On course: player’s foot hovering over deep set sprinkler head on fringe.

[Augster]

Player is hitting a putt from the fringe. The sprinkler head is deep enough that his foot never contacts it. 
 

Free relief or play it as it lies? 
 

What about 2+2? Only line of play?

 

Picture attached. 
 

Thanks!

 

His foot is hovering over the sprinkler head. Can’t tell by the pic, but it’s probably 1.5” below his foot. 

[jvincent]

Definitely free relief.

[rogolf]

Agree. 

[Augster]

Why? No contact with the I/O. 
 

Thanks. 

[Mr. Bean]

That is a hole made by a greenkeeper and thus GUR, if you are of the opinion the IO does not interfere...

[jlbos83]

I would say the the obstruction is interfering with the players stance, in this instance, even though the player is not in physical contact with it.  I don't believe that expecting the player to balance above it is reasonable.  A slightly different, but still totally reasonable putting stance could certainly put the players foot in the hole.  Another comparison I would make would be a burrowing animal hole, I don't think a player would be expected to levitate over that.  They won't be making contact, but then again how does one make contact with a hole?

 

[caniac6]

Not exactly sure how it’s defined, but I would think the depression the sprinkler sits in would be part of the sprinkler.

 

 

[Bigarch]

I would say that since the hole from the sprinkler is preventing him from planting his foot firmly on the ground, then it is interfering with his stance.  Free relief.

[jlbos83]

28 minutes ago, caniac6 said:

Not exactly sure how it’s defined, but I would think the depression the sprinkler sits in would be part of the sprinkler.

 

 

Nope, the depression is not part of the sprinkler.  But I believe that space above the sprinkler would be part of the obstruction.  The definition doesn't seem to directly address this case, but the rule:

Purpose of Rule: Rule 16 covers when and how the player may take free relief by playing a ball from a different place, such as when there is interference by an abnormal course condition or a dangerous animal condition.

• These conditions are not treated as part of the challenge of playing the course, and free relief is generally allowed except in a penalty area.

• The player normally takes relief by dropping a ball in a relief area based on the nearest point of complete relief.

This Rule also covers free relief when a player’s ball is embedded in its own pitch-mark in the general area.

 to me implies that this hole would not be part of the challenge of playing the course.  A depression, even if it is there because of a sprinkler or drain nearby, if part of the challenge.  To me, the space vertically above is not part of the challenge.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

That is a hole made by a greenkeeper and thus GUR, if you are of the opinion the IO does not interfere...

 

No. It's not GUR.

 

It's relief for an immovable obstruction.

[Mr. Bean]

49 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

No. It's not GUR.

 

It's relief for an immovable obstruction.

 

Obviously you have not been following the discussions on this forum.

 

But tell me, how can one get relief from an IO that does not affect one's stroke in any way? His shoe is not touching the sprinkler head, so how does that IO affect?

 

I am curious to know, as you know everything.

[Bigarch]

21 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Obviously you have not been following the discussions on this forum.

 

But tell me, how can one get relief from an IO that does not affect one's stroke in any way? His shoe is not touching the sprinkler head, so how does that IO affect?

 

I am curious to know, as you know everything.

The player gets relief if the IO interferes with his stance or swing.  Since it is causing his foot to hover over it and does not let him plant his feet on the ground, then it is interfering with his stance.  Can't believe that is so hard to figure out.

[Mr. Bean]

1 minute ago, Bigarch said:

The player gets relief if the IO interferes with his stance or swing.  Since it is causing his foot to hover over it and does not let him plant his feet on the ground, then it is interfering with his stance.  Can't believe that is so hard to figure out.

 

I believe that is more or less the same thing I wrote in my post to Augster about 2 hours ago...

 

But we can endlessly argue whether the interference is due to the IO (that is, an artificial object) or the hole where the IO is resided (that is, a hole made by a greenkeeper). Based on earlier discussions it is the hole that interferes, not the sprinkler head. The outcome is the same so this is just a semantic question.

[iacas]

29 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

But tell me, how can one get relief from an IO that does not affect one's stroke in any way?

 

It affects his stance.

 

It's not GUR, as that's not a "hole made by maintenance staff."

[sui generis]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

It affects his stance.

 

It's not GUR, as that's not a "hole made by maintenance staff."

 

"Things" can be more than one thing. In this case that one thing, an IO sitting in a hole, is actually two things. 

[Mr. Bean]

15 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

It affects his stance.

