GOLF LAW.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 18924, 12 February 1927, Page 13

GOLF LAW.

BENDING A BUSH. A COMMON BBROB. (*rtCI*IXT vrRITTEX rO« TBI MHI) iHy Harry Yardon. Six Time* Oi»«n Champion.) iioli has been fortunate in enlisting the service*' of (rained and distinguished legal minds—minds animated by a y,r.-at golfing enthusiasm—for the purpose of framing its rules and making their meanings eleur. Considering litis rirrumstunre, it is astonishing how many ordinary mortals of tho link* nt© utterly at variance in their interpretations of tlto lawyer*' language. I am reminded of the point Uy a question raised !>y a mcmlicr of a London club.

This is his little problem: 'in a match, one of tho player* find* his ball under n bush. In order to play his ball tic holds some branches in his left hand, and strikes the ball with hia t-lub hold in the right hand only. Is tho shot so described a foul?"

Ono might imagine tho rule on th» subject to bo one of the most familiar ami best understood in tho whale, code. It is No. 15, and it reads: ''flofoi* striking at u ball in play, a player chall not moye, bend, nor break anytiling fixed cr growing, except ao far as is necessary to enable him fairlv to take his- stance, in addressing the halU or in making hi? backward or forward swing. Tho penalty for a br«ach «f this rule shall be tho loss of tho hole."

What the- rule means is beyond all question. -It means that if a player is c-ompelltd to movo, bend, or break anything fixed or growing—as, for example, a bush—in taking up his stance or in .swinging tho club, no is not to he penalised, since his action is unavoidable, hut that he is prohibited from interfering in any other way with the obstacle.

Incidents seen and letters received have proved to me, however, that » great many people take an entirely different viow of the situation. Tiiey think that the clause, "extent •» far as is necessary to enable him fairly to take his stance in addressing tho ball, or in making his backward or forward swing" it intended to gi»e thorn tho liberty to move anything fixed or growing beforo playing the shot, if they w-Ish to do so. This h tit* burden of the question already quotal. Evidence of tho rango of this wrong impression is contained in a letter from abroad. The correspondent «ays that, in his club, opinion is divided as to the intention of the rule, a large num- t ber of golfers holding that when •* player finds his swing impeded by 'lot. us say) a bush, ho lias tho right to move, bend, cr break so much or that bush as will enable hint to obtain * clear swing at the ball.

A Harriased Bolt. In thin country wo ought to i» wise on the subject, because it con* , corns one of those basic rules v'ticli; hare been handed down through the generations and come to be regarded as traditions. It is part and parcel of that fundamental principle: "The ball must-D* played wherever it lies or the hole to bo given up." To be sure* tills ones) proud and all-embracing regulation— > "the only golf rule 1 eyer knew// as . Mr J B. leydbjy a great am»Ujir champion of his day, described it—is now ui sadly reduced circumstances. It hides its diminished head in a far lines of print which intimate that various exceptions are permittee under the rules of tho game and local frulfiß. All the same, ib remains in sentiment tho supremo and simple law governing a match at golf, and so l»n|,M frt) ; olmerre it, we cannot break a rule. , And yet, in a foursome toUrnnttWt , a littlo while ago, in which cftijtyttjM - consisted of an amateur and * gfflffr clonal, I saw one couple taai|*HwuWr pushing some low-hanging brancnejlM a tree urider tlie g iron railings, w that f r.blo tho hotter to get at their ball for tho next shot. Their oprwnehtt kwtod '} on the while, evidently admiring In* . / concerted attetk on tb» flOr*. It WM ,' nn afinost horrifying emmpfo of tW» > wav in which rules are doubtl«B urokWl iii" iiinocence oh thousands br courses , , every day. v * , l I fear that there are a awd'tnaMr doen-lhinking individuals who gwyjjjt discbrcrmg possible loopholes for {trgtt- w ment abbtit tlie rules. TOne Wrote t6 ;- me recently. ...... • " 'ln a .match," he said, "tor .opP> nont was badly bunkered, his bill beirtrf halt-buried. He played tho shot with* is usual, and which, is recomlrienfled by oil the experts in such arcutnttAncwi He aimed at a spot fully two mchw , behind tlie ball, so as to Create aH .' 'exploswh' of tha sand, and mtto tM •'' T ball come but from the fotw W |h» • influence. I asked him irameduttlf i h about it, and he agreed that ttof ftad been his method. Ttheh polntWoiifc ' that No. IS of Definitions etates that: . •A stroke is the forwsW.movctneht »! a club made with th© c intention of srtiking the ball, or any-contact Wtween the head of trig era> atod t t*§ ,> ball.' I added that in his case thjtff 1 . " hud been neither intention to «Hl#* the bail nor the necessary contact, and *>;■; that therefore he had not played a proper stroke."' l t \

Finding the BalL In a recent match-fdey {ourttMnent, there waa an incident of which one of the players concerned (old tte> A competitor could not find hi* ball from, a drive, and after a search lasting for several minutes—probably not the legal five minutes—he went back to the teeing ground to play another abet, leAr* ing his caddie to. continue the hunt. when tiio competitor attired on the scene after his second drive, the caddie, had found the first'ball, so it was decided that it should remain in play. This may seem logical, but I doubt whether it is lawful. It is the duty of a player to search for the ttttulation five minutes for his ball. If he gives up the quest sooner, m loses the hole. If ho finds the ball after five minutes, it is still technically lost. The complication in this caso is that the player left his caddie—who is part of the sido—to continue the hunt for tho ball, and that the caddie may have found it within the five minutes. Whether that would legalise the situation is a moot point.