I am perplexed by the application of Rule 27, "Ball Lost Out of Bounds; Provisional Ball" as it was applied to Robert Allenby's tee shot on the 17th hole at Torrey Pines last Sunday. Allenby hooked his tee shot. It was clear from the television cameras that the golf ball cleared the cliff and landed in the canyon. There were no marshals or spectators in the area where the ball entered the hazard and the golfers could not see the edge of the cliff or canyon from the tee box. Allenby and his caddie rummaged around in the rough area on the cliffs for awhile and then called over the Rules official. After some discussion between Allenby and the Rules official you could see Allenby getting extremely upset and you could hear the Rules official saying that he needs "clear and convincing evidence" that the ball was lost in the hazard.
Rule 27 generally states that if your golf ball is lost or out of bounds the penalty is "stroke and distance", i.e., you are assessed a one-stroke penalty and required to re-hit from the spot where you hit your previous shot. However, if there is clear and convincing evidence that the golf ball is lost in a water hazard, immovable obstruction or casual water, you fall under different rules that are less penal.
Generally, I would just take it for granted that there is no "common sense" rule under the Rules of Golf, but the USGA has issued rules of decision that hearing a ball splash in a water hazard satisfies the "clear and convincing evidence" test so there is at least a modicum of common sense applied. In this case, the television cameras provided irrefutable evidence that the ball landed in the canyon, but the Rules official either could not, or would not, consider that evidence. Therefore, Allenby was assessed a one-stroke penalty and walked back to the tee box to hit his third shot on the hole. He double-bogeyed the hole.
Interestingly, under the Rules a golfer can be penalized well after he completes his round if a television viewer spots a rules infraction and somehow contacts a tournament official. This has happened on numerous occasions at PGA tournaments and oftentimes leads to a player disqualification because the rules infraction imposes a penalty stroke and the golfer is disqualified for signing an incorrect scorecard! See Rules of Golf - Playing Ball as it Lies.
It would seem that what is good for the goose is also good for the gander so if television cameras can be used to spot rules infractions they should also be used when available to provide "clear and convincing" evidence. What do you Rules purists think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The officials do not have the ability to use instant replay to make rulings. This is because there is no ready access to a video feed for each group in the field. It is not fair for one player to benefit from "instant replay" and one player not get that benefit. Therefore, it is up to the player and his marker to determine whether a ball entered a hazard. If all the player and marker could say is that it hit a tree, but neither saw it enter the hazard, then the ball could be either in the tree or in the hazard. Unless there is clear and convincing evidence to the player, marker or rules official that the ball entered the hazard, then it is lost. The ruling was correct.
Smooth
Post a Comment