 

It's not GUR, as that's not a "hole made by maintenance staff."

 

Sorry, I did not understand it was the sprinkler head that made the hole. Glad you pointed it out to me.

 

Oh my, I found this in the Rules:

 

"Ground under repair also includes the following things, even if the Committee does not define them as such:

Any hole made by the Committee or the maintenance staff in:

Setting up the course (such as a hole where a stake has been removed or the hole on a double green being used for the play of another hole), or

Maintaining the course (such as a hole made in removing turf or a tree stump or laying pipelines, but not including aeration holes)."

 

 

Edited May 19, 2023 by Mr. Bean

[iacas]

23 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

"Ground under repair also includes the following things, even if the Committee does not define them as such:

Any hole made by the Committee or the maintenance staff in:

Setting up the course (such as a hole where a stake has been removed or the hole on a double green being used for the play of another hole), or

Maintaining the course (such as a hole made in removing turf or a tree stump or laying pipelines, but not including aeration holes)."

 

Are you a rules official? Gonna go out on a very massive limb and guess "no."

 

That doesn't meet the definition of GUR. They're not actively laying the pipeline there - they're talking about digging up a trench to put the pipeline underground.

[Augster]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

 

Are you a rules official? Gonna go out on a very massive limb and guess "no."

 

That doesn't meet the definition of GUR. They're not actively laying the pipeline there - they're talking about digging up a trench to put the pipeline underground.

Yes, he is. A referee. 

[Augster]

Thanks for all the help folks. Since we were on the course, I just had him play two balls then we asked here. He made par with both balls, so the score is the same and relief didn’t matter. 
 

But the knowledge gained going forward is helpful. We have MANY of these recessed sprinkler heads in the fringe so this can come up more than a few times in a summer. 
 

We are using “2+2” this year. Which MLR is that or was it part of the new rules changes for 2023? I have to read up on it. 
 

Thanks!

[iacas]

21 minutes ago, Augster said:

Yes, he is. A referee. 

 

Of what… hockey? 🤣 That's not GUR.

 

14 minutes ago, Augster said:

Thanks for all the help folks. Since we were on the course, I just had him play two balls then we asked here. He made par with both balls, so the score is the same and relief didn’t matter. 

 

Did you report it to the Committee?

[sui generis]

7 minutes ago, iacas said:

That's not GUR.

 

Well, who made the hole if it was not made by the maintenance staff while maintaining the course?

 

https://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-clarifications/rules-and-clarifications.html#!ruletype=fr&section=definitions&subrulenum=23

Edited May 20, 2023 by sui generis

[iacas]

I feel like I'm being pranked here. It's not under repair.The examples highlight this:

• Setting up the course (such as a hole where a stake has been removed or the hole on a double green being used for the play of another hole), or
• Maintaining the course (such as a hole made in removing turf or a tree stump or laying pipelines, but not including aeration holes).

It's not either of those things. Things under repair are not permanent "holes" on the golf course. They're being repaired, and thus, in a state of flux.

 

This recessed sprinkler head is not like a stake being removed leaving a hole, a hole on a double green that will be moved the next day, nor is it a hole made by removing a stump that will be repaired further (or allowed to grass over/heal), nor a trench cut to lay pipe that will be sodded back over eventually. It's not like any of those things.

 

 

That's not GUR. It is interference from an IO.

[Shilgy]

7 minutes ago, iacas said:

I feel like I'm being pranked here. It's not under repair.The examples highlight this:

• Setting up the course (such as a hole where a stake has been removed or the hole on a double green being used for the play of another hole), or
• Maintaining the course (such as a hole made in removing turf or a tree stump or laying pipelines, but not including aeration holes).

It's not either of those things. Things under repair are not permanent "holes" on the golf course. They're being repaired, and thus, in a state of flux.

 

This recessed sprinkler head is not like a stake being removed leaving a hole, a hole on a double green that will be moved the next day, nor is it a hole made by removing a stump that will be repaired further (or allowed to grass over/heal), nor a trench cut to lay pipe that will be sodded back over eventually. It's not like any of those things.

 

 

That's not GUR. It is interference from an IO.

In all fairness @Mr. Beanin the post originally replied to said that “if it’s no an IO it’s a hole…..his belief was it was an IO.

 

You've seriously never seen a hole that is not something under repair?  How about courses that have 150 poles?  If the pole is not in do you get relief from the hole? Based on this post it sounds like you don’t believe so.

