Should free relief have been granted?

[Pastit]

5 hours ago, Schulzmc said:

Just noticed something else. In zooming in to confirm that there is indeed a yellow line on each side of the bridge, I also noticed a round cover sitting on the bank  that appears to normally cover the end of the pipe to keep balls from doing exactly what this ball did. If that had been in place the ball would have stayed in the penalty area...

Re this cover you did well to spot, it looks like it’s on the upstream side of the   water filled ditch and there to block balls as you say.

 

But they soon found out that a screen with mesh small enough to trap balls will also rapidly become blocked by debris in the water during heavy rain. 

[Schulzmc]

1 hour ago, Abh159 said:

 

Based on the stakes and the paint location, I would say the spot the ball ended up in is not part of the penalty area.

 

Therefore, you would get free relief. Tough to tell from the pic, but my best guess is the nearest point (for a righty) would be close to the yellow stake in the bottom left of the picture.

 

FWIW I'm not a rules expert, but I did play a lot of competitive golf up until my mid 20s. Now my competitive rounds are limited to club related events.

 

I agree that the ball is not in the hazard and therefore you get a free drop. My question is whether the pipe is part of the bridge, or a separate immovable obstruction. If the former I think you have the drop location right. But if it is latter then the drop would actually be on the “bridge” surface. A second drop would be possible at that point.

[Newby]

7 hours ago, Pastit said:

I’m not sure you’re correct as there’s a bridge over an open water course in the Hintergrund. Nor do I see any grass over the “ structure “. 
 

 

It is artificial grass which would be an Immovable Obstructiom

[Newby]

8 hours ago, Pastit said:

I’m not sure you’re correct as there’s a bridge over an open water course in the Hintergrund. Nor do I see any grass over the “ structure “. 
 

As “ structures “ of this older design often use arches then the pipe is just a simple method of doing the same thing - hence my question. Is it a culvert or a bridge ? Thanks.

 

p.s. When arches are built there is usually a “ former “ inserted until the structure is complete. If the pipe was removed then it’s clearly a bridge to my eyes. So it’s when is a culvert not a culvert ? A: when it functions as a bridge ?

The crossing towards the top of the picture is certainly crossing an open water course but the crossing in the foreground is not.

 

I have had many discussions, on and off site, with the R&A re such crossings and have confirmed that water running through a pipe, culvert, conduit or anything similar, beneath the ground is not an open water course. But water running under a suspended structure (eg old railway sleepers) with no ground/earth intervening is.
Perhaps an oversimplification might be to say 'If you can see the reflection of the sky in the water, it is an 'open water course'.

Edited December 3, 2022 by Newby

[antip]

Have you opened the gate yet Colin?

 

[Colin L]

8 hours ago, antip said:

Have you opened the gate yet Colin?

 

I'll keep it closed for today (which for me is just starting) to see if this clarification makes any difference to anyone's thoughts:  there were no yellow lines on the crossing.  What looks as if it might be one  is yellowed grass or moss  as can be seen if you enlarge the image.   I'll open the gate this evening by which time it will be your tomorrow.  

 

 

 

[Newby]

2 hours ago, Colin L said:

 there were no yellow lines on the crossing.  What looks as if it might be one  is yellowed grass or moss  as can be seen if you enlarge the image.   

 

So what were the 4(6) yellow stakes indicating? The end(s) of the PA? Suggesting the upper crossing is (correctly) in the PA.

Edited December 3, 2022 by Newby

[Augster]

If those weren’t yellow lines defining the crossing as not in the PA, then the PA line is stick to stick to stick. This makes the crossing an immovable obstruction inside a PA. The ball is inside an immovable obstruction in a PA. No free relief available. 
 

1SP and drop behind PLC. 

[Mr. Bean]

45 minutes ago, Augster said:

If those weren’t yellow lines defining the crossing as not in the PA, then the PA line is stick to stick to stick. This makes the crossing an immovable obstruction inside a PA. The ball is inside an immovable obstruction in a PA. No free relief available. 
 

1SP and drop behind PLC. 

 

Stick to stick to stick to stick etc... how do you know where the line goes, huh??

 

That is exactly why I always say to every committee on every course I visit to place on extra stick between the two sticks to tell that the "bridge" is NOT part of the PA. Otherwise there is no way of knowing.

 

P.S. What is PLC..?

Edited December 3, 2022 by Mr. Bean

[MisterT]

3 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

P.S. What is PLC..?

My guess is "Point Last Crossed" the margin of the penalty area.

[Pastit]

3 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Stick to stick to stick to stick etc... how do you know where the line goes, huh??

