Topics

Jump shots


 

Hi GC Players,

There has been a bit of confusion/uncertainty about lawn damage after a
jump shot, the ruling being that if the damage is caused by the mallet
then it is a fault, but if by the ball then it is not.

I have just come across a couple of You Tube videos demonstrate this
pretty well:

* In the first video (about 5 minutes) Reg Bamford plays a great
double bounce jump shot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ddpY7dSML0&;feature=related this shot
was faulted due to lawn damage.
* The second video (4:12 mins) at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKPzHsAHLjk&;feature=related tries
to recreate the lawn damage and shows that the damage was probably
caused by the ball rather than the mallet.

If I was refereeing I would have been so impressed with the shot that I
probably would have let it pass even if the damage had been caused by
the mallet:-)

Cheers
Roger Evans
Jamberoo CC


 

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 7:20 AM, Roger Evans <rfkevans@gmail.com> wrote:

* In the first video (about 5 minutes) Reg Bamford plays a great
double bounce jump shot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ddpY7dSML0&;feature=related this shot
was faulted due to lawn damage.
To avoid any confusion. The shot was faulted but the vast majority, if not
everyone, who viewed this footage believed the referee got it wrong and
should have declared a fair shot.


Jan Sage
 

Hi Roger,

This shot was faulted because the damage appeared to be caused by the mallet. Later investigation and study of the shot from mobile phone videos proved the damage was by the ball on very soft, wet ground.

An additional Official Ruling was issued in March 2012 following extensive discussion and argument, particularly on the Nottingham site.

The Ruling was distributed to all Australian croquet clubs - hopefully to all referees and GC players. Below is a collection of comments and explanations from various conversations following the issuing of the new ruling.

March 25th 2012



The WCF GC Rules Committee has asked me to issue the following new ruling immediately, regarding Rule 12 (non-striking faults):



"Rule 12 Ruling
The provisions of clause 12(b) shall not apply to a striker during the period
between when the striker's mallet makes first contact with the striker's
ball and when the striker leaves his stance under control"





Is it too simple to say that a non-striking fault (court damage) cannot be committed during the striking period? If court damage occurs from the time the striker's ball is struck by the mallet until the striker leaves his stance under control, then it is a striking fault.



What the new ruling appears to be saying is: "You can't have a non-striking fault during the striking period" I would have thought that that was obvious, and hence I cannot understand why we need this Ruling to tell us that.



It means that any court damage within the specified time window is considered to be a striking fault rather than a non-striking fault as defined in clause 12(b).



All this came because of a request from the English CA following the "Bamford" incident in

the last World GC Championships.



Court damage is always a fault, whether the damage is caused after the
mallet contacts the ball, or without the mallet contacting the ball.
Court damage is a striking fault under Rule 13 [a] [14] and a non
striking fault under Rule 12 [b]. Note that the non striking fault
includes damage by the mallet, feet or other equipment.
Simply put, it means that you cannot commit a non striking fault
during the striking period.
This ruling is an interim measure and the wording of the Rule will no
doubt be looked at during the Rules review this year.



Court damage under Rule 13 [a] [14] is limited to damage caused only by the mallet - see the commentary in the Rules Book.
There was an incident at the World GC Championship which was discussed and analysed for weeks after. Considerable damage was caused on soft ground during a stroke, not by the mallet but by the ball. This appears to satisfy the conditions of Rule 12 [b], but is within the time when a striking fault can be committed.
This ruling will stand until the Rules are reviewed and a new edition published next year.

Hope this helps,

Regards,

Jan Sage


 

Hi Jan,

Thanks for the further clarification. I was aware of the rule but I
thought that the two videos helped to make the ruling quite clear.

As a further comment on lawn damage we had a discussion at the ACA GC
Handicap championship and it was claimed that the Pidcock mallet with
the 'D' shaped ends can cause lawn damage when the back end of the
mallet is grounded (eg making a stun shot.) I don't have a Pidcock
mallet and so have no experience but it was an interesting comment.
Has anyone experienced this problem?

Regards
Roger

On 18/11/2012 10:40, Jan Sage wrote:


Margaret Sawers
 

Why should the D shaped Pidcock mallet be any different to any other square mallet?
I have had one of these mallets for over a year and have never had a problem.
Most wooden mallets are square but the bottom of the mallet is no different to the squareness of the Pidcock bottom
Margaret
From: Roger Evans
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 1:39 PM
To: cnswplayers@yahoogroups.com.au
Subject: Re: [cnswplayers] Re: Jump shots


Hi Jan,

Thanks for the further clarification. I was aware of the rule but I
thought that the two videos helped to make the ruling quite clear.

