Temporary Local Rules - Winter ropes and poles

[phils226]

During the winter at my course white ropes and poles are immovable obstructions and relief may be taken under Rule 16.1b. That makes sense but yesterday in a friendly match my opponent's ball deflected off a rope. He stated he could play the shot again arguing it was the same as overhead cables. I was unsure as I thought that was specific to overhead cables only. Also if this was indeed the case, could he have the choice - ie. replay if he didnt lke the outcome but ignire if he did?

 

[salfordlad]

Your opponent was off with the fairies. There is no rule that allows that and no approved local rule that enables such relief from normal course marking stakes and poles. And if the power line model local rule is in place (MLR E-11) it involves compulsory replay, no choice.

 

[rulefan]

Your opponent was off with the fairies. There is no rule that allows that and no approved local rule that enables such relief from normal course marking stakes and poles. And if the power line model local rule is in place (MLR E-11) it involves compulsory replay, no choice.

Last winter I had it confirmed by the R&A that MLR E-11 can be utilized is such circumstances and replay is compulsory. In our case it involved short stakes preventing players taking trolleys near the green. The particular stakes and/or ropes have to be identified in the local rule. It cannot be a blanket rule.

 

[jim8flog]

. The particular stakes and/or ropes have to be identified in the local rule. It cannot be a blanket rule.

The one query I have with this what do they mean by blanket rule? We have such posts on nearly every hole either near the green or near a tee, they can be clearly identified as such as they are white with green tops. Are you saying we cannot simply say any post which is white with a green top etc? (note ours are removable obstructions).

 

[salfordlad]

Last winter I had it confirmed by the R&A that MLR E-11 can be utilized is such circumstances and replay is compulsory. In our case it involved short stakes preventing players taking trolleys near the green. The particular stakes and/or ropes have to be identified in the local rule. It cannot be a blanket rule.

Interesting, I have never come across such a local rule. Can you offer further information on what your words "in such circumstances" means or are you suggesting the R&A is sympathetic to any specifically named stakes, ropes and poles being defined as stroke not to count if a ball contacts them? My sentence "There is no rule that allows that and no approved local rule that enables such relief from normal course marking stakes and poles" is simply what the R&A has published. If you have advice that contradicts or extends what they have published I'm interested to hear detail of any advice they have provided.
The opponent in the OP apparently claimed relief from hitting some ropes as a matter of course. I presume you would agree no such assumption can be made.

 

[rulefan]

Interesting, I have never come across such a local rule. Can you offer further information on what your words "in such circumstances" means or are you suggesting the R&A is sympathetic to any specifically named stakes, ropes and poles being defined as stroke not to count if a ball contacts them? My sentence "There is no rule that allows that and no approved local rule that enables such relief from normal course marking stakes and poles" is simply what the R&A has published. If you have advice that contradicts or extends what they have published I'm interested to hear detail of any advice they have provided.
The opponent in the OP apparently claimed relief from hitting some ropes as a matter of course. I presume you would agree no such assumption can be made.

I agree with you last sentence.
Re the R&A's confirmation.
We have a couple of greens where players are tempted to cut between the green and a nearby bunker with a trolley. This was causing some significant wear and tear during the winter. We temporarily placed some closely spaced short red and white stakes between the bunker and the edge of the green. We had intended to use the LR re obstruction within 2cl etc but realised that some stakes were more than 2cl away. Further, when chipping from short of the green, balls had to negotiate the 'wall' of stakes. Occasionally a ball would be diverted into the adjacent bunker.
The R&A suggested TIOs but we thought that the relief procedure was too complicated without a referee and suggested E-11. The R&A accepted that in this situation that E-11 was a reasonable (I don't think they actually said equitable) solution provided the stakes and their location(s) were clearly identified in the LR.

 

[Old Skier]

Interesting, I have never come across such a local rule. Can you offer further information on what your words "in such circumstances" means or are you suggesting the R&A is sympathetic to any specifically named stakes, ropes and poles being defined as stroke not to count if a ball contacts them? My sentence "There is no rule that allows that and no approved local rule that enables such relief from normal course marking stakes and poles" is simply what the R&A has published. If you have advice that contradicts or extends what they have published I'm interested to hear detail of any advice they have provided.
The opponent in the OP apparently claimed relief from hitting some ropes as a matter of course. I presume you would agree no such assumption can be made.

Quite common on courses with grazing animals on them when many greens are roped off.

 

[rulie]

I agree with you last sentence.
Re the R&A's confirmation.
We have a couple of greens where players are tempted to cut between the green and a nearby bunker with a trolley. This was causing some significant wear and tear during the winter. We temporarily placed some closely spaced short red and white stakes between the bunker and the edge of the green. We had intended to use the LR re obstruction within 2cl etc but realised that some stakes were more than 2cl away. Further, when chipping from short of the green, balls had to negotiate the 'wall' of stakes. Occasionally a ball would be diverted into the adjacent bunker.
The R&A suggested TIOs but we thought that the relief procedure was too complicated without a referee and suggested E-11. The R&A accepted that in this situation that E-11 was a reasonable (I don't think they actually said equitable) solution provided the stakes and their location(s) were clearly identified in the LR.

