bridges over water hazards.

[jusme]

Is the entirety of a bridge over a water hazard classed as the same hazard? I understand that the bridge is indeed part of the hazard and treated as if your ball is in the hazzard, my question is relating to the entirety of the structure, specifically the parts that fall outside of the hazard line.

We have bridges that obviously go over the hazard. The hazard is marked by yellow stakes and I always understood that the actual dimensions of the hazard is defined by the start/end of those stakes. Given that some of the bridges extend well beyond those stakes is the entirety of the bridge classed as hazard or only that that falls within the hazard as defined by the stakes?

We have been informed of a new local rule that classes all of the bridge as hazard.

Seeking clarity

 

[Colin L]

Only those parts of a bridge which are within the margins of a water hazard are in the hazard. If your ball is in the water hazard and there is interference from the bridge, you do not get free relief. You can play your ball as it lies and you can ground your club on the obstruction. You cannot move any loose impediments. If your ball lies outside the margins of the water hazard and there is interference from any part of the the bridge whether that part is within the water hazard or not, you may take relief under Rule 24-2b.

 

[Foxholer]

Only those parts of a bridge which are within the margins of a water hazard are in the hazard. If your ball is in the water hazard and there is interference from the bridge, you do not get free relief. You can play your ball as it lies and you can ground your club on the obstruction. You cannot move any loose impediments. If your ball lies outside the margins of the water hazard and there is interference from any part of the the bridge whether that part is within the water hazard or not, you may take relief under Rule 24-2b.

I don't think you've actually answered the OP's question - though you have provided valuable info on 'relief'.

It seems to me that the Local Rule simply 'clarifies' the borders of the WH - including the entire bridge within it. No different to painting yellow lines around the entire bridge, as opposed to simply vertically up from the natural fall of the land.

There doesn't seem to be anything in The Rules that would prevent this LR from being accepted by the authorities - unlike others I've seen! And it certainly clarifies the status of bridges, which can be a problem area in the likes of Medal comps. So I see it as a pretty sensible LR. I've certainly seen other attempts to clarify the status of bridges as pretty badly done!

 

[Colin L]

I don't think you've actually answered the OP's question - though you have provided valuable info on 'relief'.

It seems to me that the Local Rule simply 'clarifies' the borders of the WH - including the entire bridge within it. No different to painting yellow lines around the entire bridge, as opposed to simply vertically up from the natural fall of the land.

There doesn't seem to be anything in The Rules that would prevent this LR from being accepted by the authorities - unlike others I've seen! And it certainly clarifies the status of bridges, which can be a problem area in the likes of Medal comps. So I see it as a pretty sensible LR. I've certainly seen other attempts to clarify the status of bridges as pretty badly done!

Question:
"Given that some of the bridges extend well beyond those stakes is the entirety of the bridge classed as hazard or only that that falls within the hazard as defined by the stakes?"

Answer:
Only those parts of a bridge which are within the margins of a water hazard are in the hazard.

And there I was thinking, "Simple question; simple answer".

Let me add a question about this "Local Rule". If the water hazard is marked in such a way that some parts of the bridge lie outside its margins, as we were told is the case, how can you have a local rule which contradicts this by saying that those parts of the bridge outside the marked margins of the water hazard are actually in the water hazard? You can't have a local rule that contradicts a Definition, and the definition is clear: "the margin of the hazard is defined by the nearest outside points of the stakes at ground level".

You want the whole of the bridge to lie within the water hazard? Then position your yellow stakes accordingly and forget anything about local rules.

 

[rulefan]

Both of these are correct and are at the discretion of the Club.

 

[atticusfinch]

Both of these are correct and are at the discretion of the Club.


View attachment 24513

Both markings are correct, but it sounds like the LR is changing the margins in example "B" without actually changing the markings. Does that meet the "clearly marked" standard?

 

[rulefan]

Both markings are correct, but it sounds like the LR is changing the margins in example "B" without actually changing the markings. Does that meet the "clearly marked" standard?

I'm not sue what you mean but the yellow lines defining the hazard will be on the ground. What do you believe the LR says?

 

[Colin L]

Both markings are correct, but it sounds like the LR is changing the margins in example "B" without actually changing the markings. Does that meet the "clearly marked" standard?

I got the impression that the idea was that despite the water hazard being marked in such a way that parts of the bridge would not be in the hazard there was to be a "local rule" stating that the whole of the bridge was in the hazard, which is neither legitimate nor necessary. As I said, and Rulefan illustrated, if you want to incorporate a bridge wholly within a water hazard, you just enclose it within the stakes/line.

 

[atticusfinch]

I'm not sue what you mean but the yellow lines defining the hazard will be on the ground. What do you believe the LR says?

The way I read the OP. the bridge extends beyond the hazard markings but the LR says: We have been informed of a new local rule that classes all of the bridge as hazard.


I read this to say: even the part of the bridge that is not within the margin of the hazard is in the hazard.

 

[oltimer]

The way I read the OP. the bridge extends beyond the hazard markings but the LR says: We have been informed of a new local rule that classes all of the bridge as hazard.


I read this to say: even the part of the bridge that is not within the margin of the hazard is in the hazard.

