Lateral ditches/Penalty Areas

[backwoodsman]

Some of our fairways have lateral ditches running along their length. Marked as red penalty areas by red stakes - with no other markings. Occasionally, there are crossing points for tractors, mowers, machinery etc? (A long way round otherwise). The crossing points are not actual bridges - the ditch is filled, and grassed, level with either side. The two sections of ditch are connected by underground pipe. The attached image shows the layout on the ground.

In the absence of me providing any other information, is a ball lying on the crossing point inside, or outside the penalty area? And if a ball goes in the ditch and then into & half way through the connecting pipe, is that in or outside the PA?

 

[HampshireHog]

I’d say the crossing is in the general area, unless a local rule defines it as otherwise.

 

[backwoodsman]

Suppose I should have added to my original post.... 'And why do you think so'.

 

[rulie]

It is up to the Committee in charge to determine and communicate whether there are two separate penalty areas or one continuous penalty area.

 

[jim8flog]

As per Rulie.

Have you actually read the local rules, assuming there is a local rules book. I know where where I play we only publish extracts of the local rules on the card and not the full local rules (mainly because there are things a player should be aware of before commencing play).

However

Interpretation

17.1a/1 – Ball Is in Penalty Area Even if Penalty Area Is Improperly Marked

If stakes defining a body of water as a penalty area are improperly located, a player is not allowed to take advantage of such an error by the Committee.

For example, a ball is found in an expanse of water that, because of the configuration of the ground, is clearly part of the penalty area but is outside the stakes and, thus, technically outside the penalty areaPenalty Area: An area from which relief with a one-stroke penalty is allowed if the player’s ball comes to rest there.(...Continued). The player may not claim that the ball at rest in the water is in temporary water since a penalty area includes any body of water on the course, whether or not marked by the Committee (see definition of “penalty area”).

It is slightly irrelevant given you example. The ball would probably be unplayable so taking unplayable relief assuming you can go 2 club lengths to the side cost one stroke.
Dropping out of the penalty area - cost one stroke.

 

[Foxholer]

If the 'bridge' wasn't in the penalty area, I'd expect that to be signified by red posts at the junction and a red post halfway across the bridge - on each side.
I would also be sensible to 'publish' the actual definitions of the areas on the back of the card.

 

[Bratty]

If the 'bridge' wasn't in the penalty area, I'd expect that to be signified by red posts at he junction and a red post halfway across the bridge - on each side.
I would also be sensible to 'publish' the actual definitions of the areas on the back of the card.

That's what I was thinking. Essentially, the red posts as they are delineate a straight line either side of the ditch meaning whatever is between them is considered "inside the hazard", surely?

 

[Steven Rules]

That's what I was thinking. Essentially, the red posts as they are delineate a straight line either side of the ditch meaning whatever is between them is considered "inside the hazard", surely?

If the red posts are on the four 'corners' of the bridge - as depicted in the diagram - there is a lot of room for ambiguity.

If the bridge is intended to be in the penalty area - either move those corner posts several yards back from the exact corners, or else place another red mark, disc or line on the ground at the mid-point of the entrance to the bridge to clearly show the intent of where the line is meant to be.

If the bridge is NOT intended to be in the penalty area - place another red post on each side of the bridge half way accross it (as Foxholer has also said).

Either way, you should approach the Committee and suggest that they improve the marking in order to remove the ambiguity.

 

[Backsticks]

As marked, without stakes half way across on both sides to close the boundary, the bridges are penalty area.

 

[salfordlad]

Your first question - what is the status of the land bridge - is a simple question of fact that the Committee is responsible for. It appears to me from your nice diagram that it is probably intended to be general area but I would want to clarify precisely what the Committee mean.

Your second question - what about the ball that is stuck in those underground pipes - depends on the answer to the first question. If it is PA, you will need to take PA relief. If it is general area, the answer depends on whether you can actually identify your ball. If you can identify it, even if you cannot retrieve it, you get free relief under rule 16 with NPCR being directly above the location of the ball and the usual relief area measurement process. If you cannot identify it, even if you can see A ball, the ball is considered to be in the PA at the entrance to the pipe on the side that it entered and you must take penalty area relief.

