|Submit to Tour Rulings | Ruling Process
Slammer Tour Ruling Process
Each golfer is responsible to make his/her own decisions on course of play. If an opponent thinks there was an error made, they must announce that they are "filing a claim" before teeing off on the next hole (done in a respectful, sportsmanline manner). Then they must send an email to email@example.com for a decision within 24 hours of event completion.
What to include in your claim
- course, date and playing partner names
- name of Slammer who is the subject of the claim
- details of the incident
Send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org. The Commish will verify ruling with Golf Canada and report back.
#021: May 3, 2013 Mountain Creek
On #10 at Mountain Creek, Chilly hit his drive from the white tees when he should have hit from the blues. This was brought to his attention so he re-hit from the blue tees. He then scored a birdie three on the par-four hole. Chilly didn't think there was a penalty but Rulz did, although neither was certain. Jonathan (Mountain Creek pro) thought it was a two stroke penalty in stroke-play but wasn't sure for match-play.
Chily was correct. In match-play, his score is three. If his opponents had not said anything, he could have played his first ball without penalty. In stroke-play, however, Chilly would have incurred a two-stroke penalty and scored a five; however, if the error was not corrected before teeing off the next hole, he would have been disqualified.
Please note that despite the fact that there are skins, it's a match-play league and The Slammer Tour follows rules specific to match-play. Therefore Chilly's birdie cuts of Rulz's birdie.
#020: April 30, 2013 eQuinelle
On hole #1 at eQuinelle, Nolanator picked up his ball and replaced it, with no intention to cheat. A claim was filed by IronMaiden and intention to file a claim was communicated to Nolanator prior to the start of the next hole. It should be noted that Nolanator misunderstood the local rule and didn't really gain an advantage in this situation. On the Slammer Tour, it is encouraged help people out with the rules when unknown as long as they don't gain an advantage, instead of filing a claim.
Since lift, clean and place was not in effect during this event, Nolanator was in breach of Rule 18-2. Nolanator lifted or moved his ball which was not permitted under the Rules of Golf, local rules, Slammer Tour rules or event rules therefore he incurs a one-stroke penalty as specified in 18-2.
Nolanator scored a three on the hole but signed for a four (which includes a one-stroke penalty) so his score stands as four.
#019: April 20, 2013 Conklin
Hole #10 at Conklin Players Club is an island green par three. Rulz hits his ball over the green into the water. There are no red or yellow stakes on the hole and there is a drop zone located before the water. Rulz proceeds to the back of the islands and drops two club lengths from his point of entry. Malone files a claim thinking that the drop zone must be used in this situation.
Since the water isn't marked with yellow or red stakes, by default it is to be considered a water hazard (yellow) and the only three options available would be:
- Play again from where the original ball was last played, or
- Drop anywhere on a line which extends from the hole through where the ball last crossed the margin of the hazard (what Tiger confused and got wrong at the Masters!), or
- Drop a ball in the drop zone
As a result, in match play, Rulz loses the hole.
#018: January 19, 2013 Tour Central
- On hole #9 at Mountain Creek, there are white OB stakes on the left hand side to dissuade players from cutting the corner. Malone approaches his ball and finds it out-of-bounds. The Slammer Tour local rules state that Malone may play it as a lateral hazard situation by dropping a new ball no more than two club lengths from the point of entry and no closer to the hole but Malone played it as it laid since the area is treated as a lateral hazard. Rulz filed a claim indicating that he was not allowed to play the ball and had to take a drop like it was a lateral hazard.
Rulz was correct and Malone lost the hole. Malone should have determined his point of entry and either dropped a ball two club lengths from the point of entry or kept the pin and the point of entry in line and went back to a maximum of 50 yards.
- On hole #3 at Eagle Creek, Rulz hit his tee shot into the trees on the right. He searched for his ball for about 2.5 minutes and was about to drop at the point of entry but then discovered his ball nestled up against a tree. He declared his ball unplayable but since it was not ideal for him to drop with two club lengths (as he would still be in the forest), he decided to drop two club lengths from the point of entry into the forest (trouble area) and took a two stroke penalty. No opponents objected as this was the proper procedure.
