Controversy on the course

[louise_a]

Today we played against another club, in our handicap league, we are the top two teams in our section, I played the steadiest I have done this season and won my match 5&4, but one of the other matches finished in silence. It seems the other teams player was in a hazard and prior to taking her stance touched the ground with her club. our player pointed out it was a penalty and claimed the hole. This apparently upset her opponent who then claimed she only did it to stop herself from falling, something our girl said wasn't the case. As it happened that hole decided their match as our girl won 1up and that in turn decided the tie as we won 4-3.

The debate over who was in the right continued well after all the matches finished.

So what would you have done if in the same position.

 

[duncan mackie]

So what would you have done if in the same position.

to me so much would have been about the nature of 'touched the ground' - getting comfortable over the ball and clearly grounding the club might get a reaction from me if I felt the other player was gaining an advantage through breaching the rule, but not otherwise. my choice - but that's not how I play golf, even competitively.

removing something (any loose impediment) in the area of the ball would get called becasue it inherently gains an advantage (you wouldn't move it if you didn't want it out your way!).

 

[Ethan]

It is true that touching the ground to prevent falling is an exception to the normal penalty, but if your partner is sure that is not what happened then you don't have to accept the explanation. The other side can refer the matter to the Committee for adjudication if they don't accept your rejection of the explanation.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

It is true that touching the ground to prevent falling is an exception to the normal penalty, but if your partner is sure that is not what happened then you don't have to accept the explanation. The other side can refer the matter to the Committee for adjudication if they don't accept your rejection of the explanation.

Is there not a rule or a decision that says that a rule can be broken without penalty if injury to player or other person is prevented in doing so. I'm sure I read that here recently. In the situation you describe I'd believe the opponent and would not have called the penalty.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

Sounds a little bit of an unsavoury incident but your girl was right to point it out to her opponent. Whatever the outcome, you can't play a competitive match and disregard the rules.

 

[Foxholer]

Is there not a rule or a decision that says that a rule can be broken without penalty if injury to player or other person is prevented in doing so. I'm sure I read that here recently. In the situation you describe I'd believe the opponent and would not have called the penalty.

Certainly is.

Whether tht was the case or not is what's up for debate. And whether I'd believe them would depend on the circumstances.

This looks like a case where there's not going to be any agreement!

 

[louise_a]

Our girl said that she was stood by the ball checking her stance and swing, it was only later that she claimed she did it to stop overbalancing.

 

[Simbo]

Can't touch the club in the hazard-end off!!, bit picky though

Didn't this happen to Michelle wie??? Her ball was just in the hazard and she got in and played it, lost her balance on her way out and used her club to stabilise herself, therefor touching her club in the hazard but her ball had went back in the hazard further down and she was penalised for it.

 

[Birchy]

Can we have a description of the hazard Louise?

 

[chrisd]

You really do have to be there to have a solid opinion. If you are watching and prepared to call the penalty then you would know whether the opponent was right or not.

 

[rosecott]

Can't touch the club in the hazard-end off!!, bit picky though

Didn't this happen to Michelle wie??? Her ball was just in the hazard and she got in and played it, lost her balance on her way out and used her club to stabilise herself, therefor touching her club in the hazard but her ball had went back in the hazard further down and she was penalised for it.

If the situation was as you describe it, she was wrongly penalised. Exception1 to rule 13-4:

1. Provided nothing is done that constitutes testing the condition of the hazard or improves the lie of the ball, there is no penalty if the player (a) touches the ground or loose impediments in any hazard or water in a water hazard as a result of or to prevent falling, in removing an obstruction, in measuring or in marking the position of, retrieving, lifting, placing or replacing a ball under any Rule or (b) places his clubs in a hazard.

 

[Simbo]

I can't remember if it was EXACTLY that but it was something very similar, she tried to claim the club was used to stop her falling when her ball was in the hazard, but the officials were having none of it and penalised her, iirc it cost her about 100k in prize money.

 

[Foxholer]

Can't touch the club in the hazard-end off!!, bit picky though

Didn't this happen to Michelle wie??? Her ball was just in the hazard and she got in and played it, lost her balance on her way out and used her club to stabilise herself, therefor touching her club in the hazard but her ball had went back in the hazard further down and she was penalised for it.

That was in a Water Hazard. Official didn't accept her claim that she had lost her balance.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/law...-michellewie-rules-kiaclassic-lawrencedonegan

She did touch a loose impediment in a bunker with her backswing at British Women's though!

 

[richart]

I can't remember if it was EXACTLY that but it was something very similar, she tried to claim the club was used to stop her falling when her ball was in the hazard, but the officials were having none of it and penalised her, iirc it cost her about 100k in prize money.

If I remember rightly she tried to claim she used the club to stop herself falling over, but it was dismissed on review. I don't think she came out of the incident with much credit.

 

[duncan mackie]

Can't touch the club in the hazard-end off!!, bit picky though

Didn't this happen to Michelle wie??? Her ball was just in the hazard and she got in and played it, lost her balance on her way out and used her club to stabilise herself, therefor touching her club in the hazard but her ball had went back in the hazard further down and she was penalised for it.

firstly, there are a significant number of situations where you can touch the ground in a hazard with your club, or even clubs, so let's not have such sweeping statements as they just cause confusion in this forum.

second, in the case of Michelle Wie, she made a mistake and rested her club on the ground whilst standing in a water hazard. It was raised with her and, after about a second, she (also) responded that she had done so to prevent falling. The committee considered the matter (with the advantage of detailed video footage) and basically said she was lying - which ineviatably caused a huge stir amongst the other players, because of the very nature of golf. However, it wasn't her first 'error of judgement'.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I think to pass any judgement on the situation described by the OP 'you just had to be there'. And clearly we weren't - and neither in fact was the OP!

'Unfortunate' is the only judgement I can pass. My inclination would be to judge in favour of the penalised.

 

[Fader]

I think to pass any judgement on the situation described by the OP 'you just had to be there'. And clearly we weren't - and neither in fact was the OP!

'Unfortunate' is the only judgement I can pass. My inclination would be to judge in favour of the penalised.

Can't disagree with anything SILH says here to be honest. Its one of those rumblings that will not only continue for a few days afterwards at the OP's club and the rival clubs, it'll continue until you meet again and then be some needle in that match.

 

[Billysboots]

I agree anyone not there cannot pass conclusive judgement, but the OP did say this "touching" occurred prior to the player taking her stance. If so, I would agree to claim the hole, whilst possibly a correct interpretation of the rules, may be a little picky.

If I was guilty of such an infringement, whilst I would accept the decision, if there was no attempt to gain an advantage in the circumstances as described I would be slightly unhappy about it.

 

[louise_a]

I do tend to agree that you needed to be there and they should have sorted it out between them on the hole.

The return match is in 3 weeks, some of our team have already said they wouldn't be playing, I of course will be there.

 

[duncan mackie]

If I was guilty of such an infringement, whilst I would accept the decision, if there was no attempt to gain an advantage in the circumstances as described I would be slightly unhappy about it.

here we diverge, if the boot was on the foot and I had grounded my club inadvertently, then realised, I would have conceeded the hole before anybody got to the issue of a 'decision'!

matchplay is a funny beast, if the player realises they have committed a breach they should call it - if they don't realise, and their opponent either doesn't realise, or chooses to ignore it, then that's the end of the matter.