Relief from yardage marker

[OrangeGravy]

Just read that the markers were those that are off to the side, not in the middle of the fairway. I was curious why anyone would cement a barber pole in the middle of the fairway.

[Newby]

Line of play indicator when playing over the brow of a hill eg.

[nsxguy]

Did you ever get a chance to take that picture ?

Did you check the scorecard (usually) for any local rules as 2Be mentioned in Post 11 ?

[LeoLeo99]

Growing up our local course had little bushes to mark 150 yards from the green in the rough on both sides just a yard or two from the fairway. There was a local rule that you got relief from the little bushes/shrubs.

[KMeloney]

Were you thinking these are fans installed to cool PLAYERS? lol

[Mr. Bean]

Yes, I was. There are lots of really weird things over there so I thought this was just one of them.

[chippa13]

Every time I've seen those they are removable. I haven't seen one cemented into the ground.

[Newby]

About 10 years ago I had the following correspondence with the R&AMe: A ‘Local Rule’ has been posted by my club saying that the 150 yard holly bushes should be treated as Immovable Obstructions.R&A: Obstructions according to the Rules are ‘anything artificial. Further, it would be wrong to use a Local Rule to provide relief from the older holly bushes by staking them. The permitted Local Rule entitled ‘Protection of Young Trees’ may only be used if the trees are both young and in need of protection.

 

The bushes in question did not satisfy either test. We now have removable green stakes in concrete socket holes.

But of course almost everyone is using a DMD now, even when standing next to a stake.

[antip]

Sad that the rules forced an exchange of concrete and artificial stuff for the vegetation. But as with plenty of the pre-2019 framework, that old advice is re-located to the St Andrews and Far Hills dumps (now glamorously re-titled Resource Management Centres). Those holly bushes can return and be declared NPZs courtesy of "The Committee may use No Play Zones for any reason" (Definition of NPZ).

[davep043]

My home club has long allowed free relief from bushes intended to mark yardage, the owner insists on it, even knowing that it wasn't allowed by the rules. I thought you had provided an acceptable reason under the 2019 Rules, until I read the definition, which starts with:

"A part of the course where the Committee has prohibited play. A no play zone must be defined as part of either an abnormal course condition or a penalty area."

I can't see how a mature bush near the edge of a fairway can fall under the definition of "abnormal course condition". I do read that the Committee can establish a NPZ for any reason, but does that override the requirement in the first sentence of the definition?

[Sawgrass]

Just call it GUR, and you can be set as a GUR/NPZ. (Of course, line of play problems still exist when stance/stroke/lie interference isn't technically granted.)

[sui generis]

I wore everyone out last year with the argument that a Committee is being disingenuous by calling things GUR when they're clearly not. However, "everyone" helped me see the light. Calling something, anything really, GUR just provides a a convenient and familiar remedy . . . just take the relief provided free of charge in Rule 16.

Those old fashioned 100 and 150 bushes can be, by decree, GUR and furthermore they can be decreed as No Play Zones . . . let 'em live and prosper. ?

[nsxguy]

Actually I have no real problem with the 150 yard bushes OFF the fairway. I can look on that as the same as if there was a tree there. Something to be avoided. It blocks you ? Oh well.

Don't have the same feeling about an immovable obstruction blocking my line of play in the fairway, a space I'm supposed to be aiming for.

A tree ? Bunker ? Stream ? No problem. They're part of the course design and intended to be obstacles to avoid.

A 150 yard non-removable POLE in the fairway ? No way.

 

[antip]

They're part of the course design and intended to be obstacles to avoid

Precisely, and it is the Committee that makes those policy decisions for their course, not the Rules of Golf. Which is why the language issues surrounding Ground under REPAIR or ABNORMAL course condition are not something to get hung up about. Could just as easily be Obstacle Grade 1 or perhaps a Don't Get Stuck Behind This One Category 2. The philosophical golfer's version of "what's in a name?"A 150 yard non-removable POLE in the fairway ? No way.

This one is a different issue entirely. Only justification is the special case of tee entirely surrounded by bush, distinctive pole marker (as subtle as can be) in the bush to say point this way. St Michaels in Sydney has one or two of those (I played there in 1973).

[nsxguy]

"Only justification is the special case of tee entirely surrounded by bush, distinctive pole marker (as subtle as can be) in the bush to say point this way. St Michaels in Sydney has one or two of those (I played there in 1973)."

Sorry antip but I am lost. I have NO idea what you're describing here or how it has anything to do with a fixed yardage pole in the fairway. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[antip]

Apologies for any confusion, I was referring there to a distinctive pole marker that was between tee and (invisible) fairway to guide the players.

[2bGood]

I agree, though I have never seen a pole that is immovable. I sure there is some out there, but it is rare I ahem played courses that have poles and even rarer that I am close enough to them to want to see if they are movable.

I would say it is back course design to ay them immovable.

[bpink21901]

Besides the impact to a golfer who just center cut a driver into bad luck, as someone who cut fairways way back in the day I would be cussing the guy that decided to cement in the posts as I was circling the dumb thing on the mower. We had flush markers you could cut over, but I could live with pulling the posts out of the sleeves on the directional markers we had since you could keep your cut pattern consistent. Its the little things in life that keep me on the sane side of the spectrum....barely!