Note that if Rulz had approached the forest and didn't bother to look for his ball, he could have declared it lost and taken a one stroke penalty, dropping within two club lengths of his point of entry of the trouble area. This is the risk a golfer takes when looking for their ball because if found, that is the ball in play. In this case Rulz made the correct ethical decision to acknowledge it was indeed his ball and thus incurred the two-stroke penalty.
- On hole #9 at Mountain Creek, there's a creek that runs across the fairway short of the green marked with red stakes. The creek is about 15 yards wide and Malone hit his second shot into the general area of the hazard, but thought it may have creeped out on the other side of the hazard. When Malone approached the hazard, he hit a "hazard provisional" before crossing the hazard to look for his ball. He then proceeded to the other size of the hazard and found his ball just inside the hazard... but playable. He proceeded to play his original ball out of the hazard and picked up his "hazard provisional" ball.
Malone proceeded correctly because this was an effort to save time instead of going to the other side of the hazard, possibly not finding his ball, then having to return to the other side of the hazard again.
Had Malone found his original ball outside of the hazard, he could have proceeded the same way.
Had he found his original ball in the hazard but unplayable, he could have picked it up and played the "hazard provisional" (with the stroke penalty).
Had he found his original ball in the hazard, tried to play it, but left it in the hazard, he could have still played the "hazard provisional" and taken a two-stroke penalty (the original penalty stroke plus an extra stroke for each attempt to get out of the hazard).
#017: September 16, 2012 eQuinelle
On hole #10, PizzaMan putts out for a five then leaves the green. In the meantime, Cuba misses his putt for a four. After all players except Cuba finish out, Cuba concedes his own three-foot putt for five. At the tee box he realizes that PizzaMan got a five, so he went back to the hole to putt out and made the putt for five. PizzaMan challenges the five.
From the rules of golf, rule 20-1 requires the position of the ball must be marked before it is lifted under any rule that requires the ball to be replaced. If it is not marked, the player incurs a penalty of one stroke and the ball must be replaced. So Cuba scores a six (five strokes and one penalty stroke) which means he loses the hole to everyone, given the scores.
Please note the local Slammer Tour rule for two foot gimmes. Opponents must concede putts within two-feet of the hole except if the putt is to win or extend a match, to win a doggie or for a birdie or eagle. All opponents still in the match must agree it is within two feet. The distance is measured from the edge of the hole to the front of the ball. A player cannot give him or herself a putt; it must be agreed to by all opponents unless it is obvious (one foot or less).
#016: September 9, 2012 Trillium Wood
During the 2012 Kingston Intersectionals, players were playing lift, clean and place. On one hole, Rulz did so but then, as he was about to hit, his ball moved a quarter of a turn. Rulz wasn’t completely sure if he has addressed the ball or not. Rulz proceeded to play the ball from its new position and finished the hole. Upon completion of the hole, Rulz informed his opponents and conceded the hole.
Rule 18-2b states that if the player, after he addressed the ball, caused (or deemed to have caused) the ball to move, he incurs a penalty of one stroke and the ball is replaced.
Effective January 1, 2012, a new exception to 18-2b was added. If it is known or virtually certain that the player did not cause the ball to move after address there is no penalty and it is played from the new spot. This is on or off the green.
It is interesting to note that the definition of address has also changed as of January 1, 2012. All the player has to do to address the ball is to ground the club in front of or behind the ball. Stance no longer comes into the definition of address. We see some players address the ball on the green before taking their stance.
From the description of the incident, Rulz proceeded correctly, initially, assuming that he did not cause the ball to move. It was upon his reflection and subsequent action that he incorrectly penalized himself.
