GOLF RULES CONFUSION

Shannon News, 28 September 1926, Page 4

GOLF RULES CONFUSION

LAWS THAT MIGHT BE SIMPLIFIED (By. Harry Vardon, Six Times Open Champion.) ' There is a gi>lf adage that “ignorance of "the rules is worth a stroke a hole." This may be an exaggeration, but there can be no doubt that many thousands of goffers have only a superficial knowledge of the code governing the proper playing of the game—just sufficient knowledge to enable them to go Ground the course without committing any egregious breach—and that, innocently perpetrating minor infractions at frequent intervals, they profit without knowing that they are doing wrong. The opponent either does not see the law-breaking, or seeing it, does not like to appear grasping by claiming a penalty for it. Nor are these transgressions wholly a matter for surprise, considering that the rules are computed to run to 9,000 words, which some players are presumably averse to reading, mark- ' ing, learning, and inwardly digesting. Moreover, while thp code is, on the whole, clear to its close student, some of its clauses, unquestionably give rise to confusion, while a few might be simplified by a greater regard for what the average mortal regards as equity. Take, for instance, the rule under the heading of "casual water,’’ which says that, if a ball lie in such water in a hazard, the player may drop a ball under penalty of one stroke either in the hazard or behind it. Who on earth is going to drop a ball in a bunker when he can drop out of it? It seems to me that 'it would be more reasonable to give him permission to drop, without penalty,* in the hazard .at the nearest place that is clear of casual water but not nearer to the hole, or, if he . cannot do that, to penalize him a i stroke for dropping behind the hazard. Removing the 1 It must be confessed that some of . the rules take a lot of understanding. I I once had a long argument in the j middle of a close match as to the meaning of Rule 32, which says: “Either side is entitled to have the flagstick removed when approaching the hole.” As my opponent was walking forward for his approach shot, I asked for the pin to be removed in case he should hit it —a thing he had already done twice in the round. He was up in arms immediately. He declared that the term “either . side” was intended to convey the idea that the player who was about to approach, and nobody else, could exercise the right to have the pm taken out of the hole. He said that he had always understood the rule that way, S °T h contendeTthat‘ part of the object t 0 sWe's toU striking the pin opposing Sldes , f rom running and so being saved fro across the green, and that w cession'had been ht t 0 approach, player who was Buthe the rule would have id vieW) and would not en t ° nv golfers hold bis , I am sure m yet opinion. We n .arguing < upon the J ‘ I about It only at rest he ! The rule that -f f haU o “ sid6 the displaced by ! an " feT ,„ s spectator 1 .match-such as a P .L ma i—another r or a mischievous animai

ball shall be dropped as near as possible to where the first ball lay is not satisfactory when any doubt exists on the latter point. In such circumstances, it would be easier to go back and play another shot. I have had a good many experiences in this connection. Once, at Abbeydale in Yorkshire, when I was meeting Braid, my opponent drove into the rough. He played a ball which he thought was his. own, but on coming up to it for his second shot, found that it did not belong to him. Back went the crowd to search for the proper article.

A ball was found dnd this, too 1 proved to be the property of somej body else. The hunt continued until a spectator remarked—his conscience unable, perhaps, to stind the strain any longer—that he had picked up a ball. He produced it, and Braid recognised it at once as the ball which he had driven. “Where did you find it?” asked the referee. [ “Opposite that tree,” replied the on- ; looker, pointing to the nearest iandI mark. The tree in question was about the length of a drive and iron shot from the tree, but as there was no other evidence, Brai<f was told to drop near the tree, and so he was almost as far in one shot as I was in two shots. Of course, he won the hole. Lifting and Scraping, The most frequently broken rule :s that which says that, on the putting green, any loose impediment may be lifted and, in a special clause, gives permission for dung, wormcasts, snow and ice to be scraped aside with a club. The majority of players do not bother to differentiate. They scrape .away anything. lam writing more particularly of the' rank and file of golfers, and not of prominent players who, in most cases, have learned in a school of hard experience.

The confusion t|iat arises under this head gives rise to all sorts of arguments, as an instance of whLh may be quoted an incident which occurred when Braid and Taylor were playing .a four-some for £2OO against Duncan and Mayo at BurhiU, near London, some years ago. On one green, Taylor went to scrape aside some wormcasts with his putter—the proper thing to do. “Stop,’’ shouted the referee. “They are dry, so you must lift them.” He was a man who was supposed to know, and really did know, a great deal about the rules, (but a decision more absurd than this it would be hard to imagine.

However, as he was referee, he had to be obeyed. I think he realised his mistake afterwards, for when a little later a similar situation presented itself, and somebody asked him “Are they wet or dry wormcasts?” he looked very embarrassed. It would be much better to have one rule on the subject, stating that loose impediments could only be scroped aside with a club. Certainly it is a gpod thing that the old law, allowing the line of putt to be brushed with the hand, has been abolished, for many players used to • brush so diligently that, in the end, they had the blades of grass lying all one way and something in the nature of a gully leading to the hole.