Relief from wood planks

[Abu3baid]

1 hour ago, David in FL said:

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.  

Good point.. The left looks much nearer than the right.

[saevel25]

46 minutes ago, David in FL said:

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.

The problem is there is nothing in the rules stating that wood planks, or sea walls define a water hazard. It's either the water margin or red stakes and/or lines. 

The USGA rules really don't clarify what constitutes the margin (edge) of the water hazard. From the definition it's pretty much up to the golfer to make a good guestimate on the course. Like if you see grassy area it probably isn't in. If you see a muddy bank due to the water receding then it is in the hazard. 

I have a questions, If a pond is totally man made then does the front of the planks or the back of the planks create the margin because? In this situation the Pond looks man made. If so then the planks are what create the margin and depending on what side is picked the planks are either in or out of hazard. 

1 hour ago, David in FL said:

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.  

I noticed that as well earlier today. When you are out on the course with no measuring tools I thought I went to the side that gave me the NPR. It would have taken us a while using the flag stick to find NPR 

1 hour 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?

Correct. 

30 minutes ago, bkuehn1952 said:

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

It was a work league match that is part match play and part stroke play. I gave my reason why it should be relief. He never pushed for playing two balls or going to the committee for ruling. 

I was more asking the question for future scenarios where the course does not mark the hazard. 

 

 

 

 

[Fourputt]

53 minutes ago, David in FL said:

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.

If they are within the margin of the hazard, then it doesn't matter if they are declared integral or not, as there is no relief from an immovable obstruction within a hazard, even if the ball lies outside of the hazard.

[DeadMan]

37 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

If they are within the margin of the hazard, then it doesn't matter if they are declared integral or not, as there is no relief from an immovable obstruction within a hazard, even if the ball lies outside of the hazard.

What? That's not what 24-2 says. Every option under 24-2 references where the ball is, not where the obstruction is.

[DaveP043]

33 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

The problem is there is nothing in the rules stating that wood planks, or sea walls define a water hazard. It's either the water margin or red stakes and/or lines. 

The USGA rules really don't clarify what constitutes the margin (edge) of the water hazard. From the definition it's pretty much up to the golfer to make a good guestimate on the course. Like if you see grassy area it probably isn't in. If you see a muddy bank due to the water receding then it is in the hazard. 

I have a questions, If a pond is totally man made then does the front of the planks or the back of the planks create the margin because? In this situation the Pond looks man made. If so then the planks are what create the margin and depending on what side is picked the planks are either in or out of hazard. 

I agree about what the definition says.  Decision 33-2a/4 further clarifies the definition of the margin of the 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."

You can definitely have grassy areas that are inside the boundary of the hazard  As an example, consider the steep grassy banks on holes 12 and 13 at Augusta.  The hazard line is marked in accordance with the decision above, but there's a lot of grassy slope within the hazard.

Even if the pond is man-made, there still may be a spot where the ground begins to slope more steeply towards the top of the wall.  If that's the case, then that "break line" would be the boundary of the hazard, if I'm understanding the decision correctly.  This could put the edge of the hazard right up near the fringe of the green, with a few feet of  grass-covered above the wall being included in the hazard.  Even without a slope, every time I've seen hazard markings for this type of construction, the wall has been marked as being inside the hazard.  

14 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

What? That's not what 26-2 says. Every option under 26-2 references where the ball is, not where the obstruction is.

As Matt noted in post #4, his local golf association defines walls or bulkheads within a water hazard as Integral Parts of the Course.  If the wall is indeed inside the hazard, he'd get no relief from it.  We keep coming back to this, but if the Committee had marked the course correctly, we'd understand things clearer.

[iacas]

41 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

The problem is there is nothing in the rules stating that wood planks, or sea walls define a water hazard. It's either the water margin or red stakes and/or lines.

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.

That's not true, Matt. Water hazards don't even need to have water in them.

You've played the fourth hole at Whispering Woods. The margin of the hazard goes all the way to the top putting surface level despite the water never getting within about eight or ten feet of that line.

I think the planks were part of the water hazard and I think you took an illegal drop for two reasons: 1) you weren't allowed, and 2) you took it in the wrong place.

41 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

It was a work league match that is part match play and part stroke play. I gave my reason why it should be relief. He never pushed for playing two balls or going to the committee for ruling.

He isn't the one who gets to "push" for playing two balls. That's your obligation and/or privilege.

Also, re: relief though the ball is not in the hazard: http://www.barryrhodes.com/2009/12/relief-from-immovable-obstruction-in.html .

[DeadMan]

10 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

As Matt noted in post #4, his local golf association defines walls or bulkheads within a water hazard as Integral Parts of the Course.  If the wall is indeed inside the hazard, he'd get no relief from it.  We keep coming back to this, but if the Committee had marked the course correctly, we'd understand things clearer.

