Relief from a Sprinkler head?

[golfortennis]

So one of our group had the lie in the picture yesterday. Greenside, him being a lefty, the pin is to the right of the image. The guy whose ball it was played it as it was, but the other guy was pretty sure he was entitled to relief. Thoughts?

[Colin L]

He would only be entitled to relief were there interference by the sprinkler head and I wouldn't be prepared to make a judgment about that from a photograph. It does look as if there would not be but with the fact that the player himself didn't think so and the fact that he played the shot (presumably) without hitting the sprinkler, the question doesn't arise.

[Sawgrass]

I’m with Colin, so hard to tell from the picture. If the shot direction was a right angle to the right, it seems as if it might be likely that the follow through could impact the obstruction granting relief, but note that R 16.1 says in part:

“If the abnormal course condition is close enough to distract the player but does not meet any of these requirements [such as interfering with intended swing], there is no interference under this Rule.”

[ArtMBgolf]

The player probably won't stand close enough to the ball to be standing on the sprinkler, to need a drop.

 

The lie looks pretty good, so no reason to want to move it for a chip.

[b.helts]

Agreed we can’t tell with any certainty from a picture. But If the pin is at 3 o’clock in the picture then any stroke even a little out to in could hit the sprinkler head.

 

and to counter Colin’s point, just because he played it without hitting the sprinkler does not mean he wasn’t entitled to relief despite having played it as it lies.

[antip]

On that photo, the question of interference is probably the much the same for a left or right hander.

[Newby]

Unless the player's swing passed over or was within an inch or so of the sprinkler, I don't see a justified claim for interference

[Mr. Bean]

To add some more to previous answers I would say that it depends on the type of shot the player is trying to make. For a lefty even a slight cutting of the ball would justify relief, straightforward chip probably not. However, one needs to be there at the scene to be certain.

[rogolf]

Agree that a ruling should not be made without being at the scene; what's being offered so far are opinions, and opinions vary between referees.

However, as a referee, I tend to lean toward player safety and if I think there is a real chance of player injury, I'll grant free relief. That's an assessment I make at the scene.

Remember the video of Charl Swartzel getting relief from a sprinkler head? There were lots of opinions on that also.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf8ZXCqd6ts

[Colin L]

It's associated with player safety, but I'd add concern for a valuable club. Maybe that's the Scot in me. :)

[Colin L]

I'm not entirely with that. If the clubhead is going to pass over the sprinkler say 30 cms above it, you wouldn't say there was interference, would you?

[Fade]

When I look at the picture it looks like a sunflower to me. At the center is the actual sprinkler-head. Around it is an area that looks to be affected by the presence or action of the sprinkler-head, and the ball appears to be inside or at least touching that area. Would this affect the ruling?

[Sawgrass]

The purpose of a sprinkler head is to "affect" the grass around it, including far reaching areas around it, by the action of the head. It waters grass, which impacts the grass, which ultimately is not interference from an artificial obstruction.

 

I do wish that the rules would be a little more specific about the margin of error for a swing potentially impacted by an immovable obstruction. Near as I can find, the rule simply says interference exists when , "An abnormal course condition physically interferes with the player’s area of intended stance or area of intended swing," and it isn't completely clear how precisely you must judge the area of intended swing. I've been taught that the presumed planned swing doesn't have to be a perfect swing, and that thereby some margin for error exists, but IMO the language could be clear enough to accommodate that teaching.

[golfortennis]

Yes the pin is basically at 3 o'clock in the photo. I think even if he were entitled to relief he wouldn't have taken it due to the thickness of the rough where he would have dropped. But it was quite close I was curious which way people would think on relief.

[Newby]

I don't think that would apply to the case in the picture. A pretty outlandish stroke for a ball 4" from an obstruction at ground level

[Colin L]

Exaggerating for effect, I confess. It's part of the judgment call when you're on the spot really: would the club pass safely over the sprinkler head or not? And that just takes me back to the reluctance to make any judgment based on a photo.

[sui generis]

An experienced referee can usually tell when he or she is being "worked" by a player. Absent that, I'll generally accept the player's version of lie, stance or swing, but I don't mind saying, "No," if I think the situation calls for it. Plus, in stroke play, I will always offer the player a second ball or a call to the tournament director.

[rogolf]

That "affected area" is not part of the obstruction (an obstruction is an artificial object, grass is not artificial).

[rogolf]

If the player isn't happy with my decision, I'll offer him or her a second opinion (offering is standard in our competitions when you see the player is not accepting of the decision and his eyes glaze over). As referees, we don't worry about it and the players appreciate it - as long as they know the second opinion is the decision and is final.

[Mr. Bean]

Sounds like a player-friendly approach but offering a 2nd decision in a situation where one deals with opinions rather than specific Rules may have its downside. Should the other referee disagree with your opinion his opinion stands, and if the player is happier with the 2nd decision it is likely he will always ask for a 2nd opinion when meeting you. Not to mention the additional delay caused by waiting the other referee to arrive at the scene.

