Relief from contoured slope leading into drainage grate?

Not unless the obstruction itself caused interference.  And your ball lies in a water hazard, then you don't get any relief from an immovable obstruction.

Didn't Charl Schwartzel do just that at a tournament last year?  The grate has to interfere with your normal stance, not the slope.  There could be a natural slope.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MEfree 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt 

Not unless the obstruction itself caused interference.  

 

I guess what I am asking is what is the obstruction?

1.  Just the metal grate OR

2.  The grate and the man made area that is designed to funnel into the grate

 

I could imagine a similar situation with a sunk sprinkler head where I have seen a 6 inch or so area around the sprinkler head where the turf has been cut away.  What would be the ruling if a ball (or player's foot) was sitting a few inches from the sprinkler head below the level of the surrounding grass but where the sprinkler head itself was not actually interfering with your swing or stance.

The obstruction is only the manufactured object.  Golf courses are chock full of man made slopes, mounds, and depressions - they just make the game more interesting. Unless there is something that indicates that the slope is GUR then play the ball as it lies.  Same thing applies with a depressed area around a sprinkler.

I think it is better to think of the actual word in the definition. 'Artificial'. Too many things on a golf course are 'man made'. Putting greens for example.

At one of my local courses, Angel Park Palm Course, I think hole number 13, has you hit over some water, onto a fairway that doglegs a little to the left. To the left of the fairway, there is another large pond. On the left side of the fairway, there is rough, maybe about 5 feet of it then it becomes a downhill slope towards the water.

Am I entitled to a free drop if my ball is on the slope and my feet are touching the concrete where the water subsides?

As the concrete is artificial it is an obstruction and as your feet are are touching the obstruction that is deemed to be interference. So, yes you get free relief.

See Rule 24-2

http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-24/#24-2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rulesman 

As the concrete is artificial it is an obstruction and as your feet are are touching the obstruction that is deemed to be interference. So, yes you get free relief.

 

See Rule 24-2

 

http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-24/#24-2

If the obstruction is concrete that is in the hazard, I don't think you get relief from standing on an obstruction that is in a hazard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rustyredcab 

If the obstruction is concrete that is in the hazard, I don't think you get relief from standing on an obstruction that is in a hazard.

Hey Rusty,

All depends where the ball lies.  If the ball does not lie in the water or lateral water hazard, as it seems with the poster's question, you do get relief...regardless if the obstruction is in the hazard or not.  If the ball lies in the water or lateral water hazard, you do not get relief from an immovable obstruction......regardless if the immovable obstruction is in the hazard or not.

If the ball lies in a bunker, you get relief provided you drop in the bunker.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rustyredcab 

If the obstruction is concrete that is in the hazard, I don't think you get relief from standing on an obstruction that is in a hazard.

You do if the ball is not in the water hazard. As is the case here it seems.

Which rule do you believe says you can't?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rustyredcab 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rulesman 

As the concrete is artificial it is an obstruction and as your feet are are touching the obstruction that is deemed to be interference. So, yes you get free relief.

 

See Rule 24-2

 

http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-24/#24-2

If the obstruction is concrete that is in the hazard, I don't think you get relief from standing on an obstruction that is in a hazard.

It doesn't matter where the immovable obstruction is.  It only matters where the ball lies.  If the ball lies in the water hazard, then no relief.  If the ball lies outside of the hazard, then you do get relief, even if you are standing within the hazard margin.

Perhaps I should also comment the same post, lol.

What if the concrete lining was defined as integral part of the course, could that be possible?

Quote:

Originally Posted by luu5 

Perhaps I should also comment the same post, lol.

 

What if the concrete lining was defined as integral part of the course, could that be possible?

If it's an integral part of the course then there is no relief regardless of where the ball lies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by robrey85 

At one of my local courses, Angel Park Palm Course, I think hole number 13, has you hit over some water, onto a fairway that doglegs a little to the left. To the left of the fairway, there is another large pond. On the left side of the fairway, there is rough, maybe about 5 feet of it then it becomes a downhill slope towards the water.

 

Am I entitled to a free drop if my ball is on the slope and my feet are touching the concrete where the water subsides?

So, if the concrete is inside the hazard line, and the ball is outside the hazard line, you get free relief because you are standing on an obstruction (concrete bank) within the hazard?

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dormie1360 

Yes.

Curious how you would rule in this situation.  Match play.  My ball is on the edge, but outside of a sand hazard.  My opponent is in the sand hazard.  I am away.  There is a loose branch obstructing my opponent's ball but a portion of the branch is also obstructing my ball.  I should be able to remove the branch because to me it is loose impediment.  My opponent is not entitled to move the branch because his ball lies in the bunker.  If I move the branch for my shot does it get replaced for HIS shot, or does my relief from the loose impediment end up giving HM relief from his, even though he would not have otherwise been entitled to relief.

Thanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback 

 

Curious how you would rule in this situation. 

I'd get on the radio for help.   Good question.  I'm thinking, if you want to remove the loose impediment because it would legitimately improve your situation, and by doing so, it also happens to help your opponent then it's a break for you opponent.  I can't think of a rule that would require your opponent to put the loose impediment back, although he does have the right to do so if he wished. See decision 23-1/10.  Also, in your scenario I'm assuming you are away.