible to where it lay but not nearer the hole. The ball when dropped must first strike a part of the course through the green.

Exceptions:

1. A player may not take relief under this Local Rule if the ball is embedded in sand in an area that is not closely mown.

2. A player may not take relief under this Local Rule if it is clearly unreasonable for him to make a stroke because of interference by anything other than the condition covered by this Local Rule.

The Rules Official arrived and found the player’s ball lying in the rough. He was unable on sight to determine if the ball was embedded in its pitch mark or simply sitting down. Though the Rule for an embedded ball allows free relief for an embedded ball, it does not authorize the player to pick up his ball to determine if it is embedded. Decision 20-1/7 applies equity to allow a player “to lift his ball if he is unable to identify his ball or whether is can proceed under a Rule.” Equity is a term common in golf where the Rules do not specifically cover a situation – this is covered in depth by Rule 1-4.

In this instance the lifting of the ball was authorized to determine if the ball was embedded in its own pitch mark. The player announced his intentions to his marker, lifted the ball (did not clean it – this would be a penalty stroke), and was unable to come to a determination as to if the ball was embedded. His marker was also unsure. Decision 5-3/7 strongly recommends that a marker or fellow-competitor be involved in the process of lifting the ball to make this determination and, as they were unable to come to a conclusion, the Rule Official became involved. He put his finger in the hole gently to determine if the ball was embedded and found that the ball was lying about a half inch above the ground. Decision 25-2/0.5 lays down guidelines on when a ball would be considered embedded in the ground. It states:

For a ball to be considered embedded, it must be in its own pitch-mark with part of the ball below the level of the ground. However, the ball does not necessarily have to touch the soil to be considered embedded, e.g., grass or loose impediments may intervene between the ball and the soil.

After probing, the ball was not below the level of the ground and the player was not given relief. The Rules require the player under 20-3 to replace the ball under no penalty in the same lie and proceed on with the hole. Unfortunately, during probing, the grass under the player’s ball was compressed and replacing the ball in the same location was no longer possible. Rule 20-3b, Lie of Ball to Be Placed or Replaced Altered, covers this very situation:

(i) except in a hazard, the ball must be placed in the nearest lie most similar to the original lie that is not more than one club-length from the original lie, not nearer the hole and not in a hazard.

The Rule Official determined a spot very near the ball and the player placed in a similar lie and continued on with the hole without penalty.

At the conclusion of men’s stroke-play qualifying, seven players tied for 61st place with a two day qualifying score of 157. The top 64 men are seeded in match play and a hole-by-hole playoff was contested to determine which five players were to advance to match play.

For the playoff, I was following the second group. After they arrived at their tee shots, one of the players was in the right rough and bent over to identify his ball. He was unable to clearly see his ball on first inspection and reached down and gently nudged his ball to get a better look. Though the ball returned to its original location the player unknowingly incurred a one-stroke penalty under Rule 12-2, Identifying Ball. The Rule lays down a specific procedure, along with recommending a player put identifying marks on their ball. If a player is not sure whether a ball found is his,

he must announce his intention to his opponent in match play or a marker or fellow-competitor in stroke play and mark the position of the ball. He may then lift the ball and identify it, provided that he gives his opponent, marker or fellow-competitor an opportunity to observe the lifting and replacement. The ball must not be cleaned beyond the extent necessary for identification when lifted under Rule 12-2.

If the ball is the player’s ball and he fails to comply with all or any part of this procedure, or he lifts his ball in order to identify it when not necessary to do so, he incurs a penalty of one storke. If the lifted ball is the player’s ball, he must replace it. If he fails to do so, he incurs the general penalty for a breach of Rule 12-2, but there is no additional penalty under this Rule.

The player failed to follow this procedure and incurred a one-stroke penalty for his actions. A four would have been good enough to advance. The penalty stroke assessed gave the player a five for the hole and, after a bogey on the ensuing hole, left him out of the match play portion of the tournament.

