Rules question - ball under bridge

[Where's the Cart Girl?]

I'm throwing it out there anyway for those who are more fluent in th Rules of Golf than I am.

Playing this morning I pulled a tee shot left into what I believe is typically a creek, or water runoff. I'd never played this course but one kid I was with confirmed that there typically is water in this ditch.

Walkin up to my ball I see that it is directly under a small, makeshift wooden bridge that's spannin the, now dry, gap. There are no stakes marking this as a hazard (this is what I took as the critical factor in this situation).

I think my options are move the bridge (its just sitting on the grass on both sides of the gap) and swing away or take a free drop within a club length and treat th bridge as a manmade object, not embedded or integral to the course, and play my second shot. Similar to the way they treat TV towers.

I did the latter.. so please let me know what I'm right/wrong about so I know what I actually shot today.

Thanks.

[zeg]

I think you were correct, although if it could easily be moved, you should have marked your ball, moved the obstruction, then played the ball (replacing it if it was caused to move by your moving the obstruction). For a bridge, though, I'd expect that treating it as immovable is probably reasonable. Of course, the golf course should really specify the policy with regard to an unusual course element like that.

[iacas]

The area was still a water hazard. Remember the definition for a water hazard includes area that normally has water:

Source: Rules of Golf; Definitions
A "water hazard" is any sea, lake, pond, river, ditch, surface drainage ditch or other open water course (whether or not containing water) and anything of a similar nature on the course . All ground and water within the margin of a water hazard are part of the water hazard.

So now the question becomes "can you move an obstruction in a water hazard?" And part of figuring that rule out is asking yourself whether the obstruction is movable (like a bridge you said you could lift) or immovable (like a TV tower).

Source: Rule 24-1
A player may take relief, without penalty, from a movable obstruction as follows:

a. If the ball does not lie in or on the obstruction, the obstruction may be removed. If the ball moves, it must be replaced, and there is no penalty, provided that the movement of the ball is directly attributable to the removal of the obstruction. Otherwise, Rule 18-2a applies.

As to what you actually shot, well, you took an illegal drop. That means you moved your ball illegally - Rule 18-2 gives you a one-stroke penalty - and then you failed to correct the error, thus playing from the wrong spot (but not in a "serious breach" sort of way) - so Rule 20-7 gives you two additional strokes.

So, three strokes, I believe (I did this quickly), when you could have saved yourself the trouble by moving the bridge and playing your ball as it lay (without grounding your club).

[zeg]

Oops, you're right. I misread the bit about the water, thinking he said it was NOT a water hazard. That, of course, changes everything. In the hazard, you only get relief from a movable obstruction (by moving it). If you are blocked by an immovable obstruction, you're SOL and will have to take a penalty stroke using the water hazard rules to get relief.

[Fourputt]

Actually it's just 2 strokes total. He did incur a one stroke penalty for touching and lifting his ball when not allowed. He should have replaced it and the one stroke was all he would receive. Since he did not replace the ball and played from a wrong place, he receives the heavier penalty of 2 strokes under 20-7. Since the entire scenario was essentially caused by one wrong act (taking relief when not allowed) only the heavier penalty is assessed. See Decision 1-4/12 for explanation.

[Paradox]

If the "ditch" or whatever it was was NOT marked as a hazard, how can it still be a hazard?

[GolferDot]

The hazard must be defined ..... if it's not defined it's not a hazard ..... if the obstruction is movabe, which you said it was, then you must move it. So the penalties still apply.

[Fourputt]

The hazard must be defined .....

This statement is wrong. A hazard should be marked, but marking is not required for it to still be a hazard. If it fits the definition which Erik quoted above then it is still a water hazard. It does not have to contain water all the time to be so designated.

You are correct in that if an obstruction is movable, then it must be moved instead of taking relief from it. That is not an option. However the main point still remains, that the ball was in a water hazard.

[zeg]

If the "ditch" or whatever it was was NOT marked as a hazard, how can it still be a hazard?

The hazard must be defined ..... if it's not defined it's not a hazard ..... if the obstruction is movabe, which you said it was, then you must move it. So the penalties still apply.

A water hazard is a water hazard by virtue of meeting the definition, which Iacas quoted above. Notably, there is no mention of stakes, lines, etc, in this definition. Whether or not it is marked, it is still a hazard (see Ruling 26/3 for confirmation). The committee "should" define the margins of the water hazards on the course, but its failure to do so does not cause the hazard not to be a hazard.

Thus, the ditch, whether or not filled with water at the time, clearly meets the definition of a hazard and must be played as such. It's therefore irrelevant in this case whether the bridge was, in fact, movable or not. Edit: you beat me, Fourputt...

[iacas]

Since the entire scenario was essentially caused by one wrong act (taking relief when not allowed) only the heavier penalty is assessed. See Decision 1-4/12 for explanation.

I don't see it that way. I see it as different acts. To put it another way, he could have, having picked up his ball, dropped or replaced the ball as near to the spot where it originally lay.

Source: Rule 18-2 If the ball is moved, it must be replaced, unless the movement of the ball occurs after the player has begun the stroke or the backward movement of the club for the stroke and the stroke is made.

The second act was not a direct consequence to the first. He could have easily placed the ball back. I don't see this as the same act, I see it as two separate acts, and I don't see the second as a "direct consequence" of the first - he could have put the ball back where it was. We see this all the time with putting and the ball moving - you need to replace it before you continue or else you ALSO get penalized from playing from a wrong place. Instead, he dropped well away from where it should have been. That said, I'm playing devil's advocate a bit because I can see it going the other way too. In truth, I don't really care much. I wouldn't find myself in this position to begin with and if I was playing with someone, they wouldn't either.

