Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-12-11
GOLF QUESTIONS
DISCUSSED ABROAD

LONDON, England, December lin a
kind of semi-of1icial capacity, said promi-
nent British golfer, l have had couple OF
rather peculiar 'wet-weather' questions
put to me lately and one Of them, at al
events, may have a special interest and i'm
portance for all golfers When man plays
his ball into hedge or ditch or a pond or
anything of that sort, and has to lift and
DROP he frequently, in order to save time,
drops another ball, while his caddie goes in
pursuit of that which has been causing all
the trouble.
This action is quite legal and saves a lot
Of time, besides which 1t Is one from which
the player cannot conceivably derive any
advantage. In the case of some London
clubs whose courses are very muddy In
winter time, with the result that the ball
frequently arrives at the putting green in
a state quite unfit for putting. local rule
has been established to the effect that any
player may pick it up and wipe the mud on
it. so as to give him a fair chance with his
putter.
Now a case has arisen in which a golfer,
when he did this, took the opportunity of
putting down another ball. 1t Is not alleged
that on this particular occasion he did so
because he preferred the second ball for
putting purposes; but it Is well known that
some balls are better to putt with than
others, and that the ball that is best for
driving and the long game Is not by any
means always the best ball for putting.
Therefore there Is a very strong inference
that the ball may have been changed for
this reason, and If the practice were legal II
might always be changed because Of 1t.
Is 1t legal? The rules Of golf do not In
themselves permit of any picking up and
wiping of the ball, and clubs who make To-
cal rules to this effect are contracting out.
as it were. from the ST. Andrews code. and
But there can be no doubt that making a
change of balls on the putting green,
whether cleaning is allowed or not, is en-
tirely opposed to the whole spirit and prac-
tice of the game, is manifestly unfair and
would be fatty ruled against by any judges
to whom the question was submitted. Such
a practice would plainly afford most I'M
desirable scope for cunning. 1t seems to be
necessary that those clubs who go in for
the local rule permitting the wiping of the
ball should insert a clause in 1t insisting
that the same ball should be put back
again.
foursome play and, casually, waterlogged
bunkers From such bunkers, when the
ball is In the water, 1t is permissible to pick
out and drop under penalty of one stroke.
and the point that arose is as to whether in
playing the stroke afterward counting as
the third IL the first one were from the tee,
the man who played the tee shot or his
partner should play 1t. If the second had
the player who drove would be the man to
play it. But is it in this connection to be
counted as an ordinary stroke?
Most players have instinctively regarded
1t as not being one, but, in this particular
case, when three times it was treated by
one side In this way in the course of q
round in competition, the other side
claimed that their opponents had played out
Of turn, and put in an appeal that all three
holes should be allowed to them. 1t Is a
pretty point, but there is no doubt what
ever about the answer, the rules partly
suggesting 1t and st. Andrews having ad-
Indicated on very similar points. The PEN
atty stroke is not counted as one played
! with the clubs, and the second man plays
what counts as the third stroke.