On a side note, if a player is not trying to identify his ball and touches it for any other reason, rule 18-2a would apply and the player would also be penalized. Rule 18-2a reads:

When the player’s ball is in play, if:

(i) the player, his partner or either of their caddies lifts or moves it, touches it purposely (except with a club in the act of addressing it) or causes it to move except as permitted by a Rule,

the player incurs a penalty of one stroke.

visit www.oregonamateur.org for full tournament details

During set-up for the Oregon Amateur at Bend Golf & Country Club, we were asked by the course to mark a “Beautification Zone” just left of the #15 green as an area of mandatory relief, similar to what would normally be marked as an Environmentally- Sensitive Area. The area in question contains wildflowers, thick brush, large rocks, tall grass and is not dramatically different from the lie a player is left with anywhere else on the course if their shot strays a few yards off line (only 4 scores under par during the first round of stroke play qualifying testifies to the difficulty of the venue). It was easy to see that many balls coming to rest the area would be unplayable or at best leave a very difficult up and down for par.

While we were looking over the area earlier in the week, a group of contestants playing a practice round were talking about the area as a great option should they be facing a difficult shot into the green. The area is large enough to aim for from at a great distance and provided a “bail out” which, under the course Local Rule, allowed a free drop to the closest dropping zone. The dropping zone then provided an easy pitch up to the green where a player would be given an opportunity for par.

Under Appendix I, in the The Rules of Golf, Part B lists Specimen Local Rules that are intended to be temporary in nature.

2. Areas of the Course Requiring Preservation; Environmentally-Sensitive Areas

a. Ground Under Repair (GUR); Play Prohibited

If the Committee wishes to protect any area of the course, it should declare it to be ground under repair and prohibit play from within that area. The following Local Rule is recommended:

“The ________________(defined by_____) is ground under repair from which play is prohibited. If a player’s ball lies in the area, or if it interferes with the player’s stance or the area of his intended swing, the player must take relief under Rule 25-1.

Penalty for Breach of Local Rule:

Match Play – Loss of Hole; Stroke Play – Two Strokes

The difficulty for us was how to properly mark the area and still keep play equitable for golfers that hit into the condition (or intentionally hit into it from a difficult lie) compared to those that played better shots just off the green or onto the putting surface. Were we to adopt the Local Rule as written above, we would be allowing players to take relief under Rule 25-1b or c at the nearest point of relief. This option would provide a tremendous break to the player, would likely save them a stroke to par and, in my view, is a significant advantage as it provides too generous of relief. Decision 25-1b/3 discussed this very thing:

Improving Line of Play When Taking Relief from Abnormal Ground Conditions

Q. In certain circumstances, in complying with Rule 25-1b, it is possible for a player incidentally to improve his line of play, e.g., avoiding playing over a bunker or a tree. Is this permissible?

A. Yes. If a player’s ball is in one of the conditions covered by Rule 25 and if, in taking relief in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 25-1b, his line of play is improved, this is his good fortune.

Though this decision makes it clear that 25-1 can provide the player good fortune during relief, the decision does begin with the phrase, in certain circumstances. These words were discussed at length by the Committee as well as the following Appendix I entry:

8. Dropping Zones

If the Committee considers that it is not feasible or practicable to proceed in accordance with a Rule providing relief, it may establish Dropping Zones in which balls may or must be dropped when taking relief. Generally, such Dropping Zones should be provided as an additional relief option to those available under the Rule itself, rather than being mandatory.

The key words from this guidance are underlined. We felt this was a circumstance where to keep play equitable for all contestants the Rule of Golf allowed the Committee to require a player to take free relief to a dropping zone located behind the green in an area we felt was equitable to the situation. The player was not allowed to proceed to the nearest point of relief. A player who encounters interference from the GUR, marked with a white line, would proceed to the dropping zone and still be left with a difficult up and down for par. Those of you that watched the US Open Sunday may recall David Fay, Executive Director of the USGA, discussing a similar option that the USGA now uses for relief from many temporarily immovable obstructions (grandstands, concession tents, and TV towers) put up during play of a USGA Championship.

The Committee came to a condenses on the following Local Rule that will be in effect for the remainder of the 99th Oregon Amateur Championship:

Dropping Zone – The OGA has established one dropping zone behind the #15 green. The white lined area to the left of #15 green is deemed to be ground under repair from which play is prohibited. If a player’s ball lies in, or if it interferes with the player’s stance or the area of his intended swing, the player must take relief, under no penalty, in the dropping zone located behind #15 green. In addition, if the ball is not found and it is know or virtually certain to be in the GUR the player must proceed under no penalty to the dropping zone. The player may not take relief under Rule 25-1b or 25-1c.

