Taking relief from a water hazard by dropping on to an Immovable Obstruction

What are your thoughts on this?

On one side of a lateral water hazard there's thick bushes/trees/shrubs running adjacent to the margin of the hazard. The bushes/trees/shrubs are about the width of two club lengths from the margin (in otherwords, not a good place to drop). Along the other side of the hazard is a track. Not a concrete one, but I think it may have been made up of compacted stones/rubble at some point but it's mostly mud now.

Assuming this track is an immovable obstruction, can you drop on to it when taking relief from the lateral water hazard?

Under 26-1c

a. Proceed under the stroke and distance provision of Rule 27-1 by playing a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule 20-5); or
b. Drop a ball behind the water hazard, keeping the point at which the original ball last crossed the margin of the water hazard directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped, with no limit to how far behind the water hazard the ball may be dropped; or
c. As additional options available only if the ball last crossed the margin of a lateral water hazard, drop a ball outside the water hazard within two club-lengths of and not nearer the hole than (i) the point where the original ball last crossed the margin of the water hazard or (ii) a point on the opposite margin of the water hazard equidistant from the hole.

& Under 24-2b

b. Relief
Except when the ball is in a water hazard or a lateral water hazard, a player may take relief from interference by an immovable obstruction as follows:
(i) Through the Green: If the ball lies through the green, the player must lift the ball and drop it, without penalty, within one club-length of and not nearer the hole than the nearest point of relief. The nearest point of relief must not be in a hazard or on a putting green. When the ball is dropped within one club-length of the nearest point of relief, the ball must first strike a part of the course at a spot that avoids interference by the immovable obstruction and is not in a hazard and not on a putting green.

SetupDeterminestheMotion wrote:Under 26-1c

a. Proceed under the stroke and distance provision of Rule 27-1 by playing a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule 20-5); or
b. Drop a ball behind the water hazard, keeping the point at which the original ball last crossed the margin of the water hazard directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped, with no limit to how far behind the water hazard the ball may be dropped; or
c. As additional options available only if the ball last crossed the margin of a lateral water hazard, drop a ball outside the water hazard within two club-lengths of and not nearer the hole than (i) the point where the original ball last crossed the margin of the water hazard or (ii) a point on the opposite margin of the water hazard equidistant from the hole.

& Under 24-2b

b. Relief
Except when the ball is in a water hazard or a lateral water hazard, a player may take relief from interference by an immovable obstruction as follows:
(i) Through the Green: If the ball lies through the green, the player must lift the ball and drop it, without penalty, within one club-length of and not nearer the hole than the nearest point of relief. The nearest point of relief must not be in a hazard or on a putting green. When the ball is dropped within one club-length of the nearest point of relief, the ball must first strike a part of the course at a spot that avoids interference by the immovable obstruction and is not in a hazard and not on a putting green.

Or to put it slightly more succinctly, yes.

Thanks, all.

Just to clarify, the crux of my query was 'can you drop on to an immovable instruction?', not can you get relief from the immovable obstruction.

The rules don't say that you can't (which suggested to me that you can drop on to an immovable obstruction) but I was wondering whether anyone else was aware of an authority expressly stating you can. I couldn't see anything in the Decisions.

I don't believe 24-2b to be relevant to my scenario as that relates to taking relief from an immovable obstruction whereas I'm talking about taking relief from the water hazard and dropping onto the immovable obstruction.

I don't have anything definitive but I'd say you are perfectly correct to do as you describe. The first drop is taking relief from the lateral as prescribed by the rules - the fact that you then end on another obstruction so requiring further relief should be irrelevant to the original choice. Just my two-pennorth though

I see your problem, now having re-read it.

Dropping it on to the immovable object is probably against the rules.

" the ball must first strike a part of the course at a spot that avoids interference by the immovable obstruction and is not in a hazard and not on a putting green"

Under Rule 20-2
b. Where to Drop
When a ball is to be dropped as near as possible to a specific spot, it must be dropped not nearer the hole than the specific spot which, if it is not precisely known to the player, must be estimated.
A ball when dropped must first strike a part of the course where the applicable Rule requires it to be dropped. If it is not so dropped, Rules 20-6 and 20-7 apply.

The ball can hit the course & then come to rest, so that the immovable object is interfering with your play. Therefore you can then take further relief from the immovable object.

