Immoveable Obstruction

[Tartantoon]

Yesterday I hit one of my best drives and found that my ball had stopped twelve inches from a stone footbridge over a burn (a lucky break that I didn't go into the burn). I was short of the penalty area but my swing follow through would have resulted in my club hitting the wall of the bridge. There is a local rule that says if the ball comes to rest on the bridge then free relief is available. However, as I wasn't on the bridge and wasn't in the penalty area I thought I had to play it as it lies so I putted it over the bridge and played from there. My playing partner thought that I should get free relief as my swing was impeded by the bridge wall. Could someone tell me the correct ruling please?

 

[rulie]

You were entitled to free relief from the immovable obstruction under Rule 16.1b because your ball was in the general area and the immovable obstruction interfered with your swing.
The Local Rule seems odd and is probably not authorized under the Rules of golf.

 

[rulefan]

An Immovable Obstruction is now classified as an Abnormal Course Condition. Your Local Rule would seem to be unauthorised. Competitions played with the rule in force would not count as CONGU qualifiers. Your committee needs to be informed.

This Rule covers free relief that is allowed from interference by animal holes, ground under repair, immovable obstructions or temporary water:
16.1a(2) Relief Allowed Anywhere on Course Except When Ball Is in Penalty Area.
Relief from interference by an abnormal course condition is allowed under Rule 16.1 only when both:

• The abnormal course condition is on the course (not out of bounds), and
• The ball is anywhere on the course, except in a penalty area (where the player’s only relief is under Rule 17).

 

[Deleted member 16999]

What if the bridge is classified as integral to the course?

 

[Tartantoon]

Thanks for the replies, they make interesting reading. Re the question from pauldj42 about the bridge being classified as integral to the course, how would that be decided and communicated? Would that have to be a local rule?

 

[duncan mackie]

Thanks for the replies, they make interesting reading. Re the question from pauldj42 about the bridge being classified as integral to the course, how would that be decided and communicated? Would that have to be a local rule?

Yes it would have to be a local rule.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Thanks for the replies, they make interesting reading. Re the question from pauldj42 about the bridge being classified as integral to the course, how would that be decided and communicated? Would that have to be a local rule?

The guys on here are great and when my Club was updating the rules prior to 01 Jan, I contacted Colin as we had something similar on our Course as you describe.

LOCAL RULES

3. Obstructions (Rule 24)

(d) All paths with artificial surfaces, seats, bells and winter tee platforms are immovable obstructions (Rule 24-2 applies)

(e) Bridges – All stone, fixed and portable wooden bridges aredefined as integral parts of the course, thereby the ball should be played as it lies. Relief may be taken under penalty, rule 28 refers.

One bridge in questioned was marked as follows:

The yellow stakes followed the ditch line and it meant some of the bridge was outside the relief area extending in to the fairway, therefore with the local rule above you could be on the fairway and get no relief if the bridge obstructed your swing.

Thankfully with Colin’s help it’s all sorted.

The Local rules might be on the reverse of the scorecard.

 

[rulefan]

(e) Bridges – All stone, fixed and portable wooden bridges are defined as integral parts of the course, thereby the ball should be played as it lies. Relief may be taken under penalty, rule 28 refers.

Thankfully with Colin’s help it’s all sorted.

I am a little puzzled by this. If the ball was in the water hazard (as it was then), then Rule 28 (unplayable ball) was simply not available. I would be surprised if those were the words Colin recommended unless the location of the ball was clarified outside the portion you quoted.

28. The player may deem his ball unplayable at any place on the course, except when the ball is in a water hazard.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I am a little puzzled by this. If the ball was in the water hazard (as it was then), then Rule 28 (unplayable ball) was simply not available. I would be surprised if those were the words Colin recommended unless the location of the ball was clarified outside the portion you quoted.

28. The player may deem his ball unplayable at any place on the course, except when the ball is in a water hazard.

They were the old words I knew were wrong, Colin helped me with changing it and getting rid of it.

It was more as I explained, the ball was on the fairway and obstructed by the stone walls of the bridge.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

 

[duncan mackie]

From the image, unless it's integral you get relief from an IO

 

[Deleted member 16999]

From the image, unless it's integral you get relief from an IO

It was integral.

 

[rulefan]

View attachment 26892

It also looks as if it isn't in fact a bridge. I am assuming it is a cylindrical concrete or steel tube/conduit passing under the walkway.

However, that is somewhat irrelevant now as the definition of penalty areas makes no mention of 'open water courses'.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

It also looks as if it isn't in fact a bridge. I am assuming it is a cylindrical concrete or steel tube/conduit passing under the walkway.

However, that is somewhat irrelevant now as the definition of penalty areas make no mention of 'open water courses'.

Cylindrical tube, what would it of been classified as?

 

[rulefan]

Well, it wouldn't have met the definition of a Water Hazard.
As the stakes would (correctly) seem to be defining the margins of the WH to end at each side of the stonework, it would simply be an Immovable Obstruction; unless deemed to be an Integral Part of the Course by local rule. As indeed it was. This of course prevented any free relief.
To be honest, I can't really see why thye deemed it to be an IPC.

If the committee had chosen, they could have marked the WH to include the whole structure.

Nice to see this example of a bridge that isn't. In fact it is showing a picture of two tunnels. Which means it isn't an open water course.
When we inspect courses that have been asked to host a big (county say) event for the first time, we often have to discuss with the club what must/may be in or out of a water hazard. The other problem is the last example you gave, where a water crossing (genuine bridge) extends beyond the width of the ditch and how best to handle the extension on their course. Include or exclude?
I carry a clutch of photos of such animals.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Well, it wouldn't have met the definition of a Water Hazard.
As the stakes would (correctly) seem to be defining the margins of the WH to end at each side of the stonework, it would simply be an Immovable Obstruction; unless deemed to be an Integral Part of the Course by local rule. As indeed it was. This of course prevented any free relief.
To be honest, I can't really see why thye deemed it to be an IPC.

If the committee had chosen, they could have marked the WH to include the whole structure.

That’s were Colin helped, on the revision of the Local Rules it’s no longer a IPC and it is marked as you suggest.

 

[rulefan]

Thanks. My faith in Colin was under some pressure.

 

[rulefan]

The other problem is the last example you gave, where a water crossing (genuine bridge) extends beyond the width of the ditch and how best to handle the extension on their course. Include or exclude?

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Quite happily confirm he was of great help.

Just seen above, I was stumped by the definitions and there was no historical information as to why they chose to make the bridges IPC.
That local ruling was printed on both our summer and winter cards, it was then noted that a copy of the local rules on the notice board outside the changing rooms had them as immovable obstructions and was dated 2012.
Thankfully everything is sorted and all information is the same.

 

[Colin L]

Thanks. My faith in Colin was under some pressure.

And reading through this, I was panicking.