[sui generis]

From a Golf Digest piece on Slugger White:There will always be subjective areas of the rules, small things that one official might shade differently than another. Say a player is seeking relief from a poor lie because, by assuming a very closed stance that would promote a big hook, the outside of his foot touches the edge of a cartpath. Is such a stance reasonable? Like a Supreme Court justice, it might depend on how you define “reasonable.” Me, I’d never want to determine what type of shot he conceivably could play. If he insists he’d play a 40-yard hook—and form the closed stance to do it—if the path weren’t there, my style is to say, “If you can live with that, then I can.” On the other hand, I’ve seen some stances that just aren’t reasonable. I haven’t hesitated to say, “No relief.”https://www.golfdigest.com/story/my-shot-slugger-white-pga-tour-rules-official-rules-of-engagement?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=golfdigest&fbclid=IwAR0BShvgFow8TMEIu2KU1_zC_pJJAsrFPpygU8NAsd5k17__duRufhrQCi8

[GunGun]

For a chip - no relief. Full shot - relief

[rogolf]

It's our association's policy to provide a second opinion if the player so desires. Our referees know and understand this, and don't worry about it at all. The two referees do not discuss the situation before the second referee arrives; it's as if the first referee had not been there, but the second referee obviously knows that the player was not happy with the first ruling.

I believe this is also the policy on the PGA Tour.

[BraxtonFullerton]

Completely agree.

[Mr. Bean]

'I believe this is also the policy on the PGA Tour.'

Well, then it must be a good choice...

[Mr. Bean]

Maybe this could deserve a thread of it's own but nevertheless:

'It's our association's policy to provide a second opinion if the player so desires. ......'

Well, that is not in line with what you wrote earlier: 'If the player isn't happy with my decision, I'll offer him or her a second opinion'

Offering a 2nd opinion is the choice of the referee while desiring a 2nd opinion is the choice of the player. There is a huge difference and in European pro tours it is only the referee who decides whether a 2nd opinion is to be granted, never the player. Been there, seen that.

'I believe this is also the policy on the PGA Tour.'

Sounds like there are really great differences between PGA Tour and the Tours in the rest of the world.

IMHO, offering an amateur or low level wannabepro golfer the choice to require a 2nd opinion not only slows the play but also deteriorates the credibility of individual referees. After all, a referee is expected to know the Rules, and in higher level competitions (as high level amateur or low level pro) they are expected to be experienced enough to be able to give a ruling without being consulted by another referee. This does not mean that a referee should not consult a fellow referee whenever he needs assurance that the ruling he is offering is a correct one but that is the choice of the referee, not any player.

[rogolf]

I think permitting a second opinion is good for the reputation of the association and does not diminish the credibility of individual referees at all. Our referees are very well educated and fully capable of providing correct rulings. Complicated rulings might involve contacting other referees by radio. When I do that, I let the player listen to the conversation so that he or she knows that I'm presenting the facts correctly.

Regarding "offering" a second opinion - even as the Head Referee, when I see the player's facial expression show confusion and his or her eyes glaze over after I've given my ruling, I'll break the impasse by asking him or her if they would like a second opinion, knowing that our policy permits it. Referees don't gain respect of the players, or players gain respect for the referees, when a referee just gives a ruling and drives away - referees have an educational responsibility also. Further, very few second opinions are different from the initial ruling, and the player then plays on confident that he or she has had their situation fully reviewed and received the correct ruling.

 

[Newby]

There is a huge difference and in European pro tours it is only the referee who decides whether a 2nd opinion is to be granted, never the player. Been there, seen that.

Is the ET policy not to follow Committee Procedures 6c(6) ?

The Committee can adopt a policy of always allowing all players a second opinion where they disagree with a referee’s decision.

[Mr. Bean]

Did you notice the two words 'can adopt'..?

So to answer your question, yes, ET is following Committee Procedures 6c(6) and to my best knowledge at least last year ET chose NOT to allow all players a 2nd opinion, which was also the case in 2018 when I was working with two ET professional referees in a competition.

@rogolf: 'Referees don't gain respect of the players, or players gain respect for the referees, when a referee just gives a ruling and drives away - referees have an educational responsibility also.'

You are absolutely right there. I always justify my rulings to the players and explain why the ruling given is what it is. If necessary, I show the text but in the name of PoP I seldom do that. Also if I am even a bit uncertain I contact a fellow referee by radio and confirm my knowledge of the Rules in question. It is very seldom there is a true need to get another referee on the spot and IMHO that need is not getting the player a 2nd opinion just because he does not like the ruling.

[PappyVanWinkle53]

no wonder he didn't drop.......looks like all the atomizing water droplets in the immediate vicinity of the sprinkler weighed the grass down to create a pretty sweet lie. Dropping it at the nearest point of relief would definitely run the risk of the ball sitting down in that thick rough.....lots of grass between the ball and club face in that scenario.