Sprinkler Head Near / In Penalty Area - World Match Play Rulings

[mikejohnchapman]

I was watching the coverage of the WGC World Matchplay last night and couldn't understand what happened when 2 players appeared to have different rulings relating to their ball ending up on a sprinkler head by the side of the green very close to the penalty area. Thomas Pieters appeared to be told he had to play it as it lay yet a few minutes later Bryson Dechambeau was given a free drop from the same sprinkler head.

The commentators were bemused but I wondered if any explanation was given after I turned off

 

[WGCRider]

Yes - they said that they got it wrong for Pieters. The ruling was correct but the line had been painted incorrectly. They came out with a can of green paint and adjusted the red line so the spinkler head wasn't covered by it.

 

[IanG]

After these rulings I was wondering whether the best course setup would have put the red line in front of the sprinkler making it clear that no relief would be available. After all in most cases getting stuck in the sprinkler head has artificially prevented the ball from rolling into the water. So one could argue that overall equity is best served by not granting free relief.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

Yes - they said that they got it wrong for Pieters. The ruling was correct but the line had been painted incorrectly. They came out with a can of green paint and adjusted the red line so the spinkler head wasn't covered by it.

ok - I presume it was a different rules official for each player? In which case I'm a bit surprised Pieters didn't ask for a second opinion as they do fairly often nowadays.

 

[rulie]

The first ruling was not an error - it was correct according to the Rules - there is no free relief from an immovable obstruction (eg, sprinkler head, cart path) when the ball is in a penalty area. A ball is in a penalty area when any part of the ball touches the penalty area. The red line marking the edge of a penalty area is part of the penalty area. Since the ball was touching part the red line, it was in the penalty area, hence no free relief from the sprinkler head.
There was an error made in painting the line defining the edge of the penalty area too close to the sprinkler head, such that a ball could be touching both.
Since it was match play, it only impacted that one match and the Committee could correct their marking error between matches.

 

[rulie]

Here's photo similar to what happened at the Dell. The line is the edge of a penalty area that is above the line/sprinkler head. There would be no free relief from the sprinkler head because the ball is in a penalty area.

 

[KenL]

Here's photo similar to what happened at the Dell. The line is the edge of a penalty area that is above the line/sprinkler head. There would be no free relief from the sprinkler head because the ball is in a penalty area.View attachment 41946

That is wrong, not the decision but how they painted the line.

 

[KenL]

Just seen on Sky that they have moved the line.

 

[rulefan]

One of the Officials blamed the strong wind blowing at the time the line was being sprayed.

 

[IanMcC]

The first ruling was not an error - it was correct according to the Rules - there is no free relief from an immovable obstruction (eg, sprinkler head, cart path) when the ball is in a penalty area. A ball is in a penalty area when any part of the ball touches the penalty area. The red line marking the edge of a penalty area is part of the penalty area. Since the ball was touching part the red line, it was in the penalty area, hence no free relief from the sprinkler head.
There was an error made in painting the line defining the edge of the penalty area too close to the sprinkler head, such that a ball could be touching both.
Since it was match play, it only impacted that one match and the Committee could correct their marking error between matches.

I believe this is correct after referring to the rules, and indeed thought so at the time. It does not explain why Dechambeau got relief, though. I surmise that 2 referees interpreted the rules differently, then after the Dechambeau match went through, the head ref painted the offending line green to stop it happening again.
Maybe all the non Americans in the field were past that point by then.............

 

[salfordlad]

Here's the explanation from the USGA.

