Relief from wood planks

[saevel25]

I wanted to know if I got this ruling correct yesterday in my round. 

You have a medium length par 3. As you can see below, the water encroaches on the left half of the green. Also, there is a wood sea wall. There is no red lines or stakes to show where the hazard is. 

My ball ended up in the position below as shown by the red dot. 

The ball hit the rough and bounced back so it was up against the wood planks. I would have been standing on the wood planks and the club would have been interfered with. I claimed this was an immovable obstruction and I was entitled to relief from it. So I found a spot that was nearest point of relief that was no closer to the hole. I marked out my dropping area of one club length from that spot and I dropped the ball as shown by the yellow dot above. 

My opponent said I shouldn't get relief because you don't get relief from immovable obstructions that are part of the design of the course. He cited and example that you don't get relief from the wood rail road ties on Pete Dye courses. In my head I always thought that was mentioned on the scorecard at Pete Dye courses. 

In the end I went with my ruling. 

I found this under the definition of Obstruction, 

Quote

Obstructions

An "obstruction" is anything artificial, including the artificial surfaces and sides of roads and paths and manufactured ice, except:

a. Objects defining out of bounds, such as walls, fences, stakes and railings;

b. Any part of an immovable artificial object that is out of bounds; and

c.Any construction declared by the Committee to be an integral part of the course.

An obstruction is a movable obstruction if it may be moved without unreasonable effort, without unduly delaying play and without causing damage. Otherwise, it is an immovable obstruction.

Note: The Committee may make a Local Rule declaring a movable obstruction to be an immovable obstruction.

I believe he was referring to "c" under the definition of Obstruction with that Pete Dye example. 

Since the starter never told us that any wood planks were to be considered an integral part of the course. Also, the score card doesn't say as such. Then I believe I should not consider those wood planks as an integral part of the course. 

On a 2nd question,

If you go to a course that has a lot of railroad ties or wood planks. Lets say the starter was lazy and didn't inform you that it is an integral part of the course. Lets say it isn't marked on the scorecard or in the cart. Then should you assume it is an integral part of the course? Can you be penalized after the fact since you were not properly informed before hand? 

 

[Martyn W]

As a committee, I would definitely consider the railroad ties to be an integral part of the course and I think that, in matchplay, a committee would uphold a claim that they were. They are, after all, integral to the course - if they weren't there the bank would collapse.

Having said that, the definition seems to suggest that they are, by default, IOs unless declared otherwise by the committee.

Just another example of the confusion caused when the committee does not do its job!

[DaveP043]

When I've seen similar construction, the limits of the hazard are generally placed outside of the wood pilings, so that the wall is within the hazard.  Obviously, if it had been marked this way, your ball would have been in the hazard and you'd have played it that way.   In the absence of markings, I probably would have estimated the limit of the hazard where the ground surface broke toward the water, if indeed it did have a discernible break point.  As your opponent, I'd have contended that the wood wall was within the hazard.   Once again, lack of marking is a failure of the Committee to do its job.  

[saevel25]

3 minutes ago, Martyn W said:

Having said that, the definition seems to suggest that they are, by default, IOs unless declared otherwise by the committee.

Just another example of the confusion caused when the committee does not do its job!

Just to clarify my situation. This course doesn't have railroad ties. That was the example my opponent used to say I shouldn't get relief in this situation. This is just a typical wood sea wall used to support the ground near the green from the pond that sits a good ways below the level of the green.

---

I just found this under the Miami Valley golf association under their local rules. Good to know they have a website for this. 

Quote

Integral Parts of the Course— Include cables, rods, wires or wrappings when closely attached to trees; artificial walls and pilings when located in hazards, unless otherwise provided for in Notice to Players.

The question now is the wall inside the hazard? 

Quote

Water Hazard

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.

Unless the course says those wood planks are in the hazard or actually is marked with red stakes and/or a red line, then the definition of a hazard is all the ground and water with in the margin of the water hazard. The margin of the water hazard is up against the front side of the wood planks that the water touches. 

