Power tower

[Mr. Bean]

 

Newby beat me to posting the Decision, and as he says the recommended wording says "during the play of the X hole." Nothing about "the course."

 

 

Rules of Golf, page 150:

 

c. Temporary Power Lines and Cables

When temporary power lines, cables or telephone lines are installed

on the course, the following Local Rule is recommended:

 

Furthermore, from the D33-8/13:

 

 

An overhead power line is so situated that it interferes with the play of a hole.

 

Let us assume we have a power line running parallel to a fairway but well outside the boundaries of the course. Do you really feel that a ball hit vastly astray and outside the boundaries should be replayed if it hit the line? How does that fit to the idea of 'interfering with the play of a hole'?

 

We used to have a national Local Rule in effect on all the courses in this country until the end of last year (after which the courses use the same LR when necessary). The translation has been approved by R&A and it says:

 

'If a ball hits an electric line, supporting pole,..... on the course the stroke is cancelled....'

 

The way I see it that wording leaves no room for interpretations and this is how we have applied the LR in question for a multitude of years. Besides I cannot see any other way to do it as a power line outside the course extremely seldom interferes with the play of a hole (a steep dogleg could be an exception in which case that should be dealt with in the LR's of that particular course on that particular hole) and a player should not be rewarded for hitting his ball out of bounds.

 

 

 

 

So while we continue to disagree on the ruling, let me ask you how you would rule if the ball struck the power line while OB, and then it bounced back and came to rest on the course. In play? Required re-play?

 

As the ball is on the course it is in play. No different than bouncing off a tree. Rub of the green.

[Newby]

 

'If a ball hits an electric line, supporting pole,..... on the course the stroke is cancelled....'

 

 

That says nothing about a ball striking a tower off the course. If it interferes (eg on a dogleg) the committee may include it if they wish.

I know of least one course where supporting posts of a power line follow the boundary of the course closely in order to service adjacent houses.

[Mr. Bean]

'If a ball hits an electric line, supporting pole,..... on the course the stroke is cancelled....'

 

 

That says nothing about a ball striking a tower off the course. If it interferes (eg on a dogleg) the committee may include it if they wish.

 

 

I am afraid I do not quite comprehend what you are trying to say.

 

That LR limits the strokes to be cancelled to those ones that hit a line or similar within the boundaries of the course, i.e. on the course. A ball hitting line etc. outside the boundaries is not to be cancelled. Agree?

 

But having thought of this could that be a choice of the Committee in general? That is, if the Committee wants to include all the lines of the world instead of those on the course? To me it just sounds extremely odd to reward a player for a mistake he made with no interference of a power line outside the course.

 

Furthermore, the recommended wording on p. 150 says 'temporary power lines etc. ... ON the course'. Do you mean that also those cables that are OFF the course are to be included?

 

 

I know of least one course where supporting posts of a power line follow the boundary of the course closely in order to service adjacent houses.

 

Me too. And? Does that power line interfere with the play of the nearby holes? Is there a LR? What does that say?

[Stuart_G]

Mr Bean - the local rule you keep quoting is the one in the appendix for "Temporary Power Lines and Cables".

 

The recommended wording for permanent power lines is different and has no such restriction. Only the much more gray provision of implementing the rule when they interfere with the play of the hole. Once the decision has been made to implement the rule, then there is nothing in the actual rule to distinguish where on the wires the ball struck as a determining factor.

 

"If a ball strikes the power line during play of the ____ hole, the stroke is canceled and the player must play a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was played in accordance with Rule 20-5 (Making Next Stroke from Where Previous Stroke Made)."

In some cases the Committee may wish to include in the Local Rule the towers or poles supporting such lines when the towers or poles are positioned such that they interfere with the play of the hole.

 

And even for the temporary lines recommended local rule, whether those temporary lines are installed on (vs off) the course is still just the basis for the recommendation to implement a local rule or not.

 

When temporary power lines, cables or telephone lines are installed on the course, the following Local Rule is recommended:

 

So if all the temporary lines are out of bounds, then no big deal, you just don't put the local rule in place. In the case where there might be temporary lines that are both in and out of bounds (likely very rare for temporary lines but lets consider it anyways) once the rule is in place, the recommended wording does not make a distinction on where on the lines the ball struck in the case where any of those temporary lines may be both in and out of bounds.

 

3. If a ball strikes an elevated power line or cable, the stroke is canceled and the player must play a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was played in accordance with Rule 20-5 (Making Next Stroke from Where Previous Stroke Made).