This answer is an official ruling from the R&A, it is not in the Official Guide.

 

[backwoodsman]

Thanks all. The responses seem to confirm my thinking - ie everyone (at my place that is) seems to believe that the crossing points are not intended to be in the PA, but the more logical assumption is that the red stakes simply indicate two straight lines, one either side of the drainage ditch, and therefore the crossing points are inside the PA. In reality, in the absence of additional information, no-one knows for sure. I've sought clarification from the club - and depending on the answer, will be suggesting the 'third stake at the ends' solution.

On the presumption that the crossing points are not in the PA, thanks (Salfordlad) for confirming that 'general area relief' would be available for an identified ball stuck halfway through the pipe.

 

[Old Colner]

In my opinion the fact that the posts are placed on the corners is deliberate, to define the corners and then the crossing points become in the general area, I have seen similar in the past but there has been a red line on the ground defining the penalty area.

 

[Steven Rules]

As marked, without stakes half way across on both sides to close the boundary, the bridges are penalty area.

In my opinion the fact that the posts are placed on the corners is deliberate, to define the corners and then the crossing points become in the general area....

I think we have established that it is unclear. Opinion has no value in this situation.

As salfordlad and others have said - the Committee needs to clarify its intent.

 

[Old Colner]

I think we have established that it is unclear. Opinion has no value in this situation.

As salfordlad and others have said - the Committee needs to clarify its intent.

I fully understand what you are saying and the committee need to get the red spay out but I was giving my thoughts as if I came upon the situation during a round, we are not able to call upon rules officials we have to make a decision on what is in front of us and proceed with the round, getting confirmation from afterwards.

 

[Steven Rules]

If it is general area..... If you cannot identify it, even if you can see A ball, the ball is considered to be in the PA at the entrance to the pipe on the side that it entered and you must take penalty area relief.

This answer is an official ruling from the R&A, it is not in the Official Guide.

One knows that R&A rulings are final and 'always right' but this is......interesting.

One has also learned that the reasoning behind these R&A rulings is often opaque.

If the ball cannot be identified it is 'lost'. No problem.

If the ball might be lost in either a penalty area or an adjacent abnormal course condition it is deemed to be in the penalty area. Again, no problem. This is not inconsistent with Interpretation 17.1a/2.

The bit that I am struggling with is that they are saying the ball is considered to be in the penalty area at the entrance to the pipe on the side that it entered. This language - this assumed ball position where it crossed into the pipe (i.e. where it crossed into the abnormal course condition in the general area) - is very similar to the language used for the assumed ball position when the ball is known or virtually certain to be lost in an abnormal course condition. (Rule 16.1e)

My key question - in spite of my acknowledgement above that there is no point questioning R&A rulings - is why would the R&A deem the ball position to be at the entrance to the tunnel (i.e. where A ball MAY have exited the penalty area into the general area) rather than simply say something like 'the ball is considered to be in the penalty area and the player may take penalty relief under Rule 17.1d or 17.2.'

What is the purpose of assuming the ball position at the entrance to the pipe rather than just referring to 'normal' penalty area reference points, which are based around where the ball entered the penalty area not where the ball may have exited the penalty area?

 

[salfordlad]

One knows that R&A rulings are final and 'always right' but this is......interesting.

One has also learned that the reasoning behind these R&A rulings is often opaque.

If the ball cannot be identified it is 'lost'. No problem.

If the ball might be lost in either a penalty area or an adjacent abnormal course condition it is deemed to be in the penalty area. Again, no problem. This is not inconsistent with Interpretation 17.1a/2.

The bit that I am struggling with is that they are saying the ball is considered to be in the penalty area at the entrance to the pipe on the side that it entered. This language - this assumed ball position where it crossed into the pipe (i.e. where it crossed into the abnormal course condition in the general area) - is very similar to the language used for the assumed ball position when the ball is known or virtually certain to be lost in an abnormal course condition. (Rule 16.1e)

My key question - in spite of my acknowledgement above that there is no point questioning R&A rulings - is why would the R&A deem the ball position to be at the entrance to the tunnel (i.e. where A ball MAY have exited the penalty area into the general area) rather than simply say something like 'the ball is considered to be in the penalty area and the player may take penalty relief under Rule 17.1d or 17.2.'

