Another Sprinklers Close to Green - Relief?

[idrive]

It' seems around here most course simply have no "Local" Rule regarding sprinkler heads within 2 club lengths or even up to touching of the green. If your line is obstructed by the SH's it's too bad. You're chipping.

 

How do you guys play it - do any, most of the courses you play have any of their own "Local" rule covering the sprinkler heads?

[Sawgrass]

19 minutes ago, idrive said:

It' seems around here most course simply have no "Local" Rule regarding sprinkler heads within 2 club lengths or even up to touching of the green. If your line is obstructed by the SH's it's too bad. You're chipping.

 

How do you guys play it - do any, most of the courses you play have any of their own "Local" rule covering the sprinkler heads?

For the record, Local Rule F-5, via its associated Clarification, includes obstructions that are not only close to but actually on the green.

[jvincent]

13 hours ago, idrive said:

It' seems around here most course simply have no "Local" Rule regarding sprinkler heads within 2 club lengths or even up to touching of the green. If your line is obstructed by the SH's it's too bad. You're chipping.

 

How do you guys play it - do any, most of the courses you play have any of their own "Local" rule covering the sprinkler heads?

My club has the local rule in place. It's amazing how many members aren't aware of it.

 

EDIT: Typo on "has". We still have the rule in place.

Edited January 19, 2021 by jvincent

[rogolf]

On 1/18/2021 at 4:56 PM, jvincent said:

My club had the local rule in place. It's amazing how many members aren't aware of it.

Two things I find amazingly disappointing:

- golf clubs that don't make sure their local Rules are current and applicable to their course

- players that don't bother to read the local Rules that pertain to the course and round they are playing

When we run tournaments, we publish a notice to competitors (acronym NTC) that outlines the Terms of the Competition and the Local Rules that are in effect for that event.  We joking call it the DNR (did not/ do not read).  Remember DJ in the PGA at Whistling Straits?  DNR.

 

Edited January 20, 2021 by rogolf

[antip]

4 hours ago, Sawgrass said:

For the record, Local Rule F-5, via its associated Clarification, includes obstructions that are not only close to but actually on the green.

This has an interesting implication. Every club in this district has posted this local rule. But many just posted the published wording while others posted a reference to MLR F-5. So those that simply post the original words have not 'commissioned' the Clarified version. On most courses, this raises no issues because there are no immovable obstructions on the greens, but if a course has, for example, sprinkler heads ON the putting green (my current course has a couple of greens like this) then the words only version (no link to the 'clarification upgraded' MLR F-5) fails to provide relief from such interference whenever the ball is in the general area.

[Sawgrass]

10 hours ago, antip said:

This has an interesting implication. Every club in this district has posted this local rule. But many just posted the published wording while others posted a reference to MLR F-5. So those that simply post the original words have not 'commissioned' the Clarified version. On most courses, this raises no issues because there are no immovable obstructions on the greens, but if a course has, for example, sprinkler heads ON the putting green (my current course has a couple of greens like this) then the words only version (no link to the 'clarification upgraded' MLR F-5) fails to provide relief from such interference whenever the ball is in the general area.

I disagree. A “Clarification” is supposed to clarify what the base rule wording actually means.  If a course is using the wording of the clarified Local Rule, I’d say the Clarification applies.  
 

Anyway, IMO an obstruction that is on the putting green IS within two club lengths of the putting green.

[antip]

6 hours ago, Sawgrass said:

I disagree. A “Clarification” is supposed to clarify what the base rule wording actually means.  If a course is using the wording of the clarified Local Rule, I’d say the Clarification applies.  
 

Anyway, IMO an obstruction that is on the putting green IS within two club lengths of the putting green.

On your first paragraph, that is something I'd like to hear from the RBs. If the LR posted mentioned MLR F-5 in any way, I'd be on board saying the Clarification applies. But if the posted LR makes no mention at all, then there's a case to say it is precisely the posted words that apply.

 

On your second paragraph, that's an interesting semantic take. However, I normally interpret "within x feet of y" exclude y itself. Examples, the ball lying in the bunker is within 2CL of the green; the ball on the fringe is within 2CL of the green etc would never be considered to be on the green.

