PENALTIES AT GOLF

Northern Advocate, 22 April 1929, Page 8

PENALTIES AT GOLF

RULE CAUSES MISUNDERSTANDING. (By Harry Vardon, Six Times Open , , Champion.) (AH Rights Reserved.), A .correspondent writes to -me on the subject of the special rule for matchplay tournaments which says: —‘ 1 Competitors shall' not agree to exclude the operation of any rule, or local rule, nor to waive any penalty incurred in the course of the match, under penalty of their disqualification. ’ ’ He explains that in the final of a recent club cup tournament ho claimed a hole for a technical bre'aeh committed by his opponent.

He did not like doing it, especially as the infringement made no difference to the play at the hole in question. His opponent was mortally offended. All the -same, he felt compelled to take action because, as it seemed to him, both players would have had to be disqualified! *if he had omitted to make his -claim and the -circumstance had been reported to the club committee. ■He is labouring under an easily understood misapprehension. On this paint, I cannot do better than quote the judgment once delivered by Mr A. C. M. Oroome, a -member of the St. Andrew’s 1 Rules Committee, who, as an authority on the spirit and letter of the law has adapted himself with some success to the mantle formerly worn by, the late Mr John L. Low.

The ease on whisk Mr Croome based his decision may be told in his own words:— “In the semi-final of the 1920 Amateur Champioiship, Mr C. J. H. Tolley and Mr G. L. Mellin engaged in a keen find close.match. Both «re tolerably well instructed in the Letter of the Law; both have the fullest pos-. sible appreciation of the underlying spirit. “Mr Mellin put his tee shot to the seventh hole into a bunker, failed to get out in one, and, before making a second, attempt, smoothed over the marks which he had made in the sand. Mr Tolley was standing on the edge ,of the hazard and watching him, much too conspicuous a-feature of the scene to pretend with any hope of being believed that he" had, not seen the incident. He was consequently placed in a most awkward situation. According to his 1 knowledge and reading of the law, there was ithe possibility, that, unless he claimed the hole, there would be no final on the next day. He Was, therefore, obliged to appeal tto the referee, who awarded the hole to him.”

INNOCENT SEVERITY. Mr Oroome goes on to say that “if the knowledge of the law possessed by Mr Tolley and .the referee had been complete, the .claim would never have been made or allowed.” That is perfectly true, and it is desirable in the sporting interests of the game that the golfer should know that he is not obliged to claim for every breach of the rules on the part of a rival. ‘ The regulation is perfectly explicit if you,analyse it carefully: "Competitors shall not agree to exclude the operation of any mile or local rule, no? to waive any penalty incurred in the course of the match under penalty of disqualification. ” The first part means that players must not, for instance, contract or ignore stymies or, when a ball is lost, drop another £>all at the nearest spot under penalty of one stroke—-a rough-and-ready procedure that was common in America a few years ago.

The second part of the regulation would be clearer if it were to read: "Nor agree to waive any penalty incurred in the course of the match.” That is what the clause actually means. To see a rival commit some technical infringement, and not to make la claim for it, if you would rather play the game in a pleasant spirit, is perfectly in order. You have not entered into an agreement with him on the point. DISTINCTION AND DIFFERENCE. What is punishable is for one side to waive a. penalty during the course of a match by coming to an agreement with his rival on the subject. If the delinquent is so innocent that he knows not ho lias done wrong, 'and if his wrong-doing has served him no useful purpose, the man who might claim the penalty would very likely prefer to waive it. He would be entitled to do so by saying nothing about it. The sporting spirit is so essentia] in golf—which is usually played without a referee —that any rule which teiuls to anake people think that it is the correct thing to exact penalties for every supposed infraction is unfortunate. The special rule herein discussed has had this effect.

No doubt it is the fault of golfers for not having examined it carefully, but the truth is that few players study the rules of golf as carefully as .though their livelihoods depended upon a complete knowledge of the code. The player whose opponent has obtained a distinct advantage through a breach of the rules—eoirnnitted/though it anay be in all innocence and openness—would bo silly not to claim the penalty. A sporting spirit need not be a prodigal spirit.