GOLF.

Otago Witness, Issue 3021, 7 February 1912, Page 62

GOLF.

NOTES BY BULGER. Mr Horace Hutchinson at once challenges and disarms criticism by his account, published in the Daily Telegraph, of the misfortunes which befell him and his opponent in a match recently played over Nairn links. Mr Hutchinson's ball went on a pilgrimage which ended in the roots of a whin bush. Tho like sent his opponent's ball into the rough on the left, where it was lost. Tho parties were unable to decide which of them had lost tho hole; all that was clear was that neither had. won. it. Thersforo they decided to call it a half and to proceed to the next teeing ground. On their return to the clubhouse they informally referred the matter to certain persons whom they met. By the way, those gentlemen must have felt highly flattered when asked for their opinion by one who has so often and so rightly guided others.- The general verdict was that tho man who had driven the shorter distance had lost the hole on tho ground that he had to cease play before the other was called upon to prepare for tho execution of his second shot. Mr Hutchinson shrewdly points out that this decision is unsatisfactory, because, the exact position of tho lost ball being unknown, it was impossible to state categorically that it was lying nearer to tho hole or further from it than tho other. It cannot be denied that the practical solution of the problem was equitable, but the legal-minded among golfers will certainly maintain that it cannot bo justified by the letter of any existing rule. Mr Hutchinson's ball, though for the purpose of his winning or halving the hole it was as good as lost, was visible, and therefore cannot como under tho operation of Rale 21, which provides that when both balls are lost tho hole shall be considered halved. Inferontially that rule knocks the bottom out of the contention that tho legal rights of tho two playors depended on the difference, if any, in tho length of their respective drives. Mr Hutchinson says that ho is still questioning what the real answer may bo. With all humility wo suggest that he erred in his interpretation of the word "unplayable." If ho had devoted tho neeesary time to the task ho could havo extricated his ball from its position in tho whins. Doubtless he would have played an incalculable number of strokes —ho might even have broken several clubs —before he could call on his opponent to play the "one off a thousand." Doubtless also his opponent would have resigned the hole beforo tho demolition of the whins was complete. Certainly the caddie, who told his employer not to resign an apparently lost hole on tho chance that tho other fellow might drop down dead beforo he could got his ball down, would never have allowed Mr Hutchinson to concede a half of that hole on Nairn links. As wo have before pointed out, tho rules of golf, by their atempts to combine meticulousness with catholicity, invite tho legal-minded to split straws. A man should, of course, fly from temptation, but life is pleasantor when one faces the universal enemy boldly. Therefore we will not shrink from discussing a question which might havo arisen if Mr Hutchinson had decided to regulate his conduct by law and not by equity. We mav take it that the job of breaking down tho whins and getting his ball out would have occupied more than five minutes, even for him who excels all golfers in the cleverness with which he throws his hands at a bad lying ball and restores it to the course. Supposing that his opponent had spent that 10, 20, or 30 minutes in searching for his own ball in the rough, could he have claimed a further five minutes' hunting? Probably most people would grant him that privilege. Rut there is a previous question. Supposing that Mr Hutchinson in the intervals of his woodman's work had noted that the other man was looking

for the lost ball, could he have desisted from his efforts as soon as five minutes had elapsed and claimed the hole, on the ground that the other ball not having been found in five minutes must be considered "lost"? We take it that under definition 20 his claim must succeed. Therefore, we hold that, the circumstances being as he stated them, Mr Hutchinson won the hole.—Field.