Jump to content


 

 

 

 

Special Promotions

Photo

grass slopes around sprinkler heads


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 dizzy1372662100

dizzy1372662100

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 10:04 AM

I remember reading a rules article in one of those free golf magazines.It was probably last year. The author talked about immovable obstructions that are set below ground level like sprinkler heads and drainage grates. The ground around these slope down from ground level to the obstruction. The author who I believe was a tour referee was saying that relief is given if your ball lies on these slopes even though you would not strike the obstruction itself with your club during the swing.The sloping ground around the obstruction is treated exactly the same as the obstruction itself when wanting relief. I wonder if you guys may like to make comment on this

#2 AAA

AAA

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2478 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 11:58 AM

This are is normally so narrow that it is unlikely that there would be no interference. However, the area will be man-made so is part of the obstruction.

#3 rogolf

rogolf

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 149 posts

Posted 05 December 2012 - 10:07 PM

This are is normally so narrow that it is unlikely that there would be no interference. However, the area will be man-made so is part of the obstruction.

.

I know it's my first post, and I have to disagree with the statement that "the area will be man-made so is part of the obstruction". Obstructions are artificial objects, not "man-made" which, if applied liberally, could apply to almost the entire golf course. Rule 24-2 provides relief from artificial objects which interfere. I would not give relief for the sloping ground around a sprinkler head unless the sprinkler head or drainage grate interfered with the lie of the ball, area of intended stance or swing.

#4 OldBogey

OldBogey

    Spelling commando

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13143 posts
  • LocationRegional Victoria

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:12 AM

I would have to agree with rogolf. The area around such obstructions is usually grassed earth and playable, provided the obstruction doesn't interfere.

#5 Libba

Libba

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 520 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 02:10 AM

If turf raised by an underground pipe is not an obstruction (decision 24/14), I don't see how sloping turf around a sprinkler could be considered one.

#6 Tolmij

Tolmij

    WAITING FOR PEMISSION TO POST

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16685 posts
  • LocationCommish will tell me when

Posted 06 December 2012 - 03:04 AM

Having been caught once in the grass around a grating, I know how much it can affect the stroke, some of the slopes were quite steep.

#7 languid

languid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1275 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 04:09 AM

If turf raised by an underground pipe is not an obstruction (decision 24/14), I don’t see how sloping turf around a sprinkler could be considered one.

The underground pipe is effectively buried even though the grass is raised. If a sprinkler head or drainage grate or a cover over a control tap are exposed (invariably they are) they are obstructions which may potentially interfere with a stoke. The clubhead coming through to strike the ball (before or after contact) or the stance (a foot on the obstruction). Think about how a good stroke normal finds the divot continuing some distance after the ball. Many would need some space before the place where the ball lies. Not a lot but some. If there is a reasonable chance the clubhead could contact the obstruction with a reasonable swing relief should be granted. There could be discussion about 24/14. Granted there are possible occasions when some raised turf might present considerable stroke difficulty. Many times it would not be particularly challenging. My guess is 24/14 is here to stay.

#8 pom

pom

    Old Grouch.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10754 posts
  • Locationtownsville

Posted 06 December 2012 - 04:25 AM

I would have to agree with rogolf. The area around such obstructions is usually grassed earth and playable, provided the obstruction doesn’t interfere.

+1

#9 AAA

AAA

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2478 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 05:46 AM

We migh be talking at cross purposes. I am talking about the situation in diagram A where there is a small 'moat' around the sprinkler head intended by the greenstaff to keep the sprinkler head clear of debris. I think everyone else is talking about diagram B where the grass slopes right down to the head. Sorry about the quality, in a rush

#10 Libba

Libba

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 520 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 06:07 AM

If turf raised by an underground pipe is not an obstruction (decision 24/14), I don’t see how sloping turf around a sprinkler could be considered one.

The underground pipe is effectively buried even though the grass is raised.
If a sprinkler head or drainage grate or a cover over a control tap are exposed (invariably they are) they are obstructions which may potentially interfere with a stoke. The clubhead coming through to strike the ball (before or after contact) or the stance (a foot on the obstruction).
Think about how a good stroke normal finds the divot continuing some distance after the ball. Many would need some space before the place where the ball lies. Not a lot but some.
If there is a reasonable chance the clubhead could contact the obstruction with a reasonable swing relief should be granted.
There could be discussion about 24/14. Granted there are possible occasions when some raised turf might present considerable stroke difficulty. Many times it would not be particularly challenging.
My guess is 24/14 is here to stay.

Love playing the game and interested in the Rules

I agree with you that the obstruction may potentially interfere with the stroke and in those circumstances relief should be granted. But there would also be situations where the ball may lie on sloping ground next to the obstruction and there would be no likelihood of interference. In these circumstances relief should not be granted. My reason for citing 24/14 was that the OP asked if automatic relief should be granted if a ball lies on sloping ground (created by the installation of an obstruction), regardless of whether or not the obstruction might cause interference. Although the ground in 24/14 slopes in the other direction to the question posed by the OP, it essentially answers the same question.

#11 Libba

Libba

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 520 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 06:08 AM

We migh be talking at cross purposes.
I am talking about the situation in diagram A where there is a small ‘moat’ around the sprinkler head intended by the greenstaff to keep the sprinkler head clear of debris.
I think everyone else is talking about diagram B where the grass slopes right down to the head.

Sorry about the quality, in a rush

.

You're right AAA, I had B in my mind when answering the question.

#12 OldBogey

OldBogey

    Spelling commando

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13143 posts
  • LocationRegional Victoria

Posted 06 December 2012 - 07:51 AM

My understanding of the OP was that B is the applicable circumstance. If the ball was in a moat as per diagram A, then clearly the obstruction would interfere.

#13 pegasus2357

pegasus2357

    Visionary

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6748 posts
  • LocationCoonabarabran

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:01 AM

A question that sort of follows with what is being discussed here.... A previous committee in their infinite wisdom install pop-up sprinklers on our greens. This was done so that watering could be better managed and effective. All good so far. S that the greens received a good coverage of water a pop-up sprinkler was installed in the middle of all greens. A lot of care was taken to ensure that the sprinkler head was at green height so that the ball when putted was not effected in any way. Still good.... Now, however we have a problem. Sprinkler heads have dropped below surface, in some cases up yo an inch which does some wonderously terrible things to putts. Yes I know we have to get the sprinklers back up to correct height. Pending getting the sprinklers back to correct height does a golfer have any available relief from said holes in green????

#14 Shimonko

Shimonko

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4915 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 08:58 AM

You also get free relief from immovable obstructions on the putting green if they interfere with the line of your putt. The line of putt also includes a reasonable distance on each side of the line you wish the putt to take, so any depression surrounding the actual artificial sprinkler bits could also be avoided.

#15 AAA

AAA

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2478 posts

Posted 06 December 2012 - 09:50 AM

Peg The relief Steb refers to is only available if the ball is on the green (24-2a) Otherwise the Local Rule (App I B6) needs to be in place. But that does not cover the situation if you wish to putt from off the green but more than 2cl away from the obstruction. Modern oscillating sprinkler heads should never be on the green.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users