[iacas]

What I said about a ball moving after addressing it and not replacing it being two separate acts led me to point this out:

Decision 18-2a/21 says A player plays a wrong ball which moves his nearby ball. He's penalized for playing a wrong ball and must replace his ball or else he gets another penalty - four strokes total. Separate acts, they're considered, in that instance.

Yes, I know there are lots of rules that talk about the same act with different penalties, and applying the stiffer one. I just don't know if I see this as being "the same act." He picks the ball up, then he drops it. Picking up and dropping are two very different acts in my book, and the dropping in the wrong place is not a direct consequence of the picking up in my book.

P.S. Still playing devil's advocate a bit.

[zeg]

Wow, those decisions on 1-4 have some puzzling ones in there....

I think I agree with Iacas here --- Principle 4, the "direct consequence" rule pretty explicitly does not seem to apply. The example in the decision:

In stroke play, a competitor's ball moves prior to address and while it is in motion it is accidentally stopped by the competitor's club in breach of Rule 19-2. The competitor then moves the club and, therefore, moves his ball, normally a penalty stroke under Rule 18-2a. This would result in a single one-stroke penalty under Rule 19-2 (See Decision 19-2/1.5). If the ball is not replaced before the competitor makes his next stroke, the failure to replace the ball is considered a separate act and he incurs an additional penalty of two strokes under Rule 18-2a.

That seems very clear: the ball's moving prior to address is stopped by the club (first penalty), and then the competitor moves his club (would be second penalty, except it only occurred precisely because the ball accidentally rolled into the club in the first place). That's the "direct consequence" he gets protection from. If he doesn't replace the ball, he then gets the additional penalty.

In this case, it seems even clearer because there was a single act that caused his ball to be in the wrong place. It's now in the wrong place and that act is completed. He needs to put it back, or a separate act --- striking the ball --- will breach the wrong-place rule. I don't see that you could call this a direct consequence, I think Principle 5 applies from the "multiple acts, two or more rules" sector of the matrix.

[iacas]

In this case, it seems even clearer because there was a single act that caused his ball to be in the wrong place. It's now in the wrong place and that act is completed. He needs to put it back, or a separate act --- striking the ball --- will breach the wrong-place rule. I don't see that you could call this a direct consequence, I think Principle 5 applies from the "multiple acts, two or more rules" sector of the matrix.

Something in what you said made me think of this, and I think it's an important distinction... It's not the dropping that follows - it's making a stroke at the ball that's the second act that isn't necessarily a direct consequence.

In other words, until the player makes the stroke, he's free to correct his first mistake and put the ball back in the proper spot. The act of making a stroke at the ball is a separate act entirely and I would say NOT a direct consequence - he could have replaced the ball and not made a stroke from a wrong place.

[iacas]

A rules official has weighed in:

The player’s ball is in a water hazard. The only rule that allows you to lift and drop a ball in a water hazard is Rule 26. Decision 20-7/2 shows a similar situation with a player taking an unplayable. The player is penalized one stroke for Rule 26 plus two more for playing from a wrong place under rule 26. If the place where he dropped the ball was a significant gain over where he would have had to drop under Rule 26 it could be a serious breach.

Three strokes.

[Ignorant]

I don't see it that way. I see it as different acts. To put it another way, he could have, having picked up his ball, dropped or replaced the ball as near to the spot where it originally lay.

I second that.

Once the player picked up his ball there was no going back without penalty. Had he replaced his ball it would have been 1 penalty (18-2a). When he decided to drop the ball outside the water hazard he was invoking Rule 26 and that gives him 1 penalty as well but no penalty from 18-2a. So far so good, 1 penalty received. Now, dropping in a wrong place is a separate act and should have been corrected (20-6). As the player did not correct his error he was in breach of 20-7 and gained another 2 penalties, so total of 3.

[Where's the Cart Girl?]

Well this has all been quite disheartening. I suppose I should have stuck with my first instinct; moved the bridge and played from there. I actually grabbed the structure by one of the 2x6 boards that was serving as a"floorboard" but when I lifted, expecting to lift the entire bridge, I ripped th 2x6 off. So I abandoned that campaign in favor of what I incorrectly interpretted as a free drop.

A follow up though..

Can I not treat this as an unplayable lie? I dropped within two club lengths of where the ball had come to rest, potentially still within the margins of this "hazard" actually, considering it was completely unmarked. I was still on a muddy piece of ground and just punched out, hardly advantageous.

I'm guessing it was because I didn't declare the ball unplayable at the time so I can't simply go back after a rules interogation and say - well ill just call it an unplayable now that I know what my options were and take one stroke instead of 3... but again I don't know all the rules regarding legal/illegal drops.

I'm honestly more pissed off after learning that basically anywhere on the course that looks like it might, at one time or another, have contained water is considered a water hazard. And correct designation of these areas has no impact whatsoever. That's like being cited for parking in a lot thats in front of an aparment complex that was torn down 6 months before you parked there.

[sacm3bill]

Can I not treat this as an unplayable lie?

Nope, can't declare a ball unplayable in a water hazard:

http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-28/

[iacas]

I'm honestly more pissed off after learning that basically anywhere on the course that looks like it might, at one time or another, have contained water is considered a water hazard. And correct designation of these areas has no impact whatsoever. That's like being cited for parking in a lot thats in front of an aparment complex that was torn down 6 months before you parked there.

You called it a "creek" or a "water runoff." They're typically marked - and the course should mark it as such - but that doesn't change the Rules of Golf.

If it was just grass as you said it was, then just play from it. Obviously don't ground your club, but you can just play from it and go on your way as if it's not a hazard.