At least that is how I should look at it if the course does not specifically state if they are in the hazard or have it marked as such. 

 

[DaveP043]

9 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

The question now is the wall inside the hazard? 

Here's a decision :

33-2a/4

 

Where to Place Lines or Stakes Defining Margin of Water Hazard

Lines and stakes defining the margins of a water hazard should be placed as nearly as possible along the natural limits of the hazard, i.e., where the ground breaks down to form the depression containing the water. 

Another decision says that even if the Committee doesn't mark things correctly, a player shouldn't benefit.  If there's a clear break in the terrain above the wall, you should consider the wall to be inside the hazard.  If there isn't a clear break, and the area isn't marked, I think you were reasonable.

[saevel25]

It's hard to say what a natural limit is when it's a man-made pond 

[DaveP043]

5 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

It's hard to say what a natural limit is when it's a man-made pond 

I've seen places where the ground was nearly level right up to the wall, so there's no clear break in the ground surface.  I've seen other holes where the top of the wall was a foot or two or three below the level of the adjacent green, so its clear that the limit of the hazard, based on the Decision, should be between the green and the wall.  I can't see this for myself, so I'll trust that you did the right thing.  You're that kind of guy.

[DeadMan]

I think you got it right, but it's impossible to know for certain based on what you've told us.

Unless the Committee says an obstruction is an integral part of the course, then it's not an integral part of the course. So you got that one right. If was just a casual match, then maybe you could have agreed on this with your opponent beforehand.

So, from that point, what matters is where your ball is. If your ball is in the hazard, you cannot take relief from an immovable obstruction (Rule 24-2, Note 1), otherwise you can. It does not matter where the obstruction is; it matters where your ball is. Based on what you're describing and the picture, I'd say that your ball is not in the hazard (although the obstruction is in the hazard, so if it was touching the wall, then your ball is in the hazard, I'd say). It's close, but that's my reading of it.

If the Committee were marking the course, the margin of the hazard would probably either be the wall or right next to the wall. It seems like your ball was far enough away from that so it wouldn't have been in the hazard. So, you can take relief from the immovable obstruction and you did it correctly.

Really, though, @DaveP043is right that the Committee really needs to mark the course better. That would have prevented all of this.

I missed your second question. I find that most courses have something on their scorecard about things that are integral to the course. If they don't, it depends what you're playing. If you're just playing casually, I'd use common sense to decide what's integral to the course and not. If you're playing a more serious match, you and your opponent should discuss and come to an agreement on a case-by-case basis. If it's a formal competition, then they're not integral to the course unless the Committee says they are. If you are in doubt, you could always play two balls under Rule 3-3 in that case.

[Martyn W]

30 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Integral Parts of the Course— Include cables, rods, wires or wrappings when closely attached to trees; artificial walls and pilings when located in hazards, unless otherwise provided for in Notice to Players.

This is a very commonly used LR. There is a small variation which I use on our (Golf Academy of America) HardCard:

8.         Integral Parts of the Course

A. Wrappings, wires, cables and other objects when closely attached to trees.

B. Artificial walls and/or pilings when located within water hazards (including Lateral Water Hazards) or when used to define the margins of bunkers.           

36 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

The question now is the wall inside the hazard? 

If we are agreed that it is an IPC, it doesn't matter whether the ball is in the hazard or not, no relief either way.

[David in FL]

I also struggle to see how the planks could not be considered an IPC.

One other nit to pick, even if relief was allowed...  It appears, from the diagram of relief taken, that the NPR should have been up and to the left, rather than down to the right.  That may have even allowed for a drop on the fringe.  

[saevel25]

20 minutes ago, Martyn W said:

B. Artificial walls and/or pilings when located within water hazards (including Lateral Water Hazards) or when used to define the margins of bunkers.           

If we are agreed that it is an IPC, it doesn't matter whether the ball is in the hazard or not, no relief either way.

 

Sure it does, the IPC states that the walls are only IPC when they are located in a hazard. So how they are located is the crucial part here. 