 

That is exactly why I always say to every committee on every course I visit to place on extra stick between the two sticks to tell that the "bridge" is NOT part of the PA. Otherwise there is no way of knowing.

 

P.S. What is PLC..?

There may be ANO point here which needs raising, if not already done. Thanks to the guy who spotted the cover for the pipe. 
 

As I said above, this cover was probably on the upstream side of the pipe to avoid the issue we discuss. If it had been in place, then the ball would have probably been clearly in the hazard ( assuming lack of a freak bounce ). I believe equity is a factor in rules these days. 
 

Clearly equity would suggest a penalty therefore. 

[Mr. Bean]

5 minutes ago, Pastit said:

There may be ANO point here which needs raising, if not already done. Thanks to the guy who spotted the cover for the pipe. 
 

As I said above, this cover was probably on the upstream side of the pipe to avoid the issue we discuss. If it had been in place, then the ball would have probably been clearly in the hazard ( assuming lack of a freak bounce ). I believe equity is a factor in rules these days. 
 

Clearly equity would suggest a penalty therefore. 

 

What is ANO point?

 

Would it be extremely difficult and time consuming to write entire words..?

[Colin L]

45 minutes ago, Pastit said:

There may be ANO point here which needs raising, if not already done. Thanks to the guy who spotted the cover for the pipe. 
 

As I said above, this cover was probably on the upstream side of the pipe to avoid the issue we discuss. If it had been in place, then the ball would have probably been clearly in the hazard ( assuming lack of a freak bounce ). I believe equity is a factor in rules these days. 
 

Clearly equity would suggest a penalty therefore. 

Well, no.  Second guessing what a bit of metalwork was probably  for and where it should probably be and second guessing what a ball would probably have done and where it probably would have ended up unless something else happened, just wouldn't work.  Two things matter in this situation:  where the ball came to rest and the status of the immovable obstruction it was in (was it in the penalty area or not). 

 

I'l post a wee bit later how I ruled on the day and why.  Then everyone can have fun taking me apart if they disagree.  I suspect there will be some objections from Scandinavia. 😉

[Mr. Bean]

48 minutes ago, Colin L said:

Well, no.  Second guessing what a bit of metalwork was probably  for and where it should probably be and second guessing what a ball would probably have done and where it probably would have ended up unless something else happened, just wouldn't work.  Two things matter in this situation:  where the ball came to rest and the status of the immovable obstruction it was in (was it in the penalty area or not). 

 

I'l post a wee bit later how I ruled on the day and why.  Then everyone can have fun taking me apart if they disagree.  I suspect there will be some objections from Scandinavia. 😉

 

 

No objections from my part (except the lengthy non-essential laadidaadidaa...). The ball is inside an IO and the NPOR is vertically upwards on the "bridge". Free relief is granted within one club-length from that point, no closer to hole.

[Pastit]

1 hour ago, Colin L said:

Well, no.  Second guessing what a bit of metalwork was probably  for and where it should probably be and second guessing what a ball would probably have done and where it probably would have ended up unless something else happened, just wouldn't work.  Two things matter in this situation:  where the ball came to rest and the status of the immovable obstruction it was in (was it in the penalty area or not). 

 

I'l post a wee bit later how I ruled on the day and why.  Then everyone can have fun taking me apart if they disagree.  I suspect there will be some objections from Scandinavia. 😉

Tusen Takk.

 

It would be a simple matter of fact whether the cover was intended for that purpose. You have my sympathy if you’re dealing with those in Sandi. Thanks for understanding the meaning of ANO. God Dag.

[antip]

First, we need a definitive answer on where the edge  of the PA goes, whether the ball is in the PA. The photo simply doesn't answer that. If ball is in PA, no relief.

 

Second, if the ball is not in the PA, we need to test against the requirements of 16.1a(3) and 16.1a(3)/3 - would it be unreasonable for the player to make a stroke at the ball if it lies at the entrance to the immovable obstruction. Can't tell conclusively from a photo, but appears likely no reasonable stroke available, which would mean no free relief and penalty relief required.

[Colin L]

Ok then, this was my thinking.  Firstly the question of the penalty areas.  A crossing like this,  is by default not in a penalty area because there is no open water course beneath it.  There are two penalty areas on either side of it.  For it to be in the PA, there has to be either something to that effect in the Local Rules or marking to indicate its status.  The only definitive marking would  a yellow/red line across the entrance/exit to show a continuation of the edge of the PA.  My understanding from the past is that configuration of stakes as showing here indicates two separate PAs on either side of the crossing.  Otherwise, you might ask, what is their purpose.

