Linda, as you know, those fellow competitors are
"protectors of the field"...a nice concept which too many golfers are
either blissfully unaware of or unwilling to accept that responsibility.
Lou from St. Augustine, Florida
Excellent point, Lou. And
in a similar vein…
Very well answered, Linda. Too few players are prepared to
report infractions of the rules because of possible repercussions from
"stronger" personalities.
Lou from Bodicote, England
An attorney raises a
“lawyerly” point:
Linda,
I am an attorney and this is an interesting situation. Just
because two players say "A" and only one says "B" does not
mean that "A" has been established by a preponderance of the
evidence. Credibility is a huge factor in all he said/she said disputes.
A judge must assess the demeanor of the witnesses, their ability to
observe, potential bias, and other factors which may tend to make the testimony
of the one more likely than the testimony of the two.
Regards,
Lou from Chicago
Dear Lou,
Sometimes it does seem
that one needs a law degree in order to interpret the Rules of Golf correctly.
This is one situation where it is not necessary.
There are certain
situations in golf where players are unaware they have breached a Rule.
Sometimes ignorance is the culprit, occasionally the player is unaware of what
occurred, and rarely (I hope) the player is cheating.
Golfers are
responsible for observing the play of their fellow competitors. They are
obligated to apprise them of any penalties they have incurred, and to report
such incidents to the Committee for resolution when there is disagreement. This
is what the reader above meant by “protecting the field.”
A double hit is an
action of which the player is sometimes unaware, but is easy for others to
observe. In the reader’s narrative, two different players observed the
infraction. Assuming the motives of two distinct individuals playing a game
dependent on honesty were pure, the Committee would penalize the player for the
double hit. I cannot imagine a scenario in which two players with nefarious
intentions invented the same observation. Did they conspire before the round to
accuse the player of a double hit on the 15th green? That, to me,
would be unthinkable.
Consider a different
scenario in which a player disturbs a few grains of sand during his backswing
in a bunker. Did he feel it? Probably not. Did he see it? Not likely. Would the
Committee take his word that the shot was clean over two players who saw the
sand fly up on his backswing? I doubt it.
These are not cases of
he said/she said. They are situations where players have properly assumed their
responsibility to observe play and report infractions. The presumption on the
double hit would be that the player was honestly unaware that it happened, and
the other players honestly and properly (some might say “courageously”)
reported their observation to the player and subsequently to the
Committee.
Linda
Copyright © 2015 Linda Miller. All rights reserved.