 

Another wrinkle from the MLR, even with the clarification assumed to apply, is if the ball is just off the green but the obstruction (sprinkler head) is over 2 CL from the ball, then the full conditions in the local rule are not met so no relief. Do we really think this is what RBs intended? But that is what the published words say "and within 2CL of the ball". My guess is what RBs really wanted to offer here is anyone within 2CL of the green AND with an immovable obstruction either on or off the green on the line of play then relief is an option.

 

I'm sure you agree, the perfect world is to get the wording precisely right and that's our target here.

[Mr. Bean]

18 hours ago, antip said:

My guess is what RBs really wanted to offer here is anyone within 2CL of the green AND with an immovable obstruction either on or off the green on the line of play then relief is an option.

 

On the line of play outside the green AND no farther than 2cl's from the ball AND from the green. But even there the question is how the distance is to be measured, and IMO it is to be measured along the line of play. Thus it is possible to have the ball closer to the IO and the IO closer to the green than 2 cl's and yet they do not meet the criteria when measured along the line of play.

 

Just my 2 (euro)cents.

 

P.S. I guess there courses where there are IO's in the middle of the green but fortunately we have none of those in my country. All the sprinkler heads are outside the green surface, afa I remember. Just a remark.

[rogolf]

36 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

On the line of play outside the green AND no farther than 2cl's from the ball AND from the green. But even there the question is how the distance is to be measured, and IMO it is to be measured along the line of play. Thus it is possible to have the ball closer to the IO and the IO closer to the green than 2 cl's and yet they do not meet the criteria when measured along the line of play.

 

Just my 2 (euro)cents.

 

P.S. I guess there courses where there are IO's in the middle of the green but fortunately we have none of those in my country. All the sprinkler heads are outside the green surface, afa I remember. Just a remark.

Yes, the Old Course for one!

[Sawgrass]

A course I play has a small plastic drain in a low point on the green near the edge.

[Mr. Bean]

2 hours ago, Sawgrass said:

A course I play has a small plastic drain in a low point on the green near the edge.

 

Why? Did they not know how to build a putting green..?

[antip]

5 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

On the line of play outside the green AND no farther than 2cl's from the ball AND from the green. But even there the question is how the distance is to be measured, and IMO it is to be measured along the line of play. Thus it is possible to have the ball closer to the IO and the IO closer to the green than 2 cl's and yet they do not meet the criteria when measured along the line of play.

 

Just my 2 (euro)cents.

 

P.S. I guess there courses where there are IO's in the middle of the green but fortunately we have none of those in my country. All the sprinkler heads are outside the green surface, afa I remember. Just a remark.

Interesting thought. But the line of play is a corridor including a "reasonable distance on either side", so I'm thinking it is most logical to interpret the printed words as the direct distance between ball and obstruction, otherwise you need to create a line of play definition/interpretation inconsistent with the current definition. But if the IO is actually on the green, I would have the 2CL limitation applying only to the distance between ball and green.

 

[Sawgrass]

45 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Why? Did they not know how to build a putting green..?

It’s always nice to hear from you.

[Newby]

10 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Why? Did they not know how to build a putting green..?

Many old courses have the original clay lined undulating greens where such drains are not uncommon. One reason why the rule does not limit itself the the IO normally found on or near greens. In fact clay linings would have pre-dated sprinkler systems and will still be found on most courses in GB&I. But they will no longer have drains as the clay bowls will have been penetrated by drilling or small explosives.

Edited January 21, 2021 by Newby

[Mr. Bean]

12 hours ago, Sawgrass said:

It’s always nice to hear from you.

 

You must be the person with most non-existing sense of humor in the world...

[Mr. Bean]

13 hours ago, antip said:

Interesting thought. But the line of play is a corridor including a "reasonable distance on either side", so I'm thinking it is most logical to interpret the printed words as the direct distance between ball and obstruction, otherwise you need to create a line of play definition/interpretation inconsistent with the current definition. But if the IO is actually on the green, I would have the 2CL limitation applying only to the distance between ball and green.

 

 

But if we think about the reason for such a LR a sprinkler head 4 meters away on the line of play is hardly an obstruction for a putt, especially if both the ball and the head are in the rough. Giving a free relief under such circumstances does not sound what the original idea making a putt possible outside the green is.

 

Interestingly enough, out National Association decided last year (?) to limit this LR to apply only on areas cut to fairway height or less, just to highlight the purpose of that LR and to not give a player not only a free relief from a bad lie but potentially a drop on an area with lower height of cut.

