Don’t be quick to criticise golf competitions committees

This past weekend, the USGA hosted the US Open at the Oakmont Country Club. Many adjectives were used to describe the golf course and “easy” was not one of them. The course has a reputation for being difficult and it didn’t help that the greens were very fast.

The average speed on the putting surface was given as 14 on the Stimp metre. Let me bring this closer home. Some of the greens we consider fast on golf courses in Nairobi would measure between seven and eight on the Stimp metre. The force you would use to get your ball to travel six feet in one of our clubs would take the ball about double the distance at Oakmont.

Watching the event on television, I cringed as I watched former champions 3-putt from very short distances due to the fast, undulating greens. Dustin Johnson went on to win but not without a Rules controversy.

The most interesting thing is how fast Rules of Golf pundits were quick to criticise USGA for a blunder in their ruling. I was not to be left behind as I quickly commented on Facebook. After reading a few decisions on the Decisions on the Rules of Golf, I logged back into Facebook and deleted my comments.

The incident that attracted many comments from other tour players and Rules of Golf pundits happened at the fifth hole on Sunday. Johnson had a four-foot putt for par on the hole.

He had put the ball back in play when he made a few practice swings near his ball. As he went to address his ball after the practice swings, the ball moved.

It was a very slight movement, but a movement all the same. He called a referee and described what he had done and the referee agreed with him that he was not at fault and that he should play the ball from its new position. He did. Seven holes later, another Rules official informed him they were reviewing the video footage to determine whether he was at fault. After the round, he suffered a one-stroke penalty for causing his ball at rest to move.

Under the Rules of Golf, a ball is deemed to have “moved” if it leaves its position and comes to rest in any other place. If a ball has moved by a dimple or two, some may ask if the ball can be considered to have moved; the correct answer is “yes it has”.

It is no longer at the place where it was originally therefore it has come to rest in a new position. The same applies in the rough if your ball sinks lower than it was previously in tall grass. Some have argued that after stepping on their ball in the rough that it did not move.

One seasoned referee on the PGA tour famously said: “If it registered in your brain that you stepped on your ball in the rough, then it moved.”

The penalty for moving your ball at rest is one stroke. You must replace your ball where it was. If the ball is in the rough and you don’t know how it lay before you stepped on it, you must drop it. If you don’t replace the ball, you suffer a two-stroke penalty under the same Rule.

One of the errors made by several commentators on the issue was that the penalty was due to the fact that Johnson had addressed the ball. Indeed one of the erroneous comments came from the PGA Tour website which stated: “He was penalised under Rule 18-2 (Ball Moving after Address)”.

The writer got the correct Rule number but was wrong on the narrative. Golfers are no longer penalised for their balls moving after address. This was one of the key changes in the 2016 Rules. The question asked now is: “Did the player do anything that caused his ball to move?”

After reviewing the video footage, the committee felt that Johnson’s actions prior to the ball moving might have caused his ball to move. There was no evidence of anything else causing his ball to move.

This is reminiscent of a similar decision made against Angel Cabrera at the BMW PGA Championship at Wentworth years ago. Cabrera’s ball lay in the rough and when he took a practice swing a couple of feet away from the ball, it moved.

Since the ball had been at rest for some time before he made the practice swing, the action was deemed to have caused the ball’s movement. The video is now one of the many we use when training on the Rules of Golf.

Johnson could have been adjudged to have caused his ball to move since he grounded his putter near the ball before it moved. The next question would be “why was he not penalised two strokes for not replacing his ball?”

The committee had appointed referees and under the Rules, his decision was final. He had agreed with Johnson that he did not move the ball and that allowed him to play the ball from its new position.

However, this does not stop the committee from intervening if they have reason to think that the player had breached a rule. The decision by the referee saved Johnson the extra penalty shot.

This is one of the reasons why competition committees should have people on them that are conversant with the Rules. When Limuru Country Club announced the conditions of play for Limuru Open last week, some people turned to the social media to cast aspersions on the committee for demanding for handicap certificates. Their bone of contention was that this was effectively locking out caddies.

This is not a new condition and since golf clubs like Railway, Muthaiga, Royal, Limuru and many others handicap caddies under the CONGU system, they can easily produce handicap certificates for those with handicaps.

The Golf Talent Foundation under the Kenya Golf Union has also started a system aimed at handicapping all caddies under a virtual club. Those deriding competition committees without first understanding the Rules of the game should be slow to post falsehoods online.

[email protected] The author is a Kenya Golf Union Executive