GOLF.

Auckland Star, Volume XLII, Issue 287, 2 December 1911, Page 16

GOLF.

DECISIONS BY THE RILES OF GOLF COMMITTEE, SEPTEMBER, 1911. PLATLXG OPPONENTS BALL. Haddington Golf Club.—Q. —ln a match play competition A and B were playing C and D in the semi-final. At the 14th hole both sides played with the opponent's ball. A and B holed out be--1 fore the mistake was discovered. C and ! D were about to putt when they dis- : covered the mistake, claimed the hole, ' and, without waiting for the acquiescence of A and B. lifted their balL Apparently A and B then acquiesced in ignorance i of tbe rules, for they confessed thera- | selves "one down." and allowed the j honour at the next tee to C and D. < At , 13th hole the match was all square I . Playing on to the ISth. C and D finished two up. The matter was then referred to the committee, who directed that the last five holes should be played again next day. On arriving at the links, C . and D refused to play five holes, and demanded that the whole match be played again. (If C and D had been penalised, for lifting the ball, by the ioss of 14th hole."" the original match would have ended all square. The committee had not laid down perviously by what method ( halved matches were' to be settled.) A I and B acceded to C and D's demand • without reference to the comcittee. and , the round ended in victory for C and D. j who were then beaten in -the final, but I claimed second prize. < 1 i Were the committee right or wrong in ordering: the five holes to be played again? (2) j Should both couples have been disquali- j fied for breaking the rules on 14th j green"; (3) And," again, for neglecting j the committee's orders on replaying. j —If A and B had claimed the hole when C and D's ball was lifted they j would hive wen the hole. As A and B apparently yielded to the claim of C ; and D and gave up the hole, they could ! not claim it after the balls have bees i struck off from the next I i See Rule 3G.'i ; (1) If the committee considered that the match was halved, it- had the right ! ito determine how the match should be ' ! decided. {£) No. The player cannot be' j held to have agreed to waive a penalty - )as they were unaware what the penalty | was. (2) The committee would be en-; j titled to disqualify compt titors i\ho did, j not conform to its orders. The method ! of.deciding halved matches should have' lof deciding halved matches should have been stated in the original conciticmE oi I the competition.