 

[Sawgrass]

3 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

You must be the person with most non-existing sense of humor in the world...

One irritating comment after another, you almost never fail to please!

[Colin L]

On 1/21/2021 at 12:10 PM, Mr. Bean said:

 

You must be the person with most non-existing sense of humor in the world...

 

Just to be pedantic,  if someone has no sense of humour, they can't  have more of no sense of humour  than anyone else.  You can't have more of nothing.  

 

And if Sawgrass smiles at that comment, he has proved you wrong.  😀

Edited January 22, 2021 by Colin L

[nsxguy]

[deleted]

Edited January 23, 2021 by nsxguy

[Sawgrass]

2 hours ago, Colin L said:

 

Just to be pedantic,  if someone has no sense of humour, they can't  have more of no sense of humour  than anyone else.  You can't have more of nothing.  

 

And if Sawgrass smiles at that comment, he has proved you wrong.  😀

I agree that one can’t have “more of nothing.”  But I do want more humor like this!

[Shilgy]

Interesting takes above. My club does have two greens where sprinkler heads are in/on the green.

We do have one added wrinkle to the model.....the ball must be dropped in the same condition. So, for example, a player in the rough cannot drop onto the fringe nor can a player drop/place onto the green from the fringe or rough.

[cardoustie]

Someone explain why these types of things are local rules, that a club needs to implement, and not actual rules

 

Wouldn’t that be simpler

 

Just like so many others in the past  .. plugged lies for example

[sui generis]

1 hour ago, cardoustie said:

Someone explain why these types of things are local rules, that a club needs to implement, and not actual rules

 

Wouldn’t that be simpler

 

Just like so many others in the past  .. plugged lies for example

 

There are some organizations such as the NCAA Men's golf who don't wish to give free relief for line of play on or near the green.

 

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/golf/common/men/2020-21MGO_HardCard.pdf

[Mr. Bean]

18 hours ago, Colin L said:

And if Sawgrass smiles at that comment, he has proved you wrong.  😀

 

He did not, so I was right.

[Mr. Bean]

3 hours ago, Shilgy said:

We do have one added wrinkle to the model.....the ball must be dropped in the same condition. So, for example, a player in the rough cannot drop onto the fringe 

 

My take on this is that such a limitation is not according to the Rules as there is no distinction in the Rules between fringe and rough.

[Mr. Bean]

3 hours ago, cardoustie said:

Someone explain why these types of things are local rules, that a club needs to implement, and not actual rules

 

 

It might be due to the origin of this Local Rule. It has been (afa I have been instructed correctly by the R&A) developed to allow players to putt from outside the green on courses where there are a lot of areas around the greens cut to fairway height or less. It does not make lots of sense letting a player to get a free relief from thick rough from where he could not possible putt out. Then again, lots of courses do have this LR in force allowing the players to do just that but IMHO that is not what the LR is meant to be there for.

[sui generis]

15 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

My take on this is that such a limitation is not according to the Rules as there is no distinction in the Rules between fringe and rough.

 

What are we to think of the notion of "part of the general area cut to fairway height or less" ? As you know it shows up from time to time in the Rules.

[Mr. Bean]

31 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

What are we to think of the notion of "part of the general area cut to fairway height or less" ? As you know it shows up from time to time in the Rules.

 

I guess you know as well as I do that those notions are strictly related to where a particular Rule or Local Rule is applicable, such as LC&P. Nowhere in the Rules the relief area is limited in such a way, if I am not mistaken. If you find such a Rule do broaden my perspective, please.

[Shilgy]

40 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

I guess you know as well as I do that those notions are strictly related to where a particular Rule or Local Rule is applicable, such as LC&P. Nowhere in the Rules the relief area is limited in such a way, if I am not mistaken. If you find such a Rule do broaden my perspective, please.

Are we not discussing a Local Rule? In our case it is to prevent players relief being a drop/place on the green. 
 

In my opinion rules such as this is simply a refinement of the rules based on modern golf course agronomy. We no longer have a common need for rut irons but the original rules did not have modern irrigation systems in mind.

[sui generis]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

I guess you know as well as I do that those notions are strictly related to where a particular Rule or Local Rule is applicable, such as LC&P. Nowhere in the Rules the relief area is limited in such a way, if I am not mistaken. If you find such a Rule do broaden my perspective, please.

 

It's right there as a Committee option in F-5.