#015: September 3, 2012 Metcalfe
On the 5th green, Snake noticed that Garbo had 15 clubs in his bag and announced a claim. Garbo noted that the "extra" club was taken out of play on the 2nd hole after the club was "significantly damaged" while playing his 2nd shot out of the woods (hit a hidden rock on the ball strike). From the rules of golf, a player must not start a round with more than 14 clubs (Rule 4-4). In match play, when the breach of the rule is discovered the state of the match is adjusted by deducting from the player a hole for each hole the breach occurred to a maximum of two holes per round.
With Garbo’s breach of Rule 4-4, whether discovered on hole #5 or #2, two holes are deducted from his state of the match at that point.
So, at the completion of ...
- hole #2, Snake was 1 up originally, now he is 3 up, or
- hole #5, Garbo and Snake originally are all square, now Snake is 2 up
Either way, the match is over at the end of hole #17 and Snake wins the match 2 and 1.
When rule 4-4 is breached, the outcome of individual holes is not adjusted. It is the state of the match where the penalty is applied. See decision 4-4a/9 for examples on how the penalty is applied. The penalty does not change whether the excess club was discovered during the playing of #2 or #5. The rules committee is satisfied that the club was declared out of play by Garbo. Rule 4-4c requires the player to declare the excess club out of play upon discovering the excess over 14. Breach of this rule is disqualification.
#014: July 15, 2012 eQuinelle
One hole #1 at eQuinelle, Rulz’s ball flew over the green and into a red-staked (lateral) hazard. When Rulz approached the ball he took short practice swings and minor waggles where his clubhead brushed the top of the tall grass. After the hole was completed, Malone challenged Rulz’s score stating that brushing the tall grass was a breach of the rules.
The Slammer Tour ruling committee found an exact decision which reads:
13-4/4: Touching Grass with Club During Practice Swing in Hazard
Q. A player takes a practice swing in a water hazard without grounding his club, but his club touches some long grass. Is there a penalty?
A. No. See Note to Rule 13-4. However, the player must ensure that his actions do not breach Rule 13-2 or constitute testing the condition of the hazard.
Rulz’s score and the match stands as is.
Please note that challenging the rules of golf are encouraged and can easily be done in a friendly manner.
#013: June 5, 2012 Stonebridge
Chill and Davestator’s balls both lay on the 12th green at Stonebridge. Chill had just putted from 40 feet away and started walking towards her ball to mark it. Before she could get there, Davestator putted his ball from 30 feet away and his ball hit Chill’s ball. Under the Rules of Golf, if a player’s ball hits another player's ball anywhere there is normally no penalty and the ball is played as it lies. The other ball must be replaced.
One difference in stroke-play is that if both balls are on the green and a player’s ball hits another player’s ball there is a two-stroke penalty. Since the Slammer Tour is a match-play league, no penalty occurs.
Reminder that if you think someone has broken a rule (either unintentionally or intentionally) the procedure is to announce that you will be filing a claim. This must be done after completion of the hole and before tee off on the next hole and an email must be sent to email@example.com
within 24 hours.
#012: April 17, 2012
Response to email query. Slammer rules take precedence, followed by local course rules and then Golf Canada (formerly RCGA). The Slammer max of eight is in place for pace of play purposes. Under Slammer Tour rules, all eights are equal means that in a foursome, all Slammers who score an eight “halve the hole” (tie) no matter who scores the eight first. It does not matter if a person picks their ball up and takes an eight or if a Slammer holes out with an eight. All eights are equal.
#011: Canadian, November 20, 2011
On hole #8 at Canadian, Rulz`s drive hooks left and lands just short of the sand trap. At the base of the sand trap there is a white stake with a green tip. There are also a number of other white stakes on the left side of the fairway all the way up that side of the fairway. Rulz played his next shot where it lie stating the stake was not an Out of Bounds stake. PizzaMan disagreed citing that if it is an OB stake, his ball was OB.
The Rules Committee contacted the superintendent at Canadian to gain clarification on the stakes. The white stakes with the green tips are used to mark areas where carts should not travel or where there is a hole or depression where golfers might trip and fall (not OB). There is also a line of solid white stakes marking the out of bounds on the left of the bunker.
The Rules Committee decision was that Rulz`s ball was not Out of Bounds since the area was marked with white stakes with green tips, and therefore he did not breach any of the rules of golf.
