Rog's Blog: Obstructions

To follow the theme of inexplicable inconsistencies, let's consider Obstructions.

Obstructions are essential to the maintenance, amenity and facilities of a golf course.  However, unlike loose impediments, they are not part of the game of golf. Therefore they should impinge to the minimum degree on the playing of the game.

 

Obstructions can be movable or immovable: movable if they can be moved without unreasonable effort, immovable if they cannot or if the committee decrees that they may not.

As the Rules stand, a player may obtain relief from a movable obstruction (MO) anywhere on the course (which is appropriate) and yet there is discriminatory and confused treatment of relief from immovable obstructions (IO).

First, not only does discrimination occur between IOs ‘through-the-green’ and in ‘hazards’ but also within the ‘hazards’ class itself, in that the only parts of a course where relief from an immovable obstruction is not available is in ‘water hazards’¹.

Why should this be so? 

This, again, can visit an unnecessary and inequitable ‘double disadvantage’ upon players. There is no obvious rational reason why the ‘immovable obstruction’ provisions relating to bunkers and water hazards should be different.

Second, the immovable obstruction relief options currently available for bunkers need to be compared and coordinated with those applying to ‘casual water’ and an ‘unplayable ball’ for the purpose of simplicity and understanding of the Rules.

The current provisions are:

Relief from immovable obstruction in a bunker (Rule 24-2):
·  Without penalty within one club-length of the nearest point of relief (NPOR), not nearer the hole, in the bunker;
·  Under penalty of one stroke outside the bunker in line with the hole.

Relief from an abnormal ground condition in a bunker (Rule 25-1):

·  Without penalty within one club-length of the nearest point of relief (NPOR), not nearer the hole, in the bunker;
·  Under penalty of one stroke outside the bunker in line with the hole.

Relief from an unplayable lie in a bunker (Rule 28):

·  Under penalty of one stroke from the spot where ball last played (ie; ‘stroke and distance’);
·  Under penalty of one stroke behind the point where the ball lay, in line with the hole, in the bunker;
·  Under penalty of one stroke within two club-lengths of the spot where the ball lay, not nearer the hole, in the bunker.

In Rog’s view the starting point for considering Rules to cover each of these situations is that:

·  There is no difficulty with the differential of one or two clublengths as they apply, appropriately, to a free drop (in the case of IOs and AGCs) and a penalty drop (in the case of ULs);

·  The ‘unplayable ball’ option of having to return to the spot of the previous stroke is appropriate and justifiable;

·  There is no justification for allowing a player to take relief outside of a bunker from an immovable obstruction within the bunker²;

·  There is no justification (in normal circumstances) for allowing a player to take relief outside of a bunker from an abnormal ground condition within the bunker²;

·  There is absolutely no justification for penalising a player for taking relief from an immovable obstruction in a bunker under any circumstances (other than, of course, in the unlikely circumstance where an IO in a bunker is declared by the committee to be integral to the course);

·  There is absolutely no justification for penalising a player for taking relief from an abnormal ground condition in a bunker under any circumstances (this is probably the most inequitable and draconian provision within the Rules and the committee must accept responsibility to act on the  authority vested in it by Decision 33-8/27 – but that is for another day);

·  It must be a requirement of the committee to ensure that there is no immovable obstruction so placed in a bunker or water hazard which would prevent the taking of relief from it within the hazard;

·  It must be a requirement of the committee to ensure that relief from an abnormal ground condition is available as described above.

In addition:

·  It is quite justifiable to differentiate between casual water in a bunker and that in a water hazard: water hazards are designed to contain water and the difficulty in determining which is casual and which is not, in all circumstances, would be impossible to overcome.

·  Provisions covering immovable obstructions on or near the putting green are appropriate as they stand.

If these principles were adopted by The Castle, insofar as obstructions are concerned, the Rules would provide that:

·  There be free relief from a movable obstruction anywhere on the course (as is the current case);

·  There would be free relief through the green from immovable obstructions under the provisions which currently apply (including the exclusion of IOs declared by the committee to be integral to the course);

·  There would be free relief from immovable obstructions in hazards (bunkers and water hazards) but that such relief must be taken within the hazard (except for those IOs declared by the committee to be integral to the course);

·  A player who wishes to declare his/her ball unplayable rather take IO relief within the bunker  would need to proceed under the ‘unplayable ball’ provision of returning to the place of the previous stroke (Rule 28a);

·  The ‘committee’ would be required to ensure that there was IO relief available in a hazard when constructing or preparing the course.

It is Rog’s view that such provisions would not materially corrupt the basic values of the game (contrary, in fact, to the existing provisions, as indicated above) but would bring significant benefits in that:

·  There would be improved equity and consistency within the Rules;

·  Players would more readily understand what the Rules require;

·  There would be a much higher likelihood of compliance than hitherto;

·  Players would feel less stressed and aggrieved by the Rules and gain more enjoyment from the game;

·  There would be less confusion and fewer disputes would arise; and

·  Many, many words would be eliminated from the Rule Book.

¹ There can be no reasonable justification for denying a player relief without penalty from an immovable obstruction (other than where it is declared integral to the course) anywhere on the course. For example, what has a floodlight situated in a water hazard for the purpose of illuminating a tree for the amenity of clubhouse diners got to do with playing golf? Nothing! What has the declaration of a movable hazard stake as ‘immovable’ for the purpose of course management got to do with the playing of the game? Nothing!

² In Rog’s view it can be strongly argued that these provisions, themselves, are contrary to the core values of the game.