Imagine the immovable object is a very large rock, you wouldn't think about dropping it on to the rock. Just because its a path or track, its still an immovable object.

Under 20-7
a. General
A player has played from a wrong place if he makes a stroke at his ball in play:
(i) on a part of the course where the Rules do not permit a stroke to be made or a ball to be dropped or placed.

SetupDeterminestheMotion wrote:Dropping it on to the immovable object is probably against the rules.

"the ball must first strike a part of the course at a spot that avoids interference by the immovable obstruction and is not in a hazard and not on a putting green"

The above is the rule when relief is being taken from an immovable obstruction. The rules for relief from a water hazard do not say that.

The rule on dropping simply states that it must first strike a part of the course (an immovable obstruction is part of the course) where the applicable rule (in our case, 26-1c) requires it to be dropped. This is not contrary to the rule for relief from a water hazard.

I haven't yet seen anything which leads me to think that you can't drop on to an immovable obstruction when taking relief from a water hazard.

I need a lie down, this thread has given me a headache

Can't you call a rules official over for a ruling

Do you know any good ones?

Don't think there's too many on here

I read it the same way as Merc .. you are taking relief from the lateral, not the immovable obstruction.

TBH sounds like bad course planning by the organizers and there should maybe be a drop zone? To have an immovable obstruction within the dropping distance of a hazard doesn't sound right to me but given the circumstances I think the original situation is right

No I'm not a rules official

Blimey - this is more trouble than it is worth.

Whatever happened to 'hit the ball - find it - and hit it again.'

Davie wrote:I read it the same way as Merc .. you are taking relief from the lateral, not the immovable obstruction.

TBH sounds like bad course planning by the organizers and there should maybe be a drop zone? To have an immovable obstruction within the dropping distance of a hazard doesn't sound right to me but given the circumstances I think the original situation is right

No I'm not a rules official

I am with Davie on this one. If it is defined as an immovable object then it isn't great design but my instinct is that you would take relief from the hazard in the normal way then if your ball came to rest on the path take relief from there if you choose to. The rules say that you can't drop into a hazard or onto a putting green so this would take you to the other side of the path which seems fair.

I am not a rules official either but I know someone who is (she refereed Ernie Else twice at the Open last year). I will ask her for you.

J

It's not bad design to have the ditch next to the track. It's just the way the land is. What could possibly be bad design is that the right-hand margin of the hazard is between the ditch and shrubs/bushes. In my view, the margin of the hazard should be on the outside of the shrubs/trees, otherwise you're effectively being penalised more than one shot for going into the lateral water hazard because you don't have a shot if you drop on the immovable obstruction, even if you were to take relief.

Here's the layout of the hole (Black = track, Blue equals ditch, Red = right margin of hazard):

Merc, thanks for the screenshot. I've done some research, checked the rule books and decisions etc. and I think I have the solution for you. Don't hit it in the ditch and then none of this matters

Doesn't affect MY interpretation of the decision (not that I'm saying it's the right one) - but the screenshot has made me realize I was picturing it wrong - I imagined the cart path to be on the fairway side of the hazard and the bushes on the other side! I'd agree that the hazard line should at least go through the bushes and not be behind them

1GrumpyGolfer wrote:Merc, thanks for the screenshot. I've done some research, checked the rule books and decisions etc. and I think I have the solution for you. Don't hit it in the ditch and then none of this matters

It was making my head hurt too!

Oh I don't know ... nothing wrong with a good rules debate when all else is quiet... if we don't know the rules what chance have we of ever understanding the game!

For those who are thinking (and I'm sure some are!) it must be a pretty bad shot to go in that hazard, the direction of play for the second shot aims at that hazard (coming from about 4:30 from the bottom of the photo).

If you play for a fade that doesn't fade or overclub, it's not as hard as you may think to go in there.

I went there in our Scratch Matchplay in January after pulling my 6-iron and my opponent in the Mail on Sunday went in there when trying to play an admittedly risky and unnecessary fade.

Mercurio wrote:the direction of play for the second shot aims at that hazard

I went there in our Scratch Matchplay in January after pulling my 6-iron

A 522 yard par 5 and you are hitting drive and 6 iron in the winter Merc?...very impressive

BlueCoverman wrote:

Mercurio wrote:the direction of play for the second shot aims at that hazard

I went there in our Scratch Matchplay in January after pulling my 6-iron

A 522 yard par 5 and you are hitting drive and 6 iron in the winter Merc?...very impressive

I wasn't going for the green! I've never heard of anyone making the green in 2.