#010: Canadian, November 20, 2011
On hole #13 at Canadian, PizzaMan's approach to the green ended up on the cart path left of the green. The point of contention is where his nearest point of relief was. Rulz and NoCents said it was left of the path but PizzaMan said he can't take his relief there because there is a fence. (Non OB fence). PizzaMan took relief in a single procedure from the cart path and the fence. The cart path is an immovable obstruction. Checking with the proshop at Canadian, the fence in question is an immovable obstruction. PizzaMan is entitled to relief from the cart path and then the fence. See decision 24-2b/9.
From the diagram provided, one club length from the nearest point of relief from the cart path puts PizzaMan close to the fence (4 steps away from where the ball was on the cart path). He would drop seeking relief from the cart path first which puts him in a position to seek relief from the fence. Then he would seek relief from the fence no nearer to the hole. The Committee could not determine from the diagram provided where the nearest point of relief was from the fence.
PizzaMan is not entitled to take relief from both the first immovable obstruction (cart path) and the second immovable obstruction (fence) in a single procedure, unless after taking relief from the 1st immovable obstruction and then taking relief from the 2nd immovable obstruction, the player would be essentially back to where he started and it is evident that such a single procedure is necessary to obtain relief from both conditions.
The Committee decided that PizzaMan was entitled to seek relief from the two immovable obstructions but did not follow the required procedure for seeking relief from the two obstructions. See Decisions on the Rules of Golf 1-4⁄8. The penalty in match play is loss of hole.
#009: Arnprior, July 31, 2011
On #15, Popeye and Jelvis hit their drives into the middle of the fairway of the 328 yard par 4. Popeye hits his second shot first and then Jelvis follows. Both Popeye and Jelvis hit the green in regulation (2) but noticed that they had mistakenly hit each other’s ball. There was discussion about the rules of golf and how to proceed. Popeye and Jelvis took back their balls and completed the hole. Popeye and Jelvis both report a score of 6 on the hole and win the hole over Caveman and Ozone.
No announcement is made about filing a claim before teeing off on #16 and no claim is filed to firstname.lastname@example.org within 24 hours. Therefore there is no official claim and the scores stand. However, the situation does present an interesting set of circumstances worthy of clarification.
Under the Rules of Golf the ruling would be since Popeye hit a wrong ball first, he loses the hole to Ozone,Jelvis and Caveman. Also, since Jelvis hits a wrong ball (but second), he loses the hole to Ozone and Caveman. See Rules of Golf 15-3.
As per Slammer Tour Rules, if one must take a penalty of “loss of a hole” they must record a “nine” as his/her score. Since all “nines” are equal Popeye and Jelvis would have tied the hole.
Please note: No one has the authority to "make a ruling" on the course and it is up to the individual player to determine how he or she will proceed if an issue comes up. The player may ask for opinions on what the proper course of action might be but it is ultimately up to the player to make a decision. If you disagree, then follow the procedure for filing a claim.
#008: Casselview, July 3, 2011
On hole #9 at Casselview, Ticklar hits his ball toward a water hazard but couldn’t see where it lands. He assumes that it entered thehazard but could not be sure. He drops a ball playing the hazard rule. After his drop, butbefore his next stroke, another player finds Ticklar’s ball is not inthe hazard. Ticklar proceeded to play his original ball, thereby abandoning his just dropped ball. Cuba announces before teeing off on the next hole that he will file a claim citing thatTicklarplayed a wrong ball or wrongly substituted ball, as he cannot go back to his original, once he has declared it lost and dropped another. He did not attempt to correct his mistake. Cuba believes that the newly dropped ball is the ball in play and Ticklartherefore should lose the hole.
The ruling is based on two factors:
1) From Ticklar’s description of what happened, he assumed or thought the ball was in the hazard when he couldn’t find it. It was not known nor virtually certain the ball was in the hazard
- “I could not see where my ball finished, except that I was shooting towards the hazard (the only line I had) and had hoped it had stopped short.”