Quick point on this. Unless the Committee established this is an integral part of the course, it's not an integral part of the course. I completely agree that generally this would be an integral part of the course under most Committees. It doesn't seem like this Committee did that, so it's not an integral part of the course. The local golf association isn't the Committee. Common sense says that you should play it as an integral part of the course, but strictly speaking, it's not.

[saevel25]

So should everyone just assume any form of artificial wall that is supporting the ground on the side of a pond, creek, or other water hazard should be always been considered part of the water hazard even if the hazard is not marked? 

 

 

[Martyn W]

55 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

It was a work league match that is part match play and part stroke play.

Then this whole thing is moot ;)

From 33-1:

" Certain specific Rules governing stroke play are so substantially different from those governing match play that combining the two forms of play is not practicable and is not permitted. The result of a match played in these circumstances is null and void and, in the stroke play competition, the competitors are disqualified.

2 hours 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. 

Notwithstanding the Local Rule (which is not present anyway) There is no reason a retaining wall outside a hazard could not be an IPC. My point was that there is no relief regardless of where the ball lies.

[chspeed]

Here's a USGA video on a very similar situation. In the video, the player's ball is IN a water hazard, presumably marked by stakes. To me, it seems that since @saevel25's ball was not in a water hazard, he gets relief from the immovable obstruction.

This is consistent with Rule 24.2 - Note 1: "Note 1: If a ball is in a water hazard (including a lateral water hazard), the player may not take relief from interference by an immovable obstruction. The player must play the ball as it lies or proceed under Rule 26-1. "

It's not whether the obstruction is in a water hazard, but whether the ball is in the water hazard that matter.

http://www.usga.org/playing/rules/source/Rule24-2_Dave_Barr_hi.asx

The video is Windows media player. For other formats see this: http://www.usga.org/rulesfaq/rules_answer.asp?FAQidx=97&Rule=24

Edited April 29, 2016 by chspeed

[Fourputt]

1 hour ago, DeadMan said:

What? That's not what 24-2 says. Every option under 24-2 references where the ball is, not where the obstruction is.

My bad - I reversed it.  If the ball is in the hazard, then no relief is allowed even if the obstruction is outside of the hazard.  

[Rulesman]

3 hours ago, David in FL said:

 I would expect that they would be part of the hazard and therefore an IPC.

That is not so. One does not give rise to the other. They are only an IPC if a local rule says so.

The significance is that if the ball is in the WH it makes no difference - no relief. But it does if the ball is outside the WH when the status determines what relief the player may or may not get.

[natureboy]

This would have been a good scenario for the option to play two balls.

NewB question: do all / most / any courses have an 'official map' as part of adopted local rules that make it clear what the course and hazard boundaries are as well as what's IPC?

[Hardspoon]

2 hours ago, Rulesman said:

That is not so. One does not give rise to the other. They are only an IPC if a local rule says so.

Matt posted the local rule in his second post: it says that any wall within a hazard is an IPC.

3 hours ago, chspeed said:

It's not whether the obstruction is in a water hazard, but whether the ball is in the water hazard that matter.

Again, there was a local rule in place stating that it is an IPC if in a hazard. So, the wall's location (in or out of hazard) is the determining factor for whether it was legal to take the drop.

[Fourputt]

37 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

Matt posted the local rule in his second post: it says that any wall within a hazard is an IPC.

Again, there was a local rule in place stating that it is an IPC if in a hazard. So, the wall's location (in or out of hazard) is the determining factor for whether it was legal to take the drop.

Except that with margin of the hazard not clearly marked, it's impossible to apply the local rule.

[DrvFrShow]

7 hours ago, DeadMan said:

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.

There is no Rule 3-3 in match play. Any dispute must be resolved under 2-5. 

A player may disregard a breach of a rule by his opponent provided there is no prior agreement by both sides to waive a rule. In match play, if a player is doubtful of his rights or the correct procedure, he may not complete the play of the hole with two balls.

[bkuehn1952]

It all comes down to crappy course marking by whomever is in charge of marking the course.  As a public course player, this is a real problem for me on a regular basis. We, as players, are asked to decide what is appropriate, where the line probably should have been, what the course designer might have thought, etc...  That is not right.

In the absence of any marking or guidance, @saevel25 was certainly within his rights to make the drop.  I think we all agree that in most instances a proper marking of the course would have placed the planks within the hazard.  They were not, however, marked as such so in my book they become immoveable obstructions.

[Hardspoon]

49 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

Except that with margin of the hazard not clearly marked, it's impossible to apply the local rule.

I think you still have to apply the rule...the "judgement call" is on whether the wall is in the hazard or not, right?  What if the ball came to rest on top of the wall?  You'd have to make a judgement call on whether the ball was in the hazard or not.

(I'm seriously asking - your comment made me wonder, and I know you know a lot more about the rules than I do)