Submit to Slammer 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 rulings@slammertour.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
Appeal Procedure
Send an email to commish@slammertour.com. The Commish will verify ruling with Golf Canada and report back.
|
#011: Canadian, November 20, 2011
Group: Rulz, NoCents, PizzaMan and Eeyore
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
Group: Rulz, NoCents, PizzaMan and Eeyore
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
Group: Ozone, Jelvis, Popeye and CaveMan
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 rulings@slammertour.com 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
Group: Cuba, Ticklar, Chilly, Ozone
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
Group: Smitty, Ticklar
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
Group: Eugenie, Billiards, Rulz, Stevie Ray
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
Group: Malone, Rulz, AVR, Lee-Zeee
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
Group: Rulz, ProZee, TJ, WildCard
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
Group: Malone, Chef, PointZero, WildCard
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
Group: SpinMaster, Malone, Rulz
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
Group: Eeyore, The Admiral, The Chin
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.)
|