Penalty for breach of local rule: Match Play – Loss of Hole; Stroke Play – Two Strokes

As a Rules Official during our Championships, and back in the office as the OGA’s Manager of Rules Education, a great number of Rules questions come from confusion relating to the playing of a provisional ball. A provisional ball is allowed in The Rules of Golf under Rule 27-2a. The Rule reads,

“If a ball may be lost outside a water hazard or may be out of bounds, to save time the player may play another ball provisionally in accordance with Rule 27-1 (stroke and distance; ball out of bounds; ball not found within five minutes). The player must inform his opponent in match play or his marker or a fellow-competitor in stroke play that he intends to play a provisional ball, and he must play it before he or his partner goes forward to search for the original ball.

If he fails to do so and plays another ball, that ball is not a provisional ball and becomes the ball in play under penalty of stroke and distance (Rule 27-1); the original ball is lost.”

Notice the many caveats that accompany the Rule. A provisional ball is not to be played for a ball that may be in a water hazard (except on certain courses that allow this by Local Rule). This misunderstanding is the most frequent question I field relating to the play of a provisional ball. If a player plays a provisional ball for a ball that may be in a water hazard, even if they have announced their intention to play a provisional, the ball is not a provisional but immediately becomes the ball in play under penalty of stroke and distance (i.e. you have hit 3 from the tee regardless of where your original ball may be).

The reason for this is based upon the additional options available under Rule 26 (Water Hazard) that do not exist if your ball is out of bounds or lost outside a water hazard. Remember a provisional ball is allowed for the sole purpose of saving time. If your ball lies out of bounds or is not found within 5 minutes your only option would be to proceed back to the tee causing great delay to your group and those soon to be waiting behind you. Rule 26 (Water Hazard and Lateral Water Hazard) provides relief options other than stroke and distance. In addition, rarely do you search a full 5 minutes for a ball in a water hazard before either finding it or attaining virtual certainty it lies within the hazard.

The second paragraph of Rule 27-2a, failing to announce your intentions, can also cause confusion. The Decisions to the Rules of Golf, include a decision (Dec 27-2a/1) that address what does and does not constitute a valid announcement. Most importantly, a player’s actions can never be sufficient without a verbal announcement.

“The player’s statement must specifically mention the words “provisional ball” or must make it clear that he is proceeding under Rule 27-2a. Therefore, a player who says nothing has put another ball into play (it is not a provisional ball).

The following are examples of statements that do not satisfy the requirement of announcing a provisional ball:

(a) “That might be lost. I am going to re-load.”

(b) “That might be out of here.”

(c) “I’d better hit another one.”

(d) “I will never find that one. I’ll play another.””

The Rule also restricts the play of a provisional ball once the player has “gone forward to search for the original ball.” Though this question is rarely asked, it is vitally important to the purpose of the Rule. There is not a specific definition of the meaning of “going forward” but, once again, the Rule is intended to save time. Should a player walk off the tee and soon after realize his ball may be lost outside a water hazard or out of bounds, it would still fall under the intent of the Rule as a provisional ball would still save time. On the other hand, if the player had walked a considerable distance from where the last stroke was played, the Rules would prohibit the player from returning to the tee to play a provisional. In this case, the player has forfeited the right to a provisional and could either search for 5 minutes or return immediately to the previous spot and play a ball under stroke and distance.

Significant time was invested by OGA staff on each hole to determine how the holes should be marked to reduce confusion among players and allow for the proper application of the Rules of Golf. During the Net Championships, the course debuted updated markings, including changes to hazards and redefined boundary lines. Changes are present on 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, & 18. A more detailed account of the changes can be found here at the OGA website:

http://www.oga.org/club/scripts/library/view_document.asp?CLNK=1&GRP=0&pg=section&NS=TR&DID=74144&APP=80

In addition to the course changes, Brent Whittaker (Director of Tournament Operations), our TAG Team Volunteers and I had an “eventful” weekend from the perspective of a Rules Official. Much of our course was built with obstructions bordering lateral water hazards. As a Rules Official, great attention is needed to ensure players are proceeding correctly when taking relief. The Rules of Golf give no authority to allow for a

player to proceed directly to relief from an obstruction under Rule 24 should their ball enter a water hazard bordered by an obstruction.

Thus, a player looking to proceed under Rule 26 (Water Hazards) must first take relief from the lateral water hazard. This often involves dropping twice and then placing a ball on the cart path to comply with Rule 20-2c. Then relief from the cart path is obtained under Rule 24-1b (sometimes this will put the player back

on the hazard side of the cart path and force them to stand in the hazard to play the next shot). Once relief has been obtained from the cart path, interference may still be present from the fence. The player may again proceed under 24-1b. In some areas a player may have to drop 6 times and place 3 times, under a penalty of one stoke before they can continue play.