[James the Hogan Fan]

I have played a competition in which the centerline barber pole markers were movable.

However the competition used an association's general hard card without modifications for the event. That hard card included model local rule F-18, which read:

“All stakes and distance markers on the course are treated as immovable obstructions from which free relief is allowed under Rule 16.1. Relief is not allowed to be taken under Rule 15.2."

The centerline poles had the distance to the green marked on them. And, although no one had any issues that I was aware of, we did discuss it during the round.

[rogolf]

Imo, that Local Rule is a trap for players and should not be implemented. Obstructions should be movable unless they are not movable with reasonable effort.

[James the Hogan Fan]

Though I can rationalize a committee's desire to ensure distance stakes remain in the same place, I personally feel that golfers are generally capable of replacing such stakes where they were.

It is absolutely a trap, because the committee can declare anything to be immovable if they want to. And golfers rack up penalties for unknowingly moving them.

[Mr. Bean]

Any Local Rule depriving a player his normal rights described by the Rules can be regarded as a 'trap'. Integral Objects and animal holes only for the ball, just to give two examples. Also worth mentioning stand-alone advertisements on the teeing grounds on tours that are easily removable but declared as IO's.

It pays off to study the LRs and CoCs.

[nsxguy]

As a non-expert on the Rules it seems to me that the vast majority of local rules HELP the player in unusual course situations. Not knowing a local rule would seem to disadvantage the player in that he wouldn't take relief available to him by the local rule, but not that he would be following a ROG and get penalized for not knowing the local rule in force reversed a ROG.

In fact, in the section on Local Rules it says "In order to ensure that play is conducted in accordance with the Rules of Golf, a Committee must not use a Local Rule to waive or modify the Rules of Golf simply because it might prefer a Rule to be different"

The above (almost) seems to contradict the allowance of a local rule such as the one being discussed, a movable distance marker.

I guess, even though the golf course's reason for not allowing the moving of, say a distance marker, may NOT be that they "might prefer a rule to be different", I can't see why the course might invoke local rule F-18.

I mean, giving a golfer the general penalty for NOT REPLACING a movable object that he moved I could understand, but the Rules are difficult enough for most of us without a local rule reversing one we actually (probably LOL) already know.

[Mr. Bean]

'As a non-expert on the Rules it seems to me that the vast majority of local rules HELP the player in unusual course situations.'

Some LRs give more leeway to a player, some restrict. LC&P gives leeway, roads and paths declared as Integral Objects take away the free relief.

It is up to the Committee to decide what are the pros and cons of each potential LR / CoC. There is no uniform guide to say how those must be set up, only some guidance and in some cases recommendations.

[rogolf]

Here is the 30,000 foot guidance on Local Rules,

"In order to ensure that play is conducted in accordance with the Rules of Golf, a Committee must not use a Local Rule to waive or modify the Rules of Golf simply because it might prefer a Rule to be different"

[Mr. Bean]

Has someone here suggested that a distance-marker declared as an IO by a Committee is done because that Committee prefers definition of Obstruction to be different for the sake of it being different?

MLR F-18 has been drafted by the Ruling Bodies so it must be something a Committee may use. Or what do you say, rogolf?

[nsxguy]

I don't think so.

But I believe the more important question is "Has someone here suggested why a course might implement a local rule making a movable obstruction and immovable one" as Mr Hogan says a course has ?

Can you think of a reason ?

[rogolf]

Model Local Rules are authorized for use - I did not suggest otherwise. However, just because they are authorized doesn't mean their use is a wise choice by the Committee(s).

[Mr. Bean]

In my country there used to be four (4) Local Rules in force on every course by the 'order' of our national association. Individual courses had the power to overrule any or all of those LRs but to my knowledge no course did that. The so called mandatory LRs were removed a few years ago, and one of them was that 'all yardage markers are Immovable Obstructions'.

Now, I can only speculate the reasons behind that particular LR but I believe there must have been at least two different reasons. First of all, those markers were wooden poles with sharpened lower end. Poles were hammered into the ground with great effort. Removing such a pole was certainly possible but not easy if the pole had not been removed before. After removed once the pole was easy to remove but gradually difficult and later impossible to put back into vertical position. So in the end the pole would have been lying on the ground causing following problems:

people did not see the marker so it was no use to anyonelawnmowers were damaged when driven over such a pole in the grassSo I can fairly easily understand the reason for the LR in those days. Now, today situation is slightly different as at least around here on many courses the poles are of metal and put up on a concrete base from which the pole is easy to be removed and put back (if one remembers...). Thus in quite a few courses the poles are MOs instead of IOs, but there are still courses having maintained the LR declaring those poles IOs. Apparently those committees have experienced that to be a good choice.

FWIW in my country there are also yardage markers that are IOs by nature, such as large stones, small trees, sculptures, etc. Some of those can be moved with fair effort but they are not meant to be moved. One can start another discussion whether that is fair if on another course there are just poles that can easily be removed, but that's another story.

[Mr. Bean]

'But I believe the more important question is "Has someone here suggested why a course might implement a local rule making a movable obstruction and immovable one" '

I'll throw one right back at you.

Rule 16.1 grants a player free relief from an animal hole. However, there is a MLR F-6 limiting the relief excluding the player's stance. Why would a Committee want to do that?