At 270 yards, there's a stream where the hole doglegs (it's the windy bit at the bottom of the photo). No-one ever takes that on, at least not in competition. We only have two par 5s and neither of them are good birdie opportunities. The other one is 570 yards and uphill.

I know just kidding!

Looks like a good hole

Whe I first looked at the diagram, I thought it said the hole was 12.3 miles long - now that's some par 5!

I don't know about that, Mav would have got home in 2

BlueCoverman wrote:I don't know about that, Mav would have got home in 2

... after topping his tee shot...

Heh!

Golfshot GPS which the screenshot is taken has to be one of the best value iPhone apps I have ever downloaded. Not played a course yet that has not been in the vast library. Very accurate too and most yardages maybe only 1 or two yards out on over 95% of the holes I have played using it.

The screenshot above is taken from the iPad. I don't think you could get that much information on an iPhone!

Unfortunately, you can't use Golfshot in competitions if it's on an iPhone. A ridiculous decision by the R&A

You can drop it on the Immovable object. It doesn't become an Immovable Object until the ball's in play. Therefore you can legitimately drop on to the Immovable Object, and if the ball comes to rest on (or near, intefering) the Immovable Object proceed to take relief.

I have just had a reply from my rules official friend but SetUp beat me to it. A agree with your ealier comment though Merc, bringing the red stakes to the fairway side of the bushes would be fair.

Golfshot GPS certainly looks impressive (do you carry an iPad with you on the course?), I have GolfCard GPS on my iPhone which gives me the basic information although not all courses are mapped and I can't use it in competition. I have resisted shelling out for a paid app though until either the R&A see sense and/or Apple allow us to remove the compass.

J

Presumably you can choose not to take relief from the immovable object (in this case a mud track) and play the ball from there without infringement, if you so prefer?

BlueCoverman wrote:Presumably you can choose not to take relief from the immovable object (in this case a mud track) and play the ball from there without infringement, if you so prefer?

You can indeed and that's exactly what I would do on that hole as there's no where better to take relief. Even then, the best you can do is to chip out onto the fairway.

Regarding moving the stakes, I'm adding it as a point for discussion at next month's Committee Meeting. I've been having discussions with two of my more rule-knowledgeable Committee colleagues and they agree with me that it would be an improvement/fairer to move the margin of the hazard out.

but if you move the stakes out you change the loss of ball in the bushes situation to a drop on line of entry. ye cannae do that

Interesting point - if the bushes are at all thick how can anyone say the ball has ended in the hazard, with any certainty?

I always understood that if you can't say with 100% certainty that the ball has entered the hazard, then you must treat as a lost ball and therefore play stroke and distance

Valid points but it appears in this situation that you can walk the opposite side of the ditch and determine whether your ball is in the hazard. I imagine if you couldn't do that then there would be plenty of "the ball's in the hazard", "no, it's lost" arguments.

Maybe but then it could be argued that you were testing the surface of the immovable obstruction

1GrumpyGolfer wrote:I imagine if you couldn't do that then there would be plenty of "the ball's in the hazard", "no, it's lost" arguments.

No there wouldn't Grumps, if it was my ball it would be in the hazard, if it was yours it would be lost

It's a track isn't it? Surely you can walk on a track on a golf course and not be guilty of testing the surface? And no, I didn't call you Shirley

No you got that the wrong way round. Mine is in the hazard and yours is under my foot, I mean lost

Spit the hook out Grumps, I was just being mischievous

Now that's just plain cheating

I don't think it would come up Blue, we wouldn't be as wayward to be in that situation in the first place

Speak for yourself Grumps!

You're not the kind of bloke to play a Titleist from the tee and a Nike from the rough, trees, boondocks, umbala are you? Will I have to wade through tick infested ferns and bracken to keep an eye on you?

Grumps I'm more than a little hurt that you could even suggest such a thing

This bushes/shrubs things are not thick - you can see through them and there are gaps you could hit a ball through from the track.

It's a deep ditch but only about 3 foot wide so you can jump across to the track and look for the ball. You very rarely fail to find a ball that's gone in there.

So not a Nike but a Bridgestone instead