Taking relief from a mound of dirt

[B-Con]

The last time I played golf with my friend we encountered a new scenario. The course dog-legged left, but he hit a long fade to the right. His ball landed in a huge pile of dirt, amongst some trees, likely left over from terra-forming some part of the course. The ball was clearly visible, but at least half embedded in dirt. The mount of dirt was fully in bounds.

Was he allowed to take relief from the dirt mound?
- It was clearly artificial
- It was in bounds
- In order to strike the ball he would have had to cut through a few inches of dirt
- The ball was probably at waist-height and would have forced a terribly awkward swing, but I don't think that's relevant

To my understanding, to take relief without a penalty the mound would have to interfere with his swing/stance under rule 24. It seems to me that it was not, but I want to be certain. Was the mound interfering?

[Fat Slice]

Could it have been Ground Under Repair?

[B-Con]

Could it have been Ground Under Repair?

That's a good thought. I strongly doubt that's possible. The mound has been there for months and it's huge, 6 or 7 feet high and 20 feet long. It's fairly out of the way, too, definitely purposefully placed in an area that golfers shouldn't have to be concerned with.

[Fourputt]

Since it is apparently not intended for removal, it is simply part of the course. It is NOT an obstruction as it is just dirt, not a manufactured object. Play the ball as it lies or declare the ball unplayable and take the penalty relief.

[B-Con]

Since it is apparently not intended for removal, it is simply part of the course. It is NOT an obstruction as it is just dirt, not a manufactured object. Play the ball as it lies or declare the ball unplayable and take the penalty relief.

An obstruction, though, by definition is anything artificial. This mound of dirt is clearly artificial. It's about 6 feet high, 20 feet long, and very steep, it's not a hill or something, you couldn't walk up it with any ease at all. As far as dirt goes it's clearly as unnatural as dirt can be, which conforms with the definition of "artificial" as far as I can tell.

[Greg]

There should never be a mound of dirt in bounds on any golf course, they didnt clean up their mess, I'd move my ball every time i hit it if i played there, if it wasnt too big, id drive over it with the cart and try to mash it down. I hate when courses leave stuff like that , one course i play at always has something like that going on, but they clearly mark it and if you hit your ball in there it states on the scorecard that local rules allow a free drop, just as if you hit your ball on cart path. One time they had a mound of dirt probably 4 feet high right in front of the tee box. It was a par 5 so i just went up to the closer set of tees and teed off from there, still a long hole from there(480 instead of 556)

[iacas]

An obstruction, though, by definition is anything artificial. This mound of dirt is clearly artificial. It's about 6 feet high, 20 feet long, and very steep, it's not a hill or something, you couldn't walk up it with any ease at all. As far as dirt goes it's clearly as unnatural as dirt can be, which conforms with the definition of "artificial" as far as I can tell.

Dirt isn't artificial. The material has to be artificial, not how it was formed. If that were the case, the entire freakin' golf course would be an obstruction - St. Andrews included.

[Fourputt]

An obstruction, though, by definition is anything artificial. This mound of dirt is clearly artificial. It's about 6 feet high, 20 feet long, and very steep, it's not a hill or something, you couldn't walk up it with any ease at all.

No it does not. Read the Definitions in the Rules of Golf. Look at the definition for "obstruction". Virtually everything is at some point made from natural substances, but to be an obstruction it must be clearly artificial or manufactured (even man made ice is an obstruction). A pile of dirt is NOT a manufactured object, it's just a pile of dirt, regardless of how it came to be. If that dirt was made into a clay pot or a clay brick, then it would be an obstruction.

Even a roadway must be artificially surfaced to qualify as an immovable obstruction. A track that is just worn down by use so that there is no vegetation growing is not an obstruction (although it MAY be marked as ground under repair). It must at least be paved with gravel to qualify as being artificially surfaced.

[David in FL]

Since it is apparently not intended for removal, it is simply part of the course. It is NOT an obstruction as it is just dirt, not a manufactured object. Play the ball as it lies or declare the ball unplayable and take the penalty relief.

Correct answer.

If the dirt wasn't placed there with the obvious intent to remove it, it's a part of the course. The definition of "Ground under Repair" addresses the issue specifically.... "Ground under repair" is any part of the course so marked by order of the Committee or so declared by its authorized representative. All ground and any grass, bush, tree or other growing thing within the ground under repair are part of the ground under repair. Ground under repair includes material piled for removal and a hole made by a greenkeeper, even if not so marked. Grass cuttings and other material left on the course that have been abandoned and are not intended to be removed are not ground under repair unless so marked .

[B-Con]

Dirt isn't artificial. The material has to be artificial, not how it was formed. If that were the case, the entire freakin' golf course would be an obstruction - St. Andrews included.

No it does not. Read the Definitions in the Rules of Golf. Look at the definition for "obstruction". Virtually everything is at some point made from natural substances, but to be an obstruction it must be clearly artificial or manufactured (even man made ice is an obstruction). A pile of dirt is NOT a manufactured object, it's just a pile of dirt, regardless of how it came to be. If that dirt was made into a clay pot or a clay brick, then it would be an obstruction.

Correct answer.

I'd previously interpreted "artificial" to apply to how the object in question came to be, as well as what it was made of, and that was what was throwing me off. But the stricter interpretation makes a lot more sense, especially when viewed in the light of the definition of "Ground Under Repair", which I hadn't thought to consider for the predicament.

Thanks, guys.