Please see the below explanation given including some of the PGA Tour's Gary Young's comments posted at pgatour.com:
DeChambeau was granted free relief from a sprinkler head on the drivable par-4 13th hole at Austin Country Club, despite the fact Belgium’s Thomas Pieters was denied it in the same circumstances earlier in the day.
The issue reared up thanks to some unfortunate wind gusts during course set up that saw the red hazard [penalty area] line paint find its way onto the edge of the sprinkler head, effectively making an area that should be outside a penalty area, inside it.
When Pieters found himself resting on top of the sprinkler but up against red painted grass in his match against Tom Hoge, he was denied permission to move his ball. While technically a correct call by the official, it was not how the course was intended to play. As a result the incident prompted the rules committee to deliberate quickly and a decision was made to amend the hazard [penalty area] line.
But before they could change the paint, DeChambeau’s match reached the 13th hole and he chipped his second shot into the same place. After discussion with officials DeChambeau was afforded relief, tied the hole, and officials repainted as they left the green.
“Two wrongs don't make a right. To make the correction before Bryson's match got there was important,” Chief Referee Gary Young explained.
“There was nothing we could do to fix the Thomas Pieters situation. It was over with. But just to get it [the paint line] right was important. The decision had already been made prior to his ball getting there. We had discussed it. We were in the process of getting the paint to the location, and the call came from the official.”
Had this been a stroke play event the change would not have been able to have been made but as DeChambeau’s ruling had no effect on Pieters’ match, or any others on the course, the adjustment could be made.

 

[rulie]

I believe this is correct after referring to the rules, and indeed thought so at the time. It does not explain why Dechambeau got relief, though. I surmise that 2 referees interpreted the rules differently, then after the Dechambeau match went through, the head ref painted the offending line green to stop it happening again.
Maybe all the non Americans in the field were past that point by then.............

Are you suggesting a conspiracy theory? Such theories are not part of the Rules of golf nor their application, and, as a referee, I find your post insulting.

 

[IanMcC]

Are you suggesting a conspiracy theory? Such theories are not part of the Rules of golf nor their application, and, as a referee, I find your post insulting.

Maybe you should check the meaning of that yellow round thing at the end of my post.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

Here's the explanation from the USGA.

Please see the below explanation given including some of the PGA Tour's Gary Young's comments posted at pgatour.com:
DeChambeau was granted free relief from a sprinkler head on the drivable par-4 13th hole at Austin Country Club, despite the fact Belgium’s Thomas Pieters was denied it in the same circumstances earlier in the day.
The issue reared up thanks to some unfortunate wind gusts during course set up that saw the red hazard [penalty area] line paint find its way onto the edge of the sprinkler head, effectively making an area that should be outside a penalty area, inside it.
When Pieters found himself resting on top of the sprinkler but up against red painted grass in his match against Tom Hoge, he was denied permission to move his ball. While technically a correct call by the official, it was not how the course was intended to play. As a result the incident prompted the rules committee to deliberate quickly and a decision was made to amend the hazard [penalty area] line.
But before they could change the paint, DeChambeau’s match reached the 13th hole and he chipped his second shot into the same place. After discussion with officials DeChambeau was afforded relief, tied the hole, and officials repainted as they left the green.
“Two wrongs don't make a right. To make the correction before Bryson's match got there was important,” Chief Referee Gary Young explained.
“There was nothing we could do to fix the Thomas Pieters situation. It was over with. But just to get it [the paint line] right was important. The decision had already been made prior to his ball getting there. We had discussed it. We were in the process of getting the paint to the location, and the call came from the official.”
Had this been a stroke play event the change would not have been able to have been made but as DeChambeau’s ruling had no effect on Pieters’ match, or any others on the course, the adjustment could be made.

Fair enough I guess - seems like a genuine mistake, Thank goodness it was matchplay and that Pieters went on to win. Can't say I was overly impressed with his footballing skills afterwards! At least the wedge didn't end up in the lake.

 

[IanMcC]

I have some issues with the statement from Gary Young.

1. If it was a 'wind issue', why are all of the red penalty area boundary lines very straight, even at the offending sprinkler head.
2. There were 7 matches on course between Pieters' & Dechambeau's. That's a conservative estimate of 70 minutes to find a tin of green paint.
3. His statement about 2 wrongs not making a right is a bit of a smokescreen. Before the red line is removed from the sprinkler, the right decision is 'no relief'. Nothing in the rules about ignoring boundary lines because you think its wrong.
4. Dechambeau will no doubt try to use this in future events, where there is a possibility in his head that the line is drawn wrongly. This is a a guy who recently wanted relief from ants, remember.