As a further comment on lawn damage we had a discussion at the ACA GC
Handicap championship and it was claimed that the Pidcock mallet with
the 'D' shaped ends can cause lawn damage when the back end of the
mallet is grounded (eg making a stun shot.) I don't have a Pidcock
mallet and so have no experience but it was an interesting comment.
Has anyone experienced this problem?

Regards
Roger

On 18/11/2012 10:40, Jan Sage wrote:

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Margaret Sawers
 

Why should the D shaped Pidcock mallet be any different to any other square mallet?
I have had one of these mallets for over a year and have never had a problem.
Most wooden mallets are square but the bottom of the mallet is no different to the squareness of the Pidcock bottom
Margaret
From: Roger Evans
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 1:39 PM
To: cnswplayers@yahoogroups.com.au
Subject: Re: [cnswplayers] Re: Jump shots


Hi Jan,

Thanks for the further clarification. I was aware of the rule but I
thought that the two videos helped to make the ruling quite clear.

As a further comment on lawn damage we had a discussion at the ACA GC
Handicap championship and it was claimed that the Pidcock mallet with
the 'D' shaped ends can cause lawn damage when the back end of the
mallet is grounded (eg making a stun shot.) I don't have a Pidcock
mallet and so have no experience but it was an interesting comment.
Has anyone experienced this problem?

Regards
Roger

On 18/11/2012 10:40, Jan Sage wrote:

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


 

Hi Margaret,

I don't own a Pidcock and so I was only passing on a comment. I believe
that the difference is that the bottom of the 'D' protrudes beyond the
round body of the mallet and so is more likely to scrape the grass. It
does not have the smooth bottom of a timber mallet.
One or two of the people who were in the discussion in Launceston and
who are also on this list might like to comment further.

Roger

On 18/11/2012 15:11, Margaret Sawers wrote:

Why should the D shaped Pidcock mallet be any different to any other
square mallet?
I have had one of these mallets for over a year and have never had a
problem.
Most wooden mallets are square but the bottom of the mallet is no
different to the squareness of the Pidcock bottom
Margaret
From: Roger Evans
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 1:39 PM
To: cnswplayers@yahoogroups.com.au
<mailto:cnswplayers%40yahoogroups.com.au>
Subject: Re: [cnswplayers] Re: Jump shots

Hi Jan,

Thanks for the further clarification. I was aware of the rule but I
thought that the two videos helped to make the ruling quite clear.

As a further comment on lawn damage we had a discussion at the ACA GC
Handicap championship and it was claimed that the Pidcock mallet with
the 'D' shaped ends can cause lawn damage when the back end of the
mallet is grounded (eg making a stun shot.) I don't have a Pidcock
mallet and so have no experience but it was an interesting comment.
Has anyone experienced this problem?

Regards
Roger

On 18/11/2012 10:40, Jan Sage wrote:



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Arthur Sawilejskij <arthur.sawilejskij@...>
 

Interesting!

I got a Pidcock about 2 months ago now, and the first time I did a stun
shot - grounding the back of the mallet - I caused lawn damage.

Looking at the damage, I apparently played the shot with my mallet not
perfectly perpendicular to the ground, and consequently one of the
protruding corners of the D dug into the lawn.

Having become aware of this, I've taken more care with those shots and not
had the problem since.

Arthur

On 18/11/2012, at 3:11 PM, Margaret Sawers <margaretsawers1@hotmail.com>
wrote:



Why should the D shaped Pidcock mallet be any different to any other square
mallet?
I have had one of these mallets for over a year and have never had a
problem.
Most wooden mallets are square but the bottom of the mallet is no different
to the squareness of the Pidcock bottom
Margaret
From: Roger Evans
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 1:39 PM
To: cnswplayers@yahoogroups.com.au
Subject: Re: [cnswplayers] Re: Jump shots

Hi Jan,

Thanks for the further clarification. I was aware of the rule but I
thought that the two videos helped to make the ruling quite clear.

As a further comment on lawn damage we had a discussion at the ACA GC
Handicap championship and it was claimed that the Pidcock mallet with
the 'D' shaped ends can cause lawn damage when the back end of the
mallet is grounded (eg making a stun shot.) I don't have a Pidcock
mallet and so have no experience but it was an interesting comment.
Has anyone experienced this problem?

Regards
Roger

On 18/11/2012 10:40, Jan Sage wrote:

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]