Seems a bit silly to change a perfectly good rule, no relief from an immoveable obstruction in a water hazard, serves you right for being in there, but those laying up could now be being penalised by having no free relief from an immoveable obstruction not actually in the hazard that is interfering with their next shot

 

[rulefan]

Seems a bit silly to change a perfectly good rule, no relief from an immoveable obstruction in a water hazard, serves you right for being in there, but those laying up could now be being penalised by having no free relief from an immoveable obstruction not actually in the hazard that is interfering with their next shot

How many players will understand that they will get relief from one part of the bridge surface but not from a part 6" away.

But there is no easy solution. It depends on the exact situation on the course.

 

[jusme]

I got the impression that the idea was that despite the water hazard being marked in such a way that parts of the bridge would not be in the hazard there was to be a "local rule" stating that the whole of the bridge was in the hazard, which is neither legitimate nor necessary. As I said, and Rulefan illustrated, if you want to incorporate a bridge wholly within a water hazard, you just enclose it within the stakes/line.

This is exactly correct (thanks) and my problem with the local rule. Is it legitimate, given how the hazard is marked. Apologies for not imputing into my own thread earlier - been away. If it were picture A then it is clearly marked - no argument and the same with picture B as it defines what part of the bridge is in the hazard. My club is confusing people, or at least me.

Exactly like picture B, but with no line highlighted across the bridge, therefore leaving me only to conclude that the stakes define the outer margin. That leaves part of the bridge out of the hazard, yet the local rule is stating all of the bridge is to be hazard.

I guess simply can they legitimately do this without changing the markers or painting a line around the bridge?

 

[rulie]

This is exactly correct (thanks) and my problem with the local rule. Is it legitimate, given how the hazard is marked. Apologies for not imputing into my own thread earlier - been away. If it were picture A then it is clearly marked - no argument and the same with picture B as it defines what part of the bridge is in the hazard. My club is confusing people, or at least me.

Exactly like picture B, but with no line highlighted across the bridge, therefore leaving me only to conclude that the stakes define the outer margin. That leaves part of the bridge out of the hazard, yet the local rule is stating all of the bridge is to be hazard.

I guess simply can they legitimately do this without changing the markers or painting a line around the bridge?

They're just being lazy by trying to use a local rule. Go out and mark it the way they want it done. It's just that easy!

 

[Colin L]

This is exactly correct (thanks) and my problem with the local rule. Is it legitimate, given how the hazard is marked. Apologies for not imputing into my own thread earlier - been away. If it were picture A then it is clearly marked - no argument and the same with picture B as it defines what part of the bridge is in the hazard. My club is confusing people, or at least me.

Exactly like picture B, but with no line highlighted across the bridge, therefore leaving me only to conclude that the stakes define the outer margin. That leaves part of the bridge out of the hazard, yet the local rule is stating all of the bridge is to be hazard.

I guess simply can they legitimately do this without changing the markers or painting a line around the bridge?

No, they can't. Such a local rule cannot be legitimate. The Definition very clearly states how a water hazard is defined either by yellow stakes or a yellow line and what determines if your ball is in the water hazard. You cannot have a local rule which contradicts a Rule of Golf which this one would do by saying that even if your ball lies outside the water hazard according to the markings it is actually in the water hazard because it is on a part of the bridge. It's nonsense and so unnecessary.

 

[backwoodsman]

Seems to me that, regardless of the legitimacy or otherwise of the intended LR, an attempt to introduce it would only serve to create confusion around what is part of the bridge and what isnt?

For instance, take the situation in photos that Rulefan posted. Forget the markings for a moment - and then ask oneself how much of that paved surface is actually "part of the bridge", and how much is not? All of it? Or just the bit that is actually above the "water"? Somewhere between perhaps? (Our course has a similar thing but where the paved surface extends a bit further away from the "bridge structure") . Without clear markings like in Rulefan's photos, how can you determine whether something is part of the bridge (and therefore "in") or is just "a path" (and therefore "out").

OP. Just tell 'em to forget the local rule, and to mark it properly. With proper markings, in's in and out's out. End of.

 

[jusme]

No, they can't. Such a local rule cannot be legitimate. The Definition very clearly states how a water hazard is defined either by yellow stakes or a yellow line and what determines if your ball is in the water hazard. You cannot have a local rule which contradicts a Rule of Golf which this one would do by saying that even if your ball lies outside the water hazard according to the markings it is actually in the water hazard because it is on a part of the bridge. It's nonsense and so unnecessary.

I agree, its how I read it, but they will continue despite my protests. When do clubs ever listen to the odd member

 

[rulie]

I agree, its how I read it, but they will continue despite my protests. When do clubs ever listen to the odd member

Or abide by all the Rules?

 

[oltimer]

I agree, its how I read it, but they will continue despite my protests. When do clubs ever listen to the odd member

Maybe if you tell them not playing to the Rules renders all such Comps non-qualifying !

 

[Hosel Fade]

How hard is it to cut two 2m of 5cm square timber into four pieces for the sake of avoiding argument and some yellow paint? Literally 20 minutes of actual work including placing the things and they wonder why no one wants to be on the committees.

 

[rulie]

How hard is it to cut two 2m of 5cm square timber into four pieces for the sake of avoiding argument and some yellow paint? Literally 20 minutes of actual work including placing the things and they wonder why no one wants to be on the committees.

Or wants to be on committees but do nothing.