A point of some curious interest was that which arose in the course of
medal play on the course of the Higher Bebington Club some time ago. A
player had one of those most tantalising putts a yard in length to play,
and, like many a man before him, he missed it! In his aggravation at the
circumstance he snatched back his ball, and, without having holed it
out, he replaced it where it was before, in order to try his putt over
again, to satisfy his _amour propre_ that the holing of such a putt was
not beyond his mortal capacity. This is an old way of attempting to gain
some small crumb of satisfaction from a very disappointing business. At
the second attempt he holed that putt, but his partner then told him
that he was obliged to disqualify him from the entire competition for
not having holed out when making his putt. The competitor agreed that he
had done wrong, and accepted this fate; but some time later, when he had
fully thought over the business, and read up the rules, he protested.
Yet his committee maintained that he really should be disqualified, and
after much argument the seers of the Royal and Ancient were begged to
give their decision. And it was a very interesting decision. The high
court held that Rule 10 of stroke competitions applied, and that,
therefore, if the player replaced his ball directly behind the spot it
occupied after he had missed the putt, the penalty was two strokes only,
the second putt thus counting as in the competition, though it is fairly
clear that the competitor never intended it for it. “But,” said the
committee, “otherwise he was disqualified.” Those who discover feelings
and frames of mind behind the mask of simple sentences would be moved to
say, in this case, that in that last simple sentence St. Andrews was
trying to cover up somewhat the absurd position to which the rules
brought this case; for it was clear that the essence of the problem in
relation to the law was as to whether the player replaced his ball
behind the spot where it first stopped, which came simply to this--Was
he short of the hole the first time, or did his ball run to either side?
If he was short, then he was saved, and he is allowed to go on under
penalty of two strokes; but if he over-ran the hole--which from the golf
point of view was better than to be short--or if he went to either side,
then he would be disqualified. That ruling has grown since then.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account