Should free relief have been granted?

[antip]

35 minutes ago, rogolf said:

To make it simple, clear and easy for the players, the penalty area should have been marked as continuous on each side, ie, that “construction” should have been part of the penalty area. 

Agree that is the simplest AND most appropriate approach here.

[Colin L]

1 hour ago, Colin L said:

 

That is indeed what I would recognise as a French drain in my wee part of the world, but the pipe is entirely covered by maybe 30 cms of gravel/aggregate and in any case even  if a ball could reach it, the pipe is continuous.   How could the ball  get into it?    

 

All I've ever seen is a ball ending  up on top of the gravel, a ball that is on an immovable obstruction.  I still don't get the connection.

 

Mr Bean.  I have no idea why that should have dismayed you or whatever the sad emoticon is supposed to mean.  Please tell me how a ball can ever get into the buried pipe of a French drain, or if that's not what you meant, how it could even get into the gravel/aggregate filling it as opposed to lying on top of it.   Then you might also tell me  what that has to do with the situation I illustrated.

[Mr. Bean]

5 minutes ago, Colin L said:

Mr Bean.  I have no idea why that should have dismayed you or whatever the sad emoticon is supposed to mean.  Please tell me how a ball can ever get into the buried pipe of a French drain, or if that's not what you meant, how it could even get into the gravel/aggregate filling it as opposed to lying on top of it.   Then you might also tell me  what that has to do with the situation I illustrated.

 

Basically that was just a question how to deal with "underground" pipes if there is no "ground" on top of them and a french drain seemed to be a simple example of such pipe. How a ball could end up in there is irrelevant to make it an example but that can happen for example during a repair or construction of such drain.

 

So the question is whether that pipe would be an underground pipe or not.

[Colin L]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Basically that was just a question how to deal with "underground" pipes if there is no "ground" on top of them and a french drain seemed to be a simple example of such pipe. How a ball could end up in there is irrelevant to make it an example but that can happen for example during a repair or construction of such drain.

 

So the question is whether that pipe would be an underground pipe or not.

There's no point in the question as there is no way a ball is going to end up in the pipe of a French drain.  Such a pipe is like a  long hose with perforations in it which allows water to seep up into the pipe but not golf balls.   I don't see any point in pursuing this.

 

Edited December 6, 2022 by Colin L

[rogolf]

Imo, there’s just no way a ball could end up in the underground pipe of a French drain.
Our hard card defines French drains as ground under repair. 

[Newby]

6 hours ago, rogolf said:

Imo, there’s just no way a ball could end up in the underground pipe of a French drain.
Our hard card defines French drains as ground under repair. 

Some years ago I noticed that the USGA had recommended that they be identified as GUR when technically they were IOs. I asked the R&A about it. Their response was that they couldn't understand why the USGA had taken that approach but had confirmed with them that they were still IOs according to the definition. It was suggested that the US public believed anything to do with faulty ground had to be GUR.

 

Shades of divot holes maybe?  😮