Referees, and indeed groundstaff with red paint, are not infallible. Mistakes can be made. I would have thought more of Gary Young if he had just admitted that the red line was a genuine error, and that the ref in the Dechambeau situation made a mistake.
It reminds me a little of a football manager, who never ever sees any of his team do anything wrong.

 

[salfordlad]

I have some issues with the statement from Gary Young.

1. If it was a 'wind issue', why are all of the red penalty area boundary lines very straight, even at the offending sprinkler head.
2. There were 7 matches on course between Pieters' & Dechambeau's. That's a conservative estimate of 70 minutes to find a tin of green paint.
3. His statement about 2 wrongs not making a right is a bit of a smokescreen. Before the red line is removed from the sprinkler, the right decision is 'no relief'. Nothing in the rules about ignoring boundary lines because you think its wrong.
4. Dechambeau will no doubt try to use this in future events, where there is a possibility in his head that the line is drawn wrongly. This is a a guy who recently wanted relief from ants, remember.

Referees, and indeed groundstaff with red paint, are not infallible. Mistakes can be made. I would have thought more of Gary Young if he had just admitted that the red line was a genuine error, and that the ref in the Dechambeau situation made a mistake.
It reminds me a little of a football manager, who never ever sees any of his team do anything wrong.

I read the statement and broader media engagement as a clear acknowledgement that they got the course marking wrong in this location but agree the wind reference is rather lame. IMO, the ref in the Bryson case made no mistake and cleared his lines appropriately at the highest level of this tournament's administration. The fact that such a discussion as this is so rare says a lot about the quality of the course marking 99.99 per cent of the time. At the more mundane levels of officiating for more 'normal' golf, it is not that unusual to see course marking errors and some Hard Cards provide direct authority to the referee to correct such errors.

 

[jim8flog]

One of the Officials blamed the strong wind blowing at the time the line was being sprayed.

Was that a touch of the red mist or the red missed?

 

[Foxholer]

I have some issues with the statement from Gary Young.

1. If it was a 'wind issue', why are all of the red penalty area boundary lines very straight, even at the offending sprinkler head.
2. There were 7 matches on course between Pieters' & Dechambeau's. That's a conservative estimate of 70 minutes to find a tin of green paint.
3. His statement about 2 wrongs not making a right is a bit of a smokescreen. Before the red line is removed from the sprinkler, the right decision is 'no relief'. Nothing in the rules about ignoring boundary lines because you think its wrong.
4. Dechambeau will no doubt try to use this in future events, where there is a possibility in his head that the line is drawn wrongly. This is a a guy who recently wanted relief from ants, remember.

Referees, and indeed groundstaff with red paint, are not infallible. Mistakes can be made. I would have thought more of Gary Young if he had just admitted that the red line was a genuine error, and that the ref in the Dechambeau situation made a mistake.
It reminds me a little of a football manager, who never ever sees any of his team do anything wrong.

I believe a good chunk of that time would have been taken up with admin stuff - finding/gathering appropriate officials, discussing and agreeing that the ruling should thereafter be changed - first. Though the paint could have been requested at the start. I just don't think they expected a repitition of the incident/need for a ruling.
DeChambeau, or any other player, is entitled to ask for a ruling at any time. He had a legitimate claim in that case (about burrowing animal, though properly rejected as not interfering with stance/swing imo) even though the entire reason was actually to get a better lie.

 

[rulefan]

That's a conservative estimate of 70 minutes to find a tin of green paint.

Why would you expect to see a tin of green paint on a golf course?
Incidentally, line marking is usually done with an aerosol spray. One of my jobs as a referee is to check course marking (or absence of) before play starts. I can't ever remember being offered a green spray.

 

[IanMcC]

Why would you expect to see a tin of green paint on a golf course?
Incidentally, line marking is usually done with an aerosol spray. One of my jobs as a referee is to check course marking (or absence of) before play starts. I can't ever remember being offered a green spray.

They could have driven to the Austin branch of B&Q and bought one in that time..........oops, better add a smiley.......