Damage to Course in Bad Weather

[mikejohnchapman]

Like many courses at the moment ours is suffering from the weather. As is normally the case at this time of year the greenstaff have moved to protect the greens and surrounds by roping off the surrounds and directing players around the protected areas.

This inevitably leads to some areas being badly churned up in the general area, especially when the ropes change direction. The ropes and stakes are defined as immovable objects so swing / stance relief is available if they interfere. However, does the local rule F4 which deals with extensive damage due to heavy rain and traffic have to be in place to get any relief from these damage areas?

 

[jim8flog]

I would not recommend a club having temporary stakes and ropes as immovable as there is no line of sight relief which in my opinion is unfair.

My view is that F4 would have to be in place.

 

[CliveW]

Fairway mats!

 

[rulie]

I don't understand F-4. It describes the situation, but ends with, "but only when so declared by an authorized referee or member of the Committee."
What do the referee or Committee member declare or authorize? and to whom? Is it whatever the player decides?

 

[rulefan]

I don't understand F-4. It describes the situation, but ends with, "but only when so declared by an authorized referee or member of the Committee."

1) What do the referee or Committee member declare or authorize? and to whom? 2) Is it whatever the player decides?

1) By specifying and defining the area as GUR by Local Rule
2) No

 

[Steven Rules]

What do the referee or Committee member declare or authorize? and to whom?

By specifying and defining the area as GUR by Local Rule

The premise of F4 is that it is used when it is not feasible to define or mark individual damaged areas as GUR. So if it was possible to mark all the damaged areas as GUR then we wouldn't use, or wouldn't need to use, F-4.

My reading of F-4 is that it requires a case-by-case basis consideration during the round and requires a specific Committee/referee ruling upon request from the player. Therefore probably not applicable or feasible for regular club golf.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

The premise of F4 is that it is used when it is not feasible to define or mark individual damaged areas as GUR. So if it was possible to mark all the damaged areas as GUR then we wouldn't use, or wouldn't need to use, F-4.

My reading of F-4 is that it requires a case-by-case basis consideration during the round and requires a specific Committee/referee ruling upon request from the player. Therefore probably not applicable or feasible for regular club golf.

So if this is the case how do you legislate to give relief from abnormal conditions in a normal club when there are too many to tag on a day to day basis?

 

[rulefan]

The premise of F4 is that it is used when it is not feasible to define or mark individual damaged areas as GUR. So if it was possible to mark all the damaged areas as GUR then we wouldn't use, or wouldn't need to use, F-4.

My reading of F-4 is that it requires a case-by-case basis consideration during the round and requires a specific Committee/referee ruling upon request from the player. Therefore probably not applicable or feasible for regular club golf.

Yes, I now agree. I suggest that in such elite comps a referee or committee would have to be in attendance or available by radio/phone.

 

[rulie]

Yes, I now agree. I suggest that in such elite comps a referee or committee would have to be in attendance or available by radio/phone.

But it doesn’t say that F-4 is only for specific (“elite”) competitions.
I might suggest that F-4 is of little or no use without referees or Committee on site.

 

[backwoodsman]

Question(s)
Group A is on the course with a referee and find player's ball in an undefined 'bad patch'. Referee uses F4 to declare it GUR. Is that ground now GUR for all subsequent groups? And if so, does the referee have to mark it somehow. Or somehow otherwise precisely define it, so that the the other groups know its extent?

 

[Steven Rules]

It is common practice that once a referee grants relief under such circumstances, then either that referee or the tournament director or somebody else will follow up with a can of spray paint (or other marking device) and mark the area as GUR for the benefit of all future groups.

Addendum. It is common practice in elite tournaments without F-4 being in place. I don't think I have ever seen F-4 used.

 

[rulefan]

It is common practice that once a referee grants relief under such circumstances, then either that referee or the tournament director or somebody else will follow up with a can of spray paint (or other marking device) and mark the area as GUR for the benefit of all future groups.

And whilst that is being sorted out, the referee involved (or the TD) will radio all the other referees.

 

[backwoodsman]

Ta both

Personally, from the perspective of club golf, I don't see it as being either particularly practical, or indeed particularly useful. Foot traffic on an ordinary golf course isn't so heavy that this damage 'suddenly' appears overnight. IMO, worn or churned patches can usually be marked in the normal way as they become an issue.

 

[rulie]

It is common practice that once a referee grants relief under such circumstances, then either that referee or the tournament director or somebody else will follow up with a can of spray paint (or other marking device) and mark the area as GUR for the benefit of all future groups.

Addendum. It is coomon practice in elite tournaments without F-4 being in place. I don't think I have ever seen F-4 used.

Referees normally carry a can of white paint with them for such occasions.

 

[rulie]

Ta both

Personally, from the perspective of club golf, I don't see it as being either particularly practical, or indeed particularly useful. Foot traffic on an ordinary golf course isn't so heavy that this damage 'suddenly' appears overnight. IMO, worn or churned patches can usually be marked in the normal way as they become an issue.

Maybe the course is unplayable for competition purposes?

 

[backwoodsman]

Maybe the course is unplayable for competition purposes?

??? Not sure I understand?

 

[rulie]

??? Not sure I understand?

If the course is so wet and subject to such damage, it should be closed.

 

[Tashyboy]

If the course is so wet and subject to such damage, it should be closed.

Totally agree. Ours was closed mon, tues, weds, today it has been brutal. Rained all day. Course is open, just in time for the weekend.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

If the course is so wet and subject to such damage, it should be closed.

Welcome to the joys of playing a resort course.

 

[tobybarker]

Ta both

Personally, from the perspective of club golf, I don't see it as being either particularly practical, or indeed particularly useful. Foot traffic on an ordinary golf course isn't so heavy that this damage 'suddenly' appears overnight. IMO, worn or churned patches can usually be marked in the normal way as they become an issue.

If it's wet, buggy use can churn up the ground. Can't believe you think this isn't common