GOLF

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 19827, 29 April 1927, Page 5

GOLF

SEAFIELD LADIES’ CLUB DRAW FOR TO-MORROW’S MATCH The draw for to-morrow’s match at the Seafield Ladies’ Club is as follows: Miss Clark v. Miss Flavcll. Miss Griffiths v. Miss Wallace. Miss Moore v. Miss A Homes. Miss Gcbbie v. Miss Angus. Miss Pcattie v. Miss Neil. Miss Bridges v. Miss Allan. Miss Bain v. Miss Enwright. Miss Woollams v. Miss Manning. Miss Freeman v. Miss Cavell. Miss Rowling v. Miss Calver. Miss Greening v. Miss McDonald. CASTLECLIFF LADIES’ CLUB DRAW FOR TO-MORROW. A Medal Match will be played by the CastleclifF Ladies’ Club on Saturday, starting at 1.30. Following is the draw: Mrs Broadhead plays Miss Kitto. Mrs Rodward plays bliss Wilson. Airs Hawkins plays Mrs Smith. Mrs Savago plays Mrs Dean. Miss Brock plays Miss Healy. Miss Gerry plays Mrs Braid. Airs Afarks plays bliss Sutton, bliss Hill plays Miss Thompson, bliss Wash plays Miss Simmons. Airs Godfrey plays Mrs Totty. Airs Wagstaff plays Airs Short. Miss Horneman plays Miss Sawyers. ALiss Shearman plays Miss Lints, bliss Bascoe plays Miss McNaught. Mrs Lints plays Airs Jenman. CASTLECLIM 7 CLUB STROKE COMPETITION. A stroke competition will bo played on the Castlecliff links to-morrow. All members wishing to take part are requested ’e be at the club house not later Than 1.45 p.m. The foilpiving is the draw: L. Cathro v. F. Wood, J. Wilson v. J. H. Dean, R. T. Greenbilli v. F. W. Wagstaff, D. Handy side v. F W. Forbes, C. G. Cas well v. G. Broadhead, V. S. Boyd v. H. Gibson, M. Broadhead a bye, J. Barlow v. V. S Marks, A. Dingwell v. F. Haywood, D. W. Edwards v. L. Firth, H. Hawkins v. H. Butler, Af. A. Sutton v. V. H IJofc, Rev. Weller v. W. ,T. Gilbert, Rev. Tye v. Rev. Hamilton, G. A. Tnnnicliffe v. C. E. Stevens, H. D. James v. C. C. Smith, F. G. Hammond v. W. Beswick, C. Hartwell v. G. Orr. Any players omitted from this draw will be paired at the club house.

THE GOLF PARLIAMENT

WORLD WIDE AUTHORITY OF ST. ANDREWS (Specially Written for the 11 Chronicle” by Harry Vardon, six times Open Champion) LONDON, April 17. The most-rcceutly published list of decisions by the Royal and Ancient Club on knotty poj ts in connection with the rules comprises a series of answers to questions submitted by the Ifodogaya Country Club, of Japan. In these Japanese problems and the solutions themselves there is nothing very exciting, although one of them clears up a doubt on which discussion might arise anywhere. A ball, hitting a mower became unfit for use, and the owner of it took advantage of Rule 24, which says that in the case of a ball ‘‘until for play, the player may change it on intimating to his opponent his intention to do so.” He placed another ball on the spot where the original one was but the rival claimed that this new ball should have been dropped—not placed.

The official decision is that the player acted properly. “He was entitled to change his bail not its position. Rule 24 contemplates that the change shall be effected by “placing.’’ There may be people who feel that this procedure offers a remarkably fine opportunity for improving the lie when a pleycr considers his ball unfit but it has to be assumed that golfers pursue the game in the right spirit. Anyhow, it is interesting to have a clear ruling on the point.

This Japanese request for guidance, however, is engaging mainly because it provides another example of the naturalness with which, players in all parts of the world seek the authority of St. Andrews when difficulties arise in connection with the rules. From Highgate to Honolulu, from St. Helens to St. Helena; whatever the club and the course and the country, It Is the first instinct of the golfer to say when differences oi opinion arise:—“Wo will write to St. Andrews and accept its decision.” No other factor has done so much to make the Royal and Ancient Club supreme and indispensable as the governing body of the pastime.

America Accepts It is rather wonderful that the R. and A. should thus have established an empire of gulf which embraces every nation under the sun. There is nothing quite like it in any other walk of lift*. In national policies, in finance, in trade and in sport, every country has an inborn tendency to assert independence. The AI.C.C. commands the respect of the whole cricketing world because of its traditions, and yet Australia has an eight-ball over if Australia feels so inclined.

In golf, even America, which has at least double the number oi players that are to be found in Britain and players of such quality as to be able to win most of the present-day inter'national honours docs not dispute the authority of St. Andrews. She has gone nearest to doing so, for she once abolished the stymie, and, in more recent times she tried to introduce a new standard ball for championships, and, indeed, actually fixed, the date of: its enforcement. And then she quitely assented to the view of St. Andrews that the time for such changes was not yet. Germany has paid homage by asking for the settlement of a dispute. The R. and A. published the problem, as it was sent, in German, and the reply also in German—the only occasion, I think on which a foreign language has appeared in these communiques. It esme almost asa shock to life-long students of the decision to read a paragraph:— “Clnb Zur Vahr—ln einem Zahlwettspiel über 36 Locher erzielen zwei Spieler das beste und glieche Hosni tat.”

Suffice it that the question was ns to weather two competitors who had tied for first place in a 36 holes stroke even should play off over 18 or 36 holes ,the German club pointing out that St. Andrews has a rule stipulating that a tie “ shall bn decided by another round.” St. Andrews replied that unless special provision had been made to the contrary, one round it should bo. That may diot matter much. What ip interesting is that the first thought of the Germans should have been to appeal to St. Andrews. The Proceauro ’

It is the mor? interesting when one recollects that the R. and A. has never sought power, but has simply had its responsibilities thrust upon it. Not many people know how these eternal problems of the rules are settled. I am informed that the procedure is that as questions arrive, they are examined by a sub-committee consisting of three officials of the club who live at St. Andrews. If these three feel that they have precedents in previosn decisions for supplying the answer, they serd it without further ado. If not, they circulate the problem together with a suggested answer, to all the members of the Rules Committee. If these cannot agree upon a decision, it <o open to any one of them to call a meeting to settle the point. It is an arrangement that appears to have every element of efficicucy, and the remilts certainly satisfy the golfing world.

There have been few instances (I think two at the most) in which St. Andrews has confessed itself beaten by Its own rules. One was provided by a foreign club, namely, tho /..roquipa Golf Club, of Peru, It was about n irtynttc. The stymied ball was just off the putting green—that is, a few inches more than twenty yards from the hole—while tho nearer ball was a few inches inside tho twenty yards limit. The owner of tho farther ball claimed that ha could hove tho impeding ball lifted because he was not on the groan, there fore could not take ndvantage of tho rule allowing tho other ball to bo removed whoa it is within a length.

The owner of the Impeding ball con= tended that, ns he was on the puH’ng green It wns a legal stymie, Ht, Andraws thought that the man who had to play first might have the ehoiee, but it added the frank notai==- H The eawo is not precisely covered by tho rules/’