Note to those involved with golf course design – please maintain a generous margin between your hazard line and any artificial construction.

The results for the 24th Oregon Net Championship are below and show a hard fought competition that resulted in Co-Champions in the Women’s Field between Mary Kinnick, a 24 handicap from Heron Lakes Golf Club and Kendall Prince, a 4 handicap from Willamette Valley Country Club. Both women returned scores of 74-73=147

The men’s field was also a close contest that was won by Mihai Toma, a 14 handicap from Glendoveer Golf Club. Mihai shot 64-70=134 and was followed closely by Chad Sawyer, a 0 handicap from Eastmoreland Golf

Club, Bob Rommel, a 12 handicap from Meriwether National Golf Club, Lance Miyasato, a 6 handicap from Heron Lakes Golf Club, and Eric Quon, an 11 handicap from Stone Creek Golf Club. All four finished tied for second with a two day total of 135.

Complements go out to Brent Whittaker (above, checking a potential hole location during course set-up) for a fair and challenging course set-up and to Kelly Neely (OGA Director of Handicapping) for her year round work in helping the OGA’s Handicap Chairs maintain accurate and fair USGA Handicaps Indexes for all 55,000 OGA members. The wide variety of handicaps competing so closely together was exciting to see.

“Is it possible that a yellow hazard line could be in play for one hole and have the same hazard line be red for another hole?”

This is a situation that may be present on your course and is often overlooked when a course drafts Local Rules. For example, I am playing the 14th hole at the OGA Golf Course and I hit a high slice to the right. When I find my ball I notice I have no shot and my ball is in the water hazard located on the 8th hole.

What are my options?

Rule 26-1a would not be be practicable as I would have to proceed back to the spot of my original stroke some 100+ yards back on #14. Rule 26-1b would also not be practicable as I would have to proceed to the tee side of the water hazard on the 8th hole and play a 150 yard shot back over the water hazard to the 14th green. Without a Local Rule in effect, if I cannot play my ball as it lies, I would have no other choices.

The best option here is to have a Local Rule that allows me relief under Rule 26-1c that reads:

“In playing the 14th hole, the water hazard on the 8th hole is deemed to be a lateral water hazard.”

The USGA clearly defines the Committee’s authority to make the following Local Rule in Decision

33-2a/7 Deeming Body of Water as Both Water Hazard and Lateral Water Hazard

A given part of a body of water must not be defined as both a water hazard and a lateral water hazard in play of a particular hole, except in the circumstances described in Decision 33-2a/6.

A given part of a body of water may be defined as a water hazard in play of one hole and a lateral water hazard in play of another hole.

A given part of a body of water may be defined as a water hazard and another part of the same body of water as a lateral water hazard.

Decision 33-2a/6 is referred to in this decision and reads as follows:

33-2a/6 Pond Is Water Hazard from Back Tee and Lateral Water Hazard from Forward Tee

Q. A pond on a par-3 hole meets the Definition of a lateral water hazard in play from the forward tee but not from the back tee. How should the Committee handle this situation?

A. The pond should be defined as a water hazard with yellow stakes or a yellow line, and there should be a Local Rule to the effect that the hazard is a lateral water hazard in play from the forward tee.

Not only can a water hazard be altered by Local Rule on a neighboring hole, but should the condition exist, and a Local Rule is in effect, a player may have different options depending on the tee they have played from.

A large change in the Pace of Play Policy is the change from automatic penalties to potential penalties. This is much easier on the player’s and allows the Committee time to determine what occurred leading up to the missed check point and arrive at a well thought out decision.

Our TAG Team (Tournament Assistance Group) helped to pilot new pace of play tracking charts provided by the USGA and used in their US Championships. They allow The Committee, at a brief glance, a overview of the entire field’s progress in relation to the maximum time we have allowed for them to complete the stipulated round.

If you are a tournament golfer and compete in OGA Championships, I encourage you to take a look at the revised Policy before you come to your next event - link to Policy below.  If paired with a slow player and struggling to keep pace, you’ll appreciate knowing your options.

http://www.oga.org/club/scripts/library/view_document.asp?S=NAV&DID=24246&GRP=1125&NS=RG