Roads and Paths

[KenL]

Are roads and paths in play at your club?

At mine all roads and paths (and these run right through the course) are in play apart from a small section of path to the pro shop are in play.

This is probably a historical thing but I feel these should not be in play. A lot of the paths are poorly maintained, exposed stones, ruts etc.

Long sections of these paths are adjacent to fairways and greens, so unfair in places.

i do plan to write a letter asking for consideration to be given for this to be changed. Can anyone offer any advice on keep points I should include in my note?

Thanks!

 

[Colin L]

When you say these paths and roads are “in play”, do you mean that they are defined as integral parts of the course in your local rules?
If so, you might want to consider whether there are any safety issues in playing from them and whether you could argue that there is a substantial number of places where there is not a reasonable 2 club length drop if you deem your ball unplayable.

 

[delc]

Are roads and paths in play at your club?

At mine all roads and paths (and these run right through the course) are in play apart from a small section of path to the pro shop are in play.

This is probably a historical thing but I feel these should not be in play. A lot of the paths are poorly maintained, exposed stones, ruts etc.

Long sections of these paths are adjacent to fairways and greens, so unfair in places.

i do plan to write a letter asking for consideration to be given for this to be changed. Can anyone offer any advice on keep points I should include in my note?

Thanks!

The vast majority of courses have local rules allowing relief from roads and paths on the course, so you could quote that as a precedent.

 

[rulefan]

The vast majority of courses have local rules allowing relief from roads and paths on the course, so you could quote that as a precedent.

Those clubs wishing to allow relief don't need a local rule. I local rule is only required if relief is not to be allowed.

I do agree that the majority of clubs do not prohibit relief except for some which have paths which have an historic significance eg existed before the course was opened (and are not tarmac).

 

[Colin L]

The vast majority of courses have local rules allowing relief from roads and paths on the course, so you could quote that as a precedent.

Don’t be misled by that, Ken. Relief from an artificially surfaced path or road is available through Rule 24-2b, as I’m sure you’ll know. It isn’t a precedent for something different from the norm; it is the norm. And I’m guessing that’s what you want to have your course return to.

I’d hope the vast majority of courses, like mine, do not have unnecessary local rules stating what’s already in the rules cluttering up their score card.

 

[duncan mackie]

The vast majority of courses have local rules allowing relief from roads and paths on the course, so you could quote that as a precedent.

Pretty silly LR though - not a great precedent!

On the other hand the rules of golf give relief from artificially surfaced areas.....

I get the impression from the wording of the original post that some of the areas he's referring to might struggle to meet such a definition, and as such they will probably require marking as areas for relief which adds to the work load and can also cause other issues. The vast majority of courses that have natural paths do not mark them all up and have LRs.

So the question to the OP is "what makes these areas paths and how are they constructed?"

If they are clearly defined and artificially surfaced then his letter should simply ask why the committee feel it's appropriate to define artificial areas as integral to the course?

 

[Fyldewhite]

I notice you are north of the border. I may be wrong but from my experience I've found this to be an almost exclusively Scottish quirk in that a significant number define paths as integral whereas it's very rare in England.

 

[Foxholer]

I notice you are north of the border. I may be wrong but from my experience I've found this to be an almost exclusively Scottish quirk in that a significant number define paths as integral whereas it's very rare in England.

This was my instant thought too! TOC @ St Andrews has a LR that roads are an integral part of the course, so no relief. The Road Hole (and maybe the 18th with Granny Clark's wynd) wouldn't be the same without the LR!

 

[rulefan]

Ancient bridleways or medieval paths are often designated as integral, usually because the margins are impossible to define. But IMO all new(ish) paths with a modern surface should not. Similar to ancient crofters huts or historic drystone walls. I seem to remember a few walls at North Berwick.

 

[delc]

Don’t be misled by that, Ken. Relief from an artificially surfaced path or road is available through Rule 24-2b, as I’m sure you’ll know. It isn’t a precedent for something different from the norm; it is the norm. And I’m guessing that’s what you want to have your course return to.