[sui generis]

11 minutes ago, iacas said:

I feel like I'm being pranked here. It's not under repair.The examples highlight this:

• Setting up the course (such as a hole where a stake has been removed or the hole on a double green being used for the play of another hole), or
• Maintaining the course (such as a hole made in removing turf or a tree stump or laying pipelines, but not including aeration holes).

It's not either of those things. Things under repair are not permanent "holes" on the golf course. They're being repaired, and thus, in a state of flux.

 

This recessed sprinkler head is not like a stake being removed leaving a hole, a hole on a double green that will be moved the next day, nor is it a hole made by removing a stump that will be repaired further (or allowed to grass over/heal), nor a trench cut to lay pipe that will be sodded back over eventually. It's not like any of those things.

 

 

That's not GUR. It is interference from an IO.

 

Try to not think so literally. A pile of grass clippings piled for removal or a bird's nest on the ground stretch the imagination as GUR, but they are, right? 

 

Many of us who spend our summer days in a cart in the shade with a badge and a radio have had to reconcile these anomolies.

 

Since R16.1 tells us how to deal with such, I suppose we're happy enough that the Ruling Bodies don't feel the need to write even more Rules.

 

I know that you are an expert in what you do, the same as many of us here are similarly talented.

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, sui generis said:

Try to not think so literally. A pile of grass clippings piled for removal or a bird's nest on the ground stretch the imagination as GUR, but they are, right?

 

It's funny that you said not to think so literally, but then you cite examples that are "literally" specified in the Rule.

 

7 minutes ago, sui generis said:

Many of us who spend our summer days in a cart in the shade with a badge and a radio have had to reconcile these anomolies.

 

I think you're making an assumption here. 😛

 

15 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

In all fairness @Mr. Beanin the post originally replied to said that “if it’s no an IO it’s a hole…..his belief was it was an IO.

 

Yes. It's an IO.

 

15 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

You've seriously never seen a hole that is not something under repair?

 

A hole made by a removed stake is explicitly cited.

Edited May 20, 2023 by iacas

[sui generis]

9 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

It's funny that you said not to think so literally, but then you cite examples that are "literally" specified in the Rule.

 

 

I think you're making an assumption here. 😛

 

 

Yes. It's an IO.

 

 

A hole made by a removed stake is explicitly cited.

 

Never mind, Erik.

[antip]

7 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

That is a hole made by a greenkeeper and thus GUR, if you are of the opinion the IO does not interfere...

Agree. I have also had this confirmed by the USGA, having submitted an example where a small green side sprinkler was sunk a number of inches below ground level and the player did not consider there was IO interference even though their foot was directly above the sprinkler. They confirmed this is a hole made by a greenkeeper in the same way that the "other" hole on a double green or a hole on a wrong putting green is also a hole made by a greenkeeper. 

[antip]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

I feel like I'm being pranked here. It's not under repair.The examples highlight this:

• Setting up the course (such as a hole where a stake has been removed or the hole on a double green being used for the play of another hole), or
• Maintaining the course (such as a hole made in removing turf or a tree stump or laying pipelines, but not including aeration holes).

It's not either of those things. Things under repair are not permanent "holes" on the golf course. They're being repaired, and thus, in a state of flux.

 

This recessed sprinkler head is not like a stake being removed leaving a hole, a hole on a double green that will be moved the next day, nor is it a hole made by removing a stump that will be repaired further (or allowed to grass over/heal), nor a trench cut to lay pipe that will be sodded back over eventually. It's not like any of those things.

 

 

That's not GUR. It is interference from an IO.

While it is most commonly the case, there is absolutely no requirement for GUR to be "under repair". 

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, antip said:

While it is most commonly the case, there is absolutely no requirement for GUR to be "under repair". 

 

I didn't say it was. A committee can mark a barren patch of ground it has no plans to repair as GUR. I'm simply saying that the examples cited often include things in flux - like holes cut (or trenches, or whatever) to install pipe.

[antip]

5 hours ago, iacas said:

 

I didn't say it was. A committee can mark a barren patch of ground it has no plans to repair as GUR. I'm simply saying that the examples cited often include things in flux - like holes cut (or trenches, or whatever) to install pipe.

Agree 'in flux' is a common attribute for a hole that can be treated as GUR. But I'm simply passing on official confirmation that a sunken sprinkler head also may result in a hole that can legitimately be treated as GUR.