What is the purpose of assuming the ball position at the entrance to the pipe rather than just referring to 'normal' penalty area reference points, which are based around where the ball entered the penalty area not where the ball may have exited the penalty area?

First, if it makes you feel any better, the question also went to the USGA, also early in 2019, and they answered in the same way.
To me, this is broadly consistent with ball lost in ACC, player gets a reference point of point of crossing into the ACC. Here, they are saying the lost ball is deemed at that point where the ball crossed into the ACC inside the PA - but the player must go on to take regular PA penalty relief. Perhaps you may prefer the old wording - see the middle para of the answer to old D24-3b/1. But the 2019 shortening process resulted in this PA/underground pipe situation being left out of the new rules - even though 16.1b/1 covers a bunch of other ACC/underground pipe scenarios. 16.1a(3)/3 also covers some similar ground.
I conclude life is simpler if the ball is kept above the ground, except when holing out.

 

[Steven Rules]

First, if it makes you feel any better, the question also went to the USGA, also early in 2019, and they answered in the same way.
To me, this is broadly consistent with ball lost in ACC, player gets a reference point of point of crossing into the ACC. Here, they are saying the lost ball is deemed at that point where the ball crossed into the ACC inside the PA - but the player must go on to take regular PA penalty relief. Perhaps you may prefer the old wording - see the middle para of the answer to old D24-3b/1. But the 2019 shortening process resulted in this PA/underground pipe situation being left out of the new rules - even though 16.1b/1 covers a bunch of other ACC/underground pipe scenarios. 16.1a(3)/3 also covers some similar ground.
I conclude life is simpler if the ball is kept above the ground, except when holing out.

Many thanks. Looking at that old Decision and following through the cross-references that flow therefrom provides me comfort that my confusion was not unfounded.

As you say, the middle bit of Decision 24-3b/1 is more or less equivalent to our situation here. The previous para to that - slightly different context - refers appropriately to the entrance to the pipe. Then the middle para follows, and basically just says - without any reference to the entrance to the pipe - proceed under the water hazard rule - which is what I suggested.

Old Rule 24-3b provides the reference to the spot at the entrance to the pipe but Rule 24-3b(iii), which specifically covers our scenario of the pipe entrance being in a water hazard, doesn't refer to or rely on this spot at the entrance to the tunnel. It just says to proceed under the water hazard rule.

I am quite happy with the the way those old Decisions are contextualised, laid out and worded. And - whether I am right about it or not - I am going to adopt the view that the R&A slightly mangled its attempt to convert the old Rules/Decisions into the ruling that you brought to our attention.

And I agree - it is far simpler if the ball is on the ground rather than in trees, pipes, tunnels or animal holes.

 

[salfordlad]

I am quite happy with the the way those old Decisions are contextualised, laid out and worded. And - whether I am right about it or not - I am going to adopt the view that the R&A slightly mangled its attempt to convert the old Rules/Decisions into the ruling that you brought to our attention.

I have no issues with such a view. I think of it as there are surplus words in that ruling that are unnecessary.

Here is a quirky but true summary: if you are going to lose your ball (KVC) underground in an ACC (eg pipe) under the general area, it is a free drop if the ball enters that ACC from the general area, a bunker, out of bounds or a putting green but must be penalty relief if you enter that ACC in a penalty area.

 

[Steven Rules]

I have no issues with such a view. I think of it as there are surplus words in that ruling that are unnecessary.

Here is a quirky but true summary: if you are going to lose your ball (KVC) underground in an ACC (eg pipe) under the general area, it is a free drop if the ball enters that ACC from the general area, a bunker, out of bounds or a putting green but must be penalty relief if you enter that ACC in a penalty area.

Yes. A few surplus, unnecessary words. I'm very happy with your summary. Thanks.

 

[rulefan]

As an aside. The replacement of the old Water Hazard definition has changed the situation re 'bridges' crossing the hazards. The the words 'open water course' were very significant when considering large diameter concrete pipes connecting sections of a ditch or stream.