Ball in "Manmade Depression"

[TheDSmith]

Hi all,

I'm fairly new to golf and not familiar with lots of the less-well-known rules.

Now I know you get a free drop if a ball is at rest on a sprinkler head/drain/the like.  A drive of mine today ended up not on the drain itself, but on the downslope of grass leading down into the drain.  I played it as it lay, as it was sitting up pretty well, but the guy I was playing with said that you got relief if your ball came to rest in a "manmade depression" and told me to take another from a drop (which I did to be polite, and had no other chance but to play from when he nicely picked up my original ball for me).  This guy was moving his ball out of divots so I think he may not have been as much as a rules guy as he claimed, so I would like to get another opinion for future reference.  To clarify/reiterate, the ball was on grass, but it was in a depression/on a downslope that would not be there but for the drain.

Thanks!

[luu5]

  TheDSmith said:

Originally Posted by TheDSmith

Now I know you get a free drop if a ball is at rest on a sprinkler head/drain/the like.  A drive of mine today ended up not on the drain itself, but on the downslope of grass leading down into the drain.  I played it as it lay, as it was sitting up pretty well, but the guy I was playing with said that you got relief if your ball came to rest in a "manmade depression" and told me to take another from a drop (which I did to be polite, and had no other chance but to play from when he nicely picked up my original ball for me).  This guy was moving his ball out of divots so I think he may not have been as much as a rules guy as he claimed, so I would like to get another opinion for future reference.  To clarify/reiterate, the ball was on grass, but it was in a depression/on a downslope that would not be there but for the drain.

I do not see any reason why you would get a relief on this. On the other hand, it could be debatable if this depression would warrant a water hazard status as it is meant for carrying water. Of course if it's just couple of feet diameter then play as it lies.

[Johanna]

Normally you wouldn't get a free drop from such a place, but did the Local Rules on the score card mention the drain and the area immediately above it?

Your fellow competitor should keep his hands off your ball, and he shouldn't drop his ball from divot holes. Each time he did so should've cost him 2 penalty strokes!

[joekelly]

Possible that if your stance was affected by the drain cover then relief would be available. I believe that if the ball  or your stance is affected by such a condition then relief is offered. Your choice to accept/reject, i think.

[jimmizu]

Relief from a "man made depression"?? Absolutely not!

You were correct in your belief, and I would have replaced the ball in it's original position without comment.

[zeg]

A course I played recently put GUR circles around the sprinkler heads when there was a depression. In the absence of that, the fact that there's a sprinkler head nearby doesn't give the slope any special status.

You may want to suggest that your friend consider whether there are any slopes or depressions anywhere on the golf course that aren't manmade.

[Ignorant]

I am not arguing against any of the opinions already stated, merely giving another angle of view.

Sprinklers and drains are an essential and extremely necessary feature on the course. However, they as such are immovable obstructions and a player must not suffer for his ball ending up in the immediate vicinity of them giving rise to problems of striking the ball. Regardless whether those obstructions occur on the fairway or in the rough they still should not be a player's fault to be where they are situated.

Now, constructing these things occasionally require a depression, and occasionally they just are poorly assembled or the ground has simply sunken over the years. The question is whether a player should suffer from a poor construction or maintenance of the course or not. After all, without that obstruction the depression would not be there in the first place.

IMO the Rules do not grant any relief from such a depression but it does reflect somewhat indifferent attitude of the local Committee towards the players. Thus, in Equity, it would be fair if one should be allowed to relief oneself from any difficult depression around any obstruction excavated into the ground.

[Paradox]

You do get relief if your swing would hit a sprinkler head, right?  Say my ball comes to rest behind a sprinkler and if played my ball, I would either damage the sprinkler or myself...I can get relief?

I've never heard the term "manmade depression" on a golf course.  Aren't all the dips and swells "manmade depressions" one way or another?

[luu5]

  Paradox said:

Originally Posted by Paradox

You do get relief if your swing would hit a sprinkler head, right?  Say my ball comes to rest behind a sprinkler and if played my ball, I would either damage the sprinkler or myself...I can get relief?