 

Next, the immovable obstruction.  Because of the substantial stone walls and the artificial surface I decided (only after some thought) that this was a structure,  a single immovable obstruction and not just a matter of an underground pipe.  The player got relief, the nearest point of relief being in the general area.

 

So right or wrong, that's what I made of it and the player got a lucky.

 

[sui generis]

1 hour ago, Colin L said:

Ok then, this was my thinking.  Firstly the question of the penalty areas.  A crossing like this,  is by default not in a penalty area because there is no open water course beneath it.  There are two penalty areas on either side of it.  For it to be in the PA, there has to be either something to that effect in the Local Rules or marking to indicate its status.  The only definitive marking would  a yellow/red line across the entrance/exit to show a continuation of the edge of the PA.  My understanding from the past is that configuration of stakes as showing here indicates two separate PAs on either side of the crossing.  Otherwise, you might ask, what is their purpose.

 

Next, the immovable obstruction.  Because of the substantial stone walls and the artificial surface I decided (only after some thought) that this was a structure,  a single immovable obstruction and not just a matter of an underground pipe.  The player got relief, the nearest point of relief being in the general area.

 

So right or wrong, that's what I made of it and the player got a lucky.

 

 

That would have been my ruling also. 🙂

[antip]

2 hours ago, Colin L said:

Ok then, this was my thinking.  Firstly the question of the penalty areas.  A crossing like this,  is by default not in a penalty area because there is no open water course beneath it.  There are two penalty areas on either side of it.  For it to be in the PA, there has to be either something to that effect in the Local Rules or marking to indicate its status.  The only definitive marking would  a yellow/red line across the entrance/exit to show a continuation of the edge of the PA.  My understanding from the past is that configuration of stakes as showing here indicates two separate PAs on either side of the crossing.  Otherwise, you might ask, what is their purpose.

 

Next, the immovable obstruction.  Because of the substantial stone walls and the artificial surface I decided (only after some thought) that this was a structure,  a single immovable obstruction and not just a matter of an underground pipe.  The player got relief, the nearest point of relief being in the general area.

 

So right or wrong, that's what I made of it and the player got a lucky.

 

I have had dealings with both RBs on the ball in underground pipe (entrance in a PA) when the ball, with KVC, is lying in the general area. (Against the background of the last sentence of 16.1a(3)/3 and 16.1b/1, the latter unfortunately not including a PA bullet point even though mentioned in the introductory para).

The RBs were agreed that to rule there are two critical issues for this scenario.

First is has the ball been found and identified (not an issue in Colin's photo), if yes, must consider whether ball can be played from the PA's entrance point to the pipe/IO. If yes, free relief in general area finding NPCR on surface in general area and then usual drop. If no reasonable stroke at that entrance point, player must take penalty relief (unplayable).

A different answer applies if there is KVC ball is in pipe/IO under the general area but the ball cannot be reached or identified (my original question related to a pipe entrance in PA where the pipe goes right across a fairway and a player can see the ball enter the pipe). In that scenario, player's ball is considered to lie at the entrance to the pipe in the PA and the player must take penalty relief from the PA. 

[nsxguy]

5 hours ago, Pastit said:

Tusen Takk.

 

It would be a simple matter of fact whether the cover was intended for that purpose. You have my sympathy if you’re dealing with those in Sandi. Thanks for understanding the meaning of ANO. God Dag.

 

Now would you mind enlightening Mr Bean and the rest of us what "ANO" means ?

 

TIA (Thanks In Advance). 👍

[Mr. Bean]

8 hours ago, antip said:

I have had dealings with both RBs on the ball in underground pipe (entrance in a PA) when the ball, with KVC, is lying in the general area. (Against the background of the last sentence of 16.1a(3)/3 and 16.1b/1, the latter unfortunately not including a PA bullet point even though mentioned in the introductory para).

The RBs were agreed that to rule there are two critical issues for this scenario.

First is has the ball been found and identified (not an issue in Colin's photo), if yes, must consider whether ball can be played from the PA's entrance point to the pipe/IO. If yes, free relief in general area finding NPCR on surface in general area and then usual drop. If no reasonable stroke at that entrance point, player must take penalty relief (unplayable).

A different answer applies if there is KVC ball is in pipe/IO under the general area but the ball cannot be reached or identified (my original question related to a pipe entrance in PA where the pipe goes right across a fairway and a player can see the ball enter the pipe). In that scenario, player's ball is considered to lie at the entrance to the pipe in the PA and the player must take penalty relief from the PA. 

 

I really do not understand what is unclear in the situation at hand. That pipe is part of an IO (= the structure, as Colin indicated)  in the General Area and the player gets a free relief as they cannot play the ball due to it being inside the pipe. 