 

 

Personally, for every case where you might argue that the ball clearly would have traveled out of bounds, you can find just as many alternative cases where it might not have and using such judgement in the rule is impracticable (IMO). Not only that, the rules don't define the ball as out of bounds until it lays off the course (basically it's not ob until it comes to rest OB). If there are sections of lines that clearly don't interfere with the play of the hole then the local rule should not be implemented for those sections. But for any section of line that the rule is implemented, trying to determine whether the ball hit the lines in bounds or not or whether it might have come back or not would be pointless complications of the rules (IMO). From my standpoint, If a ball going out of bounds hits the wires and that allows a replay, that's just as much a rub of the green as if it had hit a tree and bounced back in bounds.

[Mr. Bean]

Stuart, you may be right but this is how we have done this for decades and it is very straightforward: ball hits a power line in bounds - stroke is cancelled, hit outside the boundaries - play it as it lies.

[Stuart_G]

Who's the one who gets to go up and place the ob boundary mark on the wires?

 

Sorry, couldn't resist. :-)

[Newby]

Stuart, you may be right but this is how we have done this for decades and it is very straightforward: ball hits a power line in bounds - stroke is cancelled, hit outside the boundaries - play it as it lies.

As you say, straightforward but I am still doubtful about knowing exactly where a cable perpendicular to a fairway crosses the OoB margin from 200 yards away. No such problem with a tower or pole.

Incidentally, I note that the TIO LR may include TIOs OoB.

[HatsForBats]

Hats, I have a question for you.

 

Why should you get a line-of-play relief 100 yards from a tower? How do you justify that?

 

Or would you limit the relief within a 'not safe' distance?

 

I never said you should get relief from 100 yards away but would think it would need to be on a case by case basis. I was not specifically talking about the tower. There is only one course I have played (I think twice) that has towers and never gave it much thought other than 'that's not a good idea given the caliber of players at this course'. The idea of wrapping towers is a nice thought but many courses would probably skip it due to cost which is a shame. What is a safe distance I would think would be up to the course.

[Mr. Bean]

Stuart, you may be right but this is how we have done this for decades and it is very straightforward: ball hits a power line in bounds - stroke is cancelled, hit outside the boundaries - play it as it lies.

As you say, straightforward but I am still doubtful about knowing exactly where a cable perpendicular to a fairway crosses the OoB margin from 200 yards away. No such problem with a tower or pole.

 

It is not that common a ball hits a power line and very uncommon it hits a power line exactly at the OB margin. Seriously, I see no problem in that. If the referee cannot decide he gives the benefit of the doubt for the player.

 

 

Incidentally, I note that the TIO LR may include TIOs OoB.

 

You mean the 'adjoining the course' part? Well, that is rather clear as a TIO requires the corridor of one club-length so a TIO just beside the OB line would be interfering if a player's ball was also very close to that line. I doubt a TIO 50 meters OB would justify anyone any relief.

[Mr. Bean]

Hats, I have a question for you.

 

Why should you get a line-of-play relief 100 yards from a tower? How do you justify that?

 

Or would you limit the relief within a 'not safe' distance?

 

I never said you should get relief from 100 yards away but would think it would need to be on a case by case basis.

 

So, who would decide who and from where gets a free line-of-play relief and based on what? Have you got any idea how difficult that would be??

[Sawgrass]

Hang a suit of armor on the tower, the needy player can don it if he feels it necessary.

[HatsForBats]

So, who would decide who and from where gets a free line-of-play relief and based on what? Have you got any idea how difficult that would be??

 

I would think leaving it up to the course would be best. I am aware of how complicated some people would want to make it but hopefully they would just be told to stay out of it.

[Mr. Bean]

So, who would decide who and from where gets a free line-of-play relief and based on what? Have you got any idea how difficult that would be??

 

I would think leaving it up to the course would be best. I am aware of how complicated some people would want to make it but hopefully they would just be told to stay out of it.

 

Hats, next time you post a question on the Rules Forum do point out that you do not want the answer by the Rules but an answer you like the most. This way we all know not to bother using our time to find the correct answer.

[HatsForBats]

Hats, next time you post a question on the Rules Forum do point out that you do not want the answer by the Rules but an answer you like the most. This way we all know not to bother using our time to find the correct answer.

 

Read my posts again. I didn't ask a rules question. Sorry you misinterpreted.