Yes.

[Paradox]

  luu5 said:

Originally Posted by luu5

Yes.

ok, I thought so but this thread was beginning to make me doubt myself, haha

[zeg]

  Paradox said:

Originally Posted by Paradox

I've never heard the term "manmade depression" on a golf course.  Aren't all the dips and swells "manmade depressions" one way or another?

Yeah, that's why you don't get relief from one.

[ndb8fxe]

  luu5 said:

Originally Posted by luu5

Yes.

  Paradox said:

Originally Posted by Paradox

You do get relief if your swing would hit a sprinkler head, right?  Say my ball comes to rest behind a sprinkler and if played my ball, I would either damage the sprinkler or myself...I can get relief?

I've really enjoyed reading all the topics here on the rules forum especially some of the oddball and hypothetical situations.  So, I'll add a hypothetical situation to follow up the OP's question:

So if you ball lies in a depression as described by the OP next to a sprinkler head.  It is located next to the sprinkler so that you could make a swing if hitting the ball toward the green.  But "because you would like a better angle to the green" you want to make a swing perpendicular to the direction of the hole thus causing the sprinkler head to be in conflict with your swing.  Could you take a releif?  If you can, I imagine you would be able to swing toward the green at that time?

Thank you for enlightening me.

[zeg]

  ndb8fxe said:

Originally Posted by ndb8fxe

So if you ball lies in a depression as described by the OP next to a sprinkler head.  It is located next to the sprinkler so that you could make a swing if hitting the ball toward the green.  But "because you would like a better angle to the green" you want to make a swing perpendicular to the direction of the hole thus causing the sprinkler head to be in conflict with your swing.  Could you take a releif?  If you can, I imagine you would be able to swing toward the green at that time?

You're allowed to choose any reasonable direction of play for your stroke. If the stroke or your stance is interfered with by the obstruction, you are entitled to relief for that direction of play. Once you exercise that option and put a ball back in play, you are in a new situation and may play any shot you see fit.

It's got to be reasonable, though. If you have an open path to the green, you can't just decide to play back toward the tee in order to obtain relief from a sprinkler head on the other side of your ball. (If you're boxed in, though, such a shot might be reasonable.)

[turtleback]

  zeg said:

Originally Posted by zeg

You're allowed to choose any reasonable direction of play for your stroke. If the stroke or your stance is interfered with by the obstruction, you are entitled to relief for that direction of play. Once you exercise that option and put a ball back in play, you are in a new situation and may play any shot you see fit.

It's got to be reasonable, though. If you have an open path to the green, you can't just decide to play back toward the tee in order to obtain relief from a sprinkler head on the other side of your ball. (If you're boxed in, though, such a shot might be reasonable.)

This reminds me of that Ryder Cup match between Sergio and Anthony Kim when Sergio tried to argue that it was reasonable for him to hit his ball back towards the tee so he could get relief from an immovable obstruction (A stair, if memory serves).  Kim just looked at him in disgust and made some disdainful comment and Sergio was shamed into dropping his point.  Especially since for that same 1 (pretty challenging) stroke he was saying was reasonable, he could have taken a risk-free unplayable and dropped the ball where he claimed he was going to try to hit it.

[zeg]

  turtleback said:

Originally Posted by turtleback

This reminds me of that Ryder Cup match between Sergio and Anthony Kim when Sergio tried to argue that it was reasonable for him to hit his ball back towards the tee so he could get relief from an immovable obstruction (A stair, if memory serves).  Kim just looked at him in disgust and made some disdainful comment and Sergio was shamed into dropping his point.  Especially since for that same 1 (pretty challenging) stroke he was saying was reasonable, he could have taken a risk-free unplayable and dropped the ball where he claimed he was going to try to hit it.

Yeah, that was firmly in my mind as I was writing my post. I can't remember the exact words of AK's comment, but it was perfect. (They're quoted here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/21/AR2008092102395.html)