I’d hope the vast majority of courses, like mine, do not have unnecessary local rules stating what’s already in the rules cluttering up their score card.

There is a note on the back of our club's scorecard stating that all artificially surfaced paths, man made bridges and circular distance markers are immovable obstructions as per rule 24-2.

 

[Colin L]

There is a note on the back of our club's scorecard stating that all artificially surfaced paths, man made bridges and circular distance markers are immovable obstructions as per rule 24-2.

And as I said, it is entirely unnecessary to have a local rule or note stating what is already clearly stated in the Rules. Distance markers might be different, but mentioning that artificially surfaced paths and and man made bridges are immovable obstructions is redundant.

A couple of fussy points.

If bridges must be mentioned, why are they labelled man-made? What kind of natural ones are on your course that might be confused with a man-made one?

The items described are not immovable obstructions “as per rule 24-2”. They are obstructions as per the Definition.

 

[delc]

And as I said, it is entirely unnecessary to have a local rule or note stating what is already clearly stated in the Rules. Distance markers might be different, but mentioning that artificially surfaced paths and and man made bridges are immovable obstructions is redundant.

A couple of fussy points.

If bridges must be mentioned, why are they labelled man-made? What kind of natural ones are on your course that might be confused with a man-made one?

The items described are not immovable obstructions “as per rule 24-2”. They are obstructions as per the Definition.

The scorecard also states that 'Stones in bunkers are Movable Onstructions - Rule 24-1 applies'. Just clarifies the position for non-rules experts!

 

[Foxholer]

The scorecard also states that 'Stones in bunkers are Movable Onstructions - Rule 24-1 applies'. Just clarifies the position for non-rules experts!

If that is to apply, then it MUST be an LR.

But as Colin posted, the others are not required, as The Rules cover them. I have certainly seen them on many cards for 'clarification' though

 

[delc]

If that is to apply, then it MUST be an LR.

But as Colin posted, the others are not required, as The Rules cover them. I have certainly seen them on many cards for 'clarification' though

There is also quite a long spiel about fixed sprinkler heads being Immovable Obstructions, and what relief is available from them!

 

[Deleted member 15344]

There is also quite a long spiel about fixed sprinkler heads being Immovable Obstructions, and what relief is available from them!

Just how big is your scorecard ?! Does it have the full rule book on it

I have a feeling that maybe it's because someone at the club constantly asks rule questions

 

[rulefan]

There is also quite a long spiel about fixed sprinkler heads being Immovable Obstructions, and what relief is available from them!

This is the sort of thing that leads people to misunderstand the rules. If the don't see something on the card, they believe there is no rule in place.

When starting at Open Days, I will often be asked 'is there relief from paths?'

 

[delc]

And as I said, it is entirely unnecessary to have a local rule or note stating what is already clearly stated in the Rules. Distance markers might be different, but mentioning that artificially surfaced paths and and man made bridges are immovable obstructions is redundant.

A couple of fussy points.

If bridges must be mentioned, why are they labelled man-made? What kind of natural ones are on your course that might be confused with a man-made one?

The items described are not immovable obstructions “as per rule 24-2”. They are obstructions as per the Definition.

I have just checked my rules book and Rule 24-1 refers to Movable Obstructions, and Rule 24-2 refers to Immovable Obstructions!

 

[KenL]

Many thanks to all who replied. I am glad that most agree that paths should no need to be in play.

The paths are hardcore with a nasty sharp black gravel on the surface. That is until it washes away.

We even have parts of pathway with that rubber stuff with holes in that is in play.

 

[rulefan]

I have just checked my rules book and Rule 24-1 refers to Movable Obstructions, and Rule 24-2 refers to Immovable Obstructions!

Rule 24-2 only refers to them. To know what they are, you need the definition.

 

[delc]

Rule 24-2 only refers to them. To know what they are, you need the definition.

The definition of 'Obstruction' goes into some detail as to what is a movable or immovable obstruction!