[Shilgy]

Hats, next time you post a question on the Rules Forum do point out that you do not want the answer by the Rules but an answer you like the most. This way we all know not to bother using our time to find the correct answer.

 

Read my posts again. I didn't ask a rules question. Sorry you misinterpreted.

But you are on a rules forum and are advocating a rules change-even if just the ability to make a proper local rule change. Your overriding concern has been repeatedly player safety. As you mentioned the fact that alcohol is involved in many of the ill fated decisions(posts 104 and 116 in particular) perhaps these courses you frequent should ban alcohol rather than trying to change rules?

[HatsForBats]

But you are on a rules forum and are advocating a rules change-even if just the ability to make a proper local rule change.

 

No but needed that is how the conversation turned. Besides Sawgrass I’m not sure what the problem is. Maybe Mr. Bean confused me with the original poster, got me confused with another person that posted a question or simply misinterpreted. No need for either of us to apologize more than me saying sorry Mr. Bean apparently put themselves through that.

 

Your overriding concern has been repeatedly player safety. As you mentioned the fact that alcohol is involved in many of the ill fated decisions(posts 104 and 116 in particular) perhaps these courses you frequent should ban alcohol rather than trying to change rules?

 

I’m guessing you think I would have a problem with that? I occasionally like to have a drink on the course but banning alcohol on the course would not bother me. Ask the question. Can you reasonably argue that an alcohol ban would not improve player safety? The answer is of course ‘No’. However, as far as I know there is no rule saying courses cannot enact a ban of alcohol. So wherever you are going with that I am not sure it has any relevance. Someone who’s primary goal is to get drunk when they play golf does not make it in our groups.

 

The courses and other players might have a much different reaction to banning alcohol.

[Shilgy]

But you are on a rules forum and are advocating a rules change-even if just the ability to make a proper local rule change.

 

No but needed that is how the conversation turned. Besides Sawgrass I’m not sure what the problem is. Maybe Mr. Bean confused me with the original poster, got me confused with another person that posted a question or simply misinterpreted. No need for either of us to apologize more than me saying sorry Mr. Bean apparently put themselves through that.

 

Your overriding concern has been repeatedly player safety. As you mentioned the fact that alcohol is involved in many of the ill fated decisions(posts 104 and 116 in particular) perhaps these courses you frequent should ban alcohol rather than trying to change rules?

 

I’m guessing you think I would have a problem with that? I occasionally like to have a drink on the course but banning alcohol on the course would not bother me. Ask the question. Can you reasonably argue that an alcohol ban would not improve player safety? The answer is of course ‘No’. However, as far as I know there is no rule saying courses cannot enact a ban of alcohol. So wherever you are going with that I am not sure it has any relevance. Someone who’s primary goal is to get drunk when they play golf does not make it in our groups.

 

The courses and other players might have a much different reaction to banning alcohol.

To the first part: The op in his first post was about thinking there should be a valid rule change-so the conversation turned very early.

To the second: I do not drink so ban away. But are you going to ban or change everything that could perhaps benefit safety? Helmets? Carts that cannot go faster than walking speed? Softer clubs because metal can hurt? Balls that cannot fly so far because they could harm as well? At some point people have to be responsible and take care of their own safety. In golf as well as most other sports there is an inherent danger if things are done recklessly or foolishly(or drunkenly lol) .

[HatsForBats]

To the second: I do not drink so ban away. But are you going to ban or change everything that could perhaps benefit safety? Helmets? Carts that cannot go faster than walking speed? Softer clubs because metal can hurt? Balls that cannot fly so fat because they could harm as well? At some point people have to be responsible and take care of their own safety. In golf as well as most other sports there is an inherent danger if things are done recklessly or foolishly(or drunkenly lol) .

 

Everything you list, besides the helmets, would have a significant impact either financially or on the game itself. You don’t think they regulate the speed of carts already? What impact does the change I propose have? A very minor exception to the rules that has very little impact on the game. That’s pretty much it.

[Sawgrass]

To the second: I do not drink so ban away. But are you going to ban or change everything that could perhaps benefit safety? Helmets? Carts that cannot go faster than walking speed? Softer clubs because metal can hurt? Balls that cannot fly so fat because they could harm as well? At some point people have to be responsible and take care of their own safety. In golf as well as most other sports there is an inherent danger if things are done recklessly or foolishly(or drunkenly lol) .

 

What impact does the change I propose have?

 

It further erodes the principle of playing the course as you find it.

 

And benefits only careless fools and dare devils who will easily find some other way to injure themselves.