[Pastit]

7 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

Now would you mind enlightening Mr Bean and the rest of us what "ANO" means ?

 

TIA (Thanks In Advance). 👍

Don’t you have Google or enjoy Cleudo ?
 

A. N. Other is used as a placeholder name or, less commonly, a pseudonym used by a person wishing to remain anonymous. It is most used in the United Kingdom, often written as AN Other. Occasionally it may be abbreviated to ANO, or—in cases where a female name is expected—rendered as Ann(e) Other

 

MfG. ( used in Deutschland )

[Colin L]

50 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

I really do not understand what is unclear in the situation at hand. That pipe is part of an IO (= the structure, as Colin indicated)  in the General Area and the player gets a free relief as they cannot play the ball due to it being inside the pipe. 

I think the information Antip has given us relates only to an underground animal hole or an underground immovable obstruction as in 16.1a(3)/3   In the situation I was dealing with, I reckoned because of the stone walls and the artificial top I should consider the whole structure an obstruction.  I've seen other such crossings which comprised a pipe with what was obviously soil over it as the sides and top were natural grass.  I've seen these referred to as "land bridges".  They would be different as the pipes were clearly underground.

 

 

Edited December 4, 2022 by Colin L

[antip]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

I really do not understand what is unclear in the situation at hand. That pipe is part of an IO (= the structure, as Colin indicated)  in the General Area and the player gets a free relief as they cannot play the ball due to it being inside the pipe. 

 

55 minutes ago, Colin L said:

I think the information Antip has given us relates only to an underground animal hole or an underground immovable obstruction as in 16.1a(3)/3   In the situation I was dealing with, I reckoned because of the stone walls and the artificial top I should consider the whole structure an obstruction.  I've seen other such cros

sings which comprised a pipe with what was obviously soil over it as the sides and top were natural grass.  I've seen these referred to as "land bridges".  They would be different as the pipes were clearly underground.

 

 

You've both convinced yourselves you have the answers, so I have nothing further to add beyond that you seem comfortable sidelining rule 16.1a(3).

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, antip said:

 

You've both convinced yourselves you have the answers, so I have nothing further to add beyond that you seem comfortable sidelining rule 16.1a(3).

 

The way I see it the ball is in an Immovable Obstruction and Rule 16.1a(1) 1st bullet point is to be applied.

 

How on earth a player could reasonably make a stroke at a ball that is inside an IO? I have no clue...

 

[Halebopp]

Unless I'm mistaken, there's an agreement that the parts of a bridge over open water, like the Swilcan bridge is in the PA and a "land bridge" with a culvert is a part of the General Area. (Unless specifically marked to leave the land bridge in the PA.)

 

I don't think 16.1a(3)/3 is applicable in this situation as it's written specifically for Animal Holes as opposed to generally for ACCs. Even 16.1b/1 starts by saying 16.1a(3) does not apply when a ball enters an ACC and comes to rest under ground.

 

Therefore you'll get free relief for a ball in the culvert, regardless of the conditions near the point of entry to the culvert. Of course, the question is what is a bridge and what is merely land with a culvert running through it. But that question would only affect the Reference Point for the relief from the ACC.

 

[sui generis]

24 minutes ago, Halebopp said:

Of course, the question is what is a bridge and what is merely land with a culvert running through it.

 

I think it was Newby who introduced the notion of "open water" as the discriminator for this. That, also, is what I have always used when marking a course.

[Halebopp]

2 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

I think it was Newby who introduced the notion of "open water" as the discriminator for this. That, also, is what I have always used when marking a course.

 

Yes, you can't make the ditch beneath a bridge to be a part of the GA or you'd run into issues with a ball in water beneath the bridge. And if you made the land bridge a part of the PA, you'd deny free relief from the artificially-surfaced path on it.

[Colin L]

39 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

I think it was Newby who introduced the notion of "open water" as the discriminator for this. That, also, is what I have always used when marking a course.

It's more than Newby's " notion.  It's Newby referring us to the Definition of a PA (my emphasis):

Any body of water on the course ... including a sea, lake, pond, river, ditch surface drainage ditch or other open water course ....

 

Edited December 4, 2022 by Colin L

[Newby]

1 hour ago, Colin L said:

It's more than Newby's " notion.  It's Newby referring us to the Definition of a PA (my emphasis):

Any body of water on the course ... including a sea, lake, pond, river, ditch surface drainage ditch or other open water course ....

 

I don't know how far back that those words were included in the definition of a water hazard. I noticed them many years ago, after I qualified and I was trying to find some consistency in the markings of water crossings at my course