[DeadMan]

7 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Sure it does, the IPC states that the walls are only IPC when they are located in a hazard. So how they are located is the crucial part here. 

I think it's pretty clear that the wall is in the hazard.

[DaveP043]

21 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Sure it does, the IPC states that the walls are only IPC when they are located in a hazard. So how they are located is the crucial part here. 

I agree with @saevel25, we're questioning whether this wall is indeed an IPC.  If its outside of the boundaries of the hazard (and that's not marked, so its up to some interpretation), and its not specifically identified as IPC, (and the scorecard doesn't say anything to that effect) then its an obstruction.

6 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

I think it's pretty clear that the wall is in the hazard.

In my reading of the decision I quoted, I think you're probably right, but we can't see the terrain that might define the hazard.  Do you have any additional references to support this opinion?

Also, I'm a little surprised that at one point, @DeadMan, you say that Matt got it right, and now you say that its clearly in the hazard, which would make Matt wrong.  Am I misunderstanding?

[Jeremie Boop]

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

Just to clarify my situation. This course doesn't have railroad ties. That was the example my opponent used to say I shouldn't get relief in this situation. This is just a typical wood sea wall used to support the ground near the green from the pond that sits a good ways below the level of the green.

---

I just found this under the Miami Valley golf association under their local rules. Good to know they have a website for this. 

The question now is the wall inside the hazard? 

Unless the course says those wood planks are in the hazard or actually is marked with red stakes and/or a red line, then the definition of a hazard is all the ground and water with in the margin of the water hazard. The margin of the water hazard is up against the front side of the wood planks that the water touches. 

At least that is how I should look at it if the course does not specifically state if they are in the hazard or have it marked as such. 

 

3 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I agree with @saevel25, we're questioning whether this wall is indeed an IPC.  If its outside of the boundaries of the hazard (and that's not marked, so its up to some interpretation), and its not specifically identified as IPC, (and the scorecard doesn't say anything to that effect) then its an obstruction.

In my reading of the decision I quoted, I think you're probably right, but we can't see the terrain that might define the hazard.  Do you have any additional references to support this opinion?

I think that Matt answers this when he says that the water touches the boards, and if the water touches the boards wouldn't that mean they are inside the hazard?

 

[DaveP043]

1 minute ago, Jeremie Boop said:

I think that Matt answers this when he says that the water touches the boards, and if the water touches the boards wouldn't that mean they are inside the hazard?

I think that @saevel25 is saying that in his opinion, the limit is the waterfront side of the boards, so that the bulk of the boards is outside the hazard, and so they constitute an obstruction.  That's why he felt like he should be given free relief.  Matt, am I understanding you correctly?

[DeadMan]

6 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

In my reading of the decision I quoted, I think you're probably right, but we can't see the terrain that might define the hazard.  Do you have any additional references to support this opinion?

I'm going off that decision, too. Honestly, it's impossible to tell for sure without being present, but that looks like the spot where the ground breaks to form the depression of the water. If I'm marking the course, I would mark the margin of the hazard just outside the planks here. Or, I would have the planks be the margin of the hazard.

Put it another way, if I'm playing against you and you claim that fence is not in the hazard, I'm giving you significant side-eye. And suggesting to play a second ball under 3-3 or making a claim, if in match play.

[David in FL]

10 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I think that @saevel25 is saying that in his opinion, the limit is the waterfront side of the boards, so that the bulk of the boards is outside the hazard, and so they constitute an obstruction.  That's why he felt like he should be given free relief.  Matt, am I understanding you correctly?

It might be worth noting that when stakes or lines define a water hazard, the outside edge defines the margin and the stakes and lines themselves are inside of the hazard.  If the planks are defining the hazard, and it seems as if they are, I would expect that they would be part of the hazard and therefore an IPC.

[bkuehn1952]

3 hours ago, saevel25 said:

...In the end I went with my ruling. 

Did your opponent make a claim?  Or did he/she accept your idea and allow a drop without penalty?

The fact that you are asking the question now leads me to believe there was no claim and the Committee never had to rule on the situation, correct?