I would consider the "in such circumstances" specific approval for your situation and course only, and, it does not become a "blanket" authorized local rule for anyone else to use. It certainly does not qualify as a Model Local Rule!! Imo, any course that wanted to employ such a local rule would need to pursue it with their national organization.

 

[rulefan]

Quite common on courses with grazing animals on them when many greens are roped off.

Yes. I believe Beverley and Settle (or Giggleswick) in Yorkshire have electric or wire fences round their greens.

 

[NearHull]

Yes. I believe Beverley and Settle (or Giggleswick) in Yorkshire have electric or wire fences round their greens.

Beverley has wire fences around every green - thankfully not electrified.

Posts and wires help keep the greens in immaculate condition and if a ball is to hit either the post or the wire then rule 3.6 applies

‘If a ball strikes any part of a protective fence around the green of the hole being played, the player may choose to disregard that stroke, either abandon the ball or retrieve it and play a ball at the reference point and the 1 club length relief area from which the original ball was played. ′.​

The post or wires around the green are treated as immovable objects and therefore relief can be taken in accordance with Rule 4b

‘For a ball lying outside the wire for the putting green on the hole being played, relief will always be outside the wire, and for a ball lying inside the wire relief, will often be outside the wire.’​

 

[salfordlad]

I agree with you last sentence.
Re the R&A's confirmation.
We have a couple of greens where players are tempted to cut between the green and a nearby bunker with a trolley. This was causing some significant wear and tear during the winter. We temporarily placed some closely spaced short red and white stakes between the bunker and the edge of the green. We had intended to use the LR re obstruction within 2cl etc but realised that some stakes were more than 2cl away. Further, when chipping from short of the green, balls had to negotiate the 'wall' of stakes. Occasionally a ball would be diverted into the adjacent bunker.
The R&A suggested TIOs but we thought that the relief procedure was too complicated without a referee and suggested E-11. The R&A accepted that in this situation that E-11 was a reasonable (I don't think they actually said equitable) solution provided the stakes and their location(s) were clearly identified in the LR.

Thank you for the explanation. So now you have an outcome where someone that hits from 200m away (or anywhere else) and gets up there to find there has been contact or their ball touching one of these beasts now needs to return and play the stroke again. The "solution" could be worse than the problem for a close to green scenario.

 

[rulefan]

Thank you for the explanation. So now you have an outcome where someone that hits from 200m away (or anywhere else) and gets up there to find there has been contact or their ball touching one of these beasts now needs to return and play the stroke again. The "solution" could be worse than the problem for a close to green scenario.

I suspect that player walking from 200m away would be unlikely to only then realize that his ball had hit a stake. But better than an undeserved diversion into a poor lie into a bunker IMO.
However, It seems that Beverley has managed to cope for many years (albeit the 'unapproved' option). I have since found that they recognise that and the county do a Nelson. I guess the R&A are ignorant of the matter.

 

[Colin L]

I suspect that player walking from 200m away would be unlikely to only then realize that his ball had hit a stake. But better than an undeserved diversion into a poor lie into a bunker IMO.
However, It seems that Beverley has managed to cope for many years (albeit the 'unapproved' option). I have since found that they recognise that and the county do a Nelson. I guess the R&A are ignorant of the matter.

But what does it say about the membership that the club has to fence off the greens to keep them immaculate? I've only ever seen greens fenced off to keep sheep and cows off them.

I feel sorry for the greenkeepers.

 

[rulefan]

It wasn't the greens that were being protected but the area between the bunker and the green. The stakes extended from the green margin to the bunker. To be fair it was only a couple of greens that were affected and it was really an issue of poor design. Because of the topography, it was physically easier to take a trolley through the 'gap' rather than up a hill round the back of the bunker. The gap itself was too wide and some players insisted that they weren't taking their trolley 'between the green and a greenside bunker', which is conventionally the case.
So far the stakes haven't reappeared this winter.

 

[IslaG]

Tahuna GC, New Zealand

 

[Colin L]

It wasn't the greens that were being protected but the area between the bunker and the green. The stakes extended from the green margin to the bunker. To be fair it was only a couple of greens that were affected and it was really an issue of poor design. Because of the topography, it was physically easier to take a trolley through the 'gap' rather than up a hill round the back of the bunker. The gap itself was too wide and some players insisted that they weren't taking their trolley 'between the green and a greenside bunker', which is conventionally the case.
So far the stakes haven't reappeared this winter.

It was the membership at Beverley I was casting doubts on although I realise I should have checked first before commenting as it seems there is livestock on that course.. Apologies for confusing the matter by quoting your post instead of NearHull's.

Some young four legged outside influences on Dunaverty, a hidden gem of a course in Kintyre.

 

[rulefan]

It was the membership at Beverley I was casting doubts on. Apologies for confusing the matter by quoting your post instead of NearHull's.

My referee colleague there will be unhappy about being called a sheep.

 

[Colin L]

I have to retract all aspersions cast upon the membership of Beverley, having come across a photo of cows on the course.

 

[rulefan]

I have to retract all aspersions cast upon the membership of Beverley, having come across a photo of cows on the course.

https://www.golf365.com/features/holy-cow-welcome-beverley-golf-club/

 

[Colin L]

https://www.golf365.com/features/holy-cow-welcome-beverley-golf-club/

The very one.