GOLF COUNCIL ANSWERS POSERS

Auckland Star, Volume LXXII, Issue 193, 16 August 1941, Page 4 (Supplement)

GOLF COUNCIL ANSWERS POSERS

Shifting of Discs by Competitor at Kaikohe: Placed Ball Moves When Being Addressed

THE New Zealand Golf Council has given decisions in two matters brought under its notice which are of interest to golfers generally. One concerned the shifting of the discs on the teeing ground by a competitor at the Northland open championship at Kaikohe last month, and the other, from Wellington, arose out of the moving of a "placed" ball when it was being addressed.

The council was asked for a decision in the Kaikohe case following a protest from one of the competitors. W. Hollings, who moved the discs, was the club captain, and he made the alteration on the sixteenth tee in the last round of the 72-hole event owing to the muddy state of the teeing ground. It happened that he returned the best aggregate. Obviously, neither Hollings nor any other person, official or otherwise, had power to move the discs once some of the field had played over this part of the course, which was the case.

Are A and B disqualified? If so. is the rest of the field disqualified, or should the competition be declared null and void? '•'Answer: A and B did not play the stipulated round and are disqualified. The rest of the field had no reason to doubt that the tees were in their proper places and should not be penalised for the irregular action of A and B. Their scores should be accepted." It should be noted that in the above case the players who moved the tee discs were the first to play, but in the Kaikohe case they were not the first. Consequently ihe later players had, an advantage over the early ones, as they played off a tee that was in a better position. Penalty Incurred The Wellington inquiry referred to a ball that has been placed in accordance with the general direction for placing in shots through the green and then moves after the player has grounded his club. The council was asked to say whether the player should be penalised. The ruling given was that if a ball that has been placed moves after | the player has addressed it, section 4 of rule 12 applies (a penalty ofi one stroke). In such a case the player is deemed to have caused the i ball to move. I I This decision from the council will \ be welcomed by the clubs and will ' put an end to heart-burnings and doubts, says a Wellington writer, j Committees have been exercising their minds over the matter for some , time, but now there Is no room for j further doubt. i

The council decided that the fairest thing to do would be to replay the event, but if that was impossible (if, for instance, the incident occurred during a tournament), there would be no alternative but to disqualify the player who moved the disc and also the accompanying player or players. A Previous Decision Though there was no parallel case in the golf rulings, the council had as a guide the following case:— "A and B were the first competitors at the start of a bogey competition. At one hole they moved the tee discs some 15 or 20 yards forward and struck off the altered tee.

The ruling given does not mean that the player is penalised only if he wishes to "place" again for his shot (he is compelled by his club rules to do this in order to preserve the course). He is penalised because, as pointed out above, he is deemed to have moved the ball or caused it to move. The player could, of course, place again after incurring the penalty.

Apart from easing the minds of club officials, the ruling should eliminate a great deal of.abuse of the placing rule which has been occurring.

The leader of the auxiliary fire service called at the house "across the way. "Pardon me, but are vou I the lady who was singing?" "Yes, 1 I was singing. Whv?" "Well, lay off the top notes, please. We've had the trailer pump out twice!"