- “The problem is that I could not see where I was going because of the trees. I was hitting blind in the direction of the hazard down the hill. When I went down to where I thought it should be and did not find it, I thought it had gone in the water."
2) Ticklar dropped a ball but had not played (hit) it yet.
The ruling: It was not known, nor was it virtually certain that Ticklar’s ball was in the water hazard when he dropped his substitute ball. He thought or assumed it was in the hazard. In fact, that ball was incorrectly substituted under 26-1 which he was not entitled to. Since he had not made a stroke on the dropped ball, he needed to correct his error (incorrectly substituted ball) by abandoning the substituted ball under 20-6 and continuing to play with the original ball which was found. There is no penalty under 20-6.
Relevant parts of the rules of golf or decisions
26-1/3.7 Ball Dropped Under Water Hazard Rule Without It Being Known or Virtually Certain Ball in Hazard; Original Ball Then Found
#007: Arnprior, June 20, 2010
On #18 Smitty took free relief from a tree stump saying it was ground under repair. Ticklar disagreed. The decision was made that Smitty was not entitled to free relief seeing as the area was not marked nor was there any indication the stump was in the process of being removed. See Rules of Golf Decision 25-8.
#006: Arnprior, June 20, 2010
On #11, Eugenie was in a soft, bare patch near the green. When stepping around the area the ground would move like there was water under the grass but no water could be seen when taking a normal stance. Eugenie took free relief stating that it was casual water. Stevie Ray disagreed. The decision was made that Eugenie was not entitled to take free relief because no water was visible when taking a normal stance. See Rules of Golf Decision 25-4.
#005: Hiawatha, April 17, 2010
On #18, Malone attempted to hit his drive over the gorge towards the 150 marker. Malone said he saw it clear the hazard line of the gorge and fall back into the hazard. He then played his next shot from where he believed his ball last crossed the hazard line with a 1-stroke penalty. Rulz, AVR and Lee-Zee did not see the ball land. Rulz filed claim thinking more evidence was needed that the ball actually did cross the hazard line as the ball was never found (in an area that appeared as though it should be found). The decision was made that Malone proceeding correctly because his sighting was the only evidence one way or the other.
#004: Montebello, September 20, 2009
On #9, the green has a fence to save balls from falling back into the gorge. ProZee and TJ both took free relief from the fence but took their relief closer to the pin. The fence is an immovable obstruction so they were entitled to free relief but it must be taken no closer to the hole. Penalty was loss of hole.
#003: Cedarhill, May 13, 2009
On #6 Malone hit his approach shot left towards the boundary of the course, with his ball coming to rest just beyond a safety fence. Chef's position was that the safety net was a boundary fence - therefore Malone's ball was out of bounds. Malone disagreed and played his ball as if it were still in bounds. The CPGA Pro at Cedarhill, along with the superintendent, both confirmed that this particular safety net was a boundary fence. Malone therefore lost the hole and in turn lost the match to Chef. Note that the actual boundary line is inside of the two posts used to support the safety net.
#002: Pine View, November 12, 2008
On #18 SpinMaster had a one-foot putt to win the hole and the match vs. Malone. Instead of putting out, SpinMaster picked up the ball thinking that it was an automatic concession by Malone. Malone never conceded the putt and informed SpinMaster he was filing a claim. Given that SpinMaster never finished the hole, he loses the hole and Malone wins the match. Note that SpinMaster could have replaced the ball and putted out with a one-stroke penalty, which would have made the match a draw.
#001: Pine View, May 20, 2008
On #17 Eeyore hit his drive and wasn't sure where it went so he then hit a second ball. He hit the second ball again but then found thefirst ball and continued to play out the hole, scoring himself as a 5. Since no formal claim was made before teeing off on the 18th hole, the 5 stands. Eeyore loses his match vs The Admiral on the 17th and wins his match vs The Chin on the 17th. (Admiral had a 4 on the 17th and was 2 up on Eeyore after 16. The Chin had a 6 on 17 and was 1 down to Eeyore after 16.)