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

[Mr. Bean]

7 hours 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.

 

 

That is not what I wrote nor meant.

 

The hole is a hole made by the maintenance staff and thus GUR. The object in the hole is an IO. Very simple and extremely logic.

[Mr. Bean]

7 hours 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.

 

It seems pretty clear that you are NOT a golf referee. And fortunately on this forum you cannot tell the others how things are even though there weren't.

[iacas]

3 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

It seems pretty clear that you are NOT a golf referee. And fortunately on this forum you cannot tell the others how things are even though there weren't.

Add another thing to the list of things you’ve gotten wrong. 😀
 

Could I see a situation where I grant a player GUR relief for a different hole to a recessed control or something? Sure. But in this instance, no. It’s IO relief, purely.

 

What’s the practical difference? Nothing, really.

Edited May 20, 2023 by iacas

[Mr. Bean]

45 minutes ago, iacas said:

Add another thing to the list of things you’ve gotten wrong. 😀
 

Could I see a situation where I grant a player GUR relief for a different hole to a recessed control or something? Sure. But in this instance, no. It’s IO relief, purely.

 

What’s the practical difference? Nothing, really.

 

Have it your way, the outcome is the same.

 

It just amazes me that you keep on arguing against people who really know the Rules (and I am not referring to myself here). Most of us are here to learn but you seem to have completely different motives.

 

Edited May 20, 2023 by Mr. Bean

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

It just amazes me that you keep on arguing against people who really know the Rules (and I am not referring to myself here). Most of us are here to learn but you seem to have completely different motives.

 

I'm here to learn, to help, to share, to discuss. At the end of the day, we disagree… and it's also just golf. It's not something about which I get upset or even bothered. If it matters more than that to you, well, that's your prerogative.

 

I'm a rules official and "really know the Rules," and I've talked with other rules officials who also think that calling this GUR is zany. That list includes two of the people who taught my USGA/PGA Rules seminars.

 

And I've never argued for a different outcome. It's IO.

[Mr. Bean]

40 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

I'm here to learn, to help, to share, to discuss. At the end of the day, we disagree… and it's also just golf. It's not something about which I get upset or even bothered. If it matters more than that to you, well, that's your prerogative.

 

I'm a rules official and "really know the Rules," and I've talked with other rules officials who also think that calling this GUR is zany. That list includes two of the people who taught my USGA/PGA Rules seminars.

 

And I've never argued for a different outcome. It's IO.

 

So you disagree with USGA as well? They have officially said it is GUR but they must be wrong and you must be right as you really know the Rules.

 

But tell me, what if that sprinkler head was to be removed from that hole, would that hole still be an IO? No? So how can it be an IO with the sprinkler head in it? The sprinkler head is an IO by definition but which definition in the Rules of Golf would tell us that the hole into which a sprinkler head has been sunk is an IO?

 

Think carefully and do not just respond that you have met people who agree with you. Maybe you could ask them which definition would that be you are constantly referrring to.

 

P.S. In the original question the sprinkler head did not interfere with the player's stance but the hole did. Give that a thought as well.

[antip]

21 hours ago, Augster said:

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. 

Returning to Augie's OP...

 

You asked if 2+2 applies here. Even if MLR F-5 is in place (no info here), IMO it would not apply as the sprinkler is not on the line of play.

 

On the question is it a play as lies issue? Short answer is only if the player chooses to play as lies. Relief is clearly available, if the player wishes to take it. I cannot envisage ANY referee denying relief. And the most logical call is 16.1b relief for interference with the IO. Interference does not actually require disruption.

 

But if that sprinkler is well and truly below the foot AND the player is making the kind of stroke that involves zero weight transfer, then I can understand the player thinking there is no interference so doesn't that mean no 16.1 relief? (This is, presumably, why the OP was brought to this forum.) I understand it, but I would still advise that 16.1 relief is available for the reason noted above.

 

However, even if this player is the maddest of mad rule zealots who says I can't in good conscience take 16.1 relief because I believe I have no interference then I would say "fine, that is up to you, however I can assure you that relief remains available - and it is available without recourse to interference with the IO itself. That empty space between ground level and the sprinkler is a hole that qualifies as GUR and I have a written USGA ruling to that effect. So you are free to take relief or not, entirely up to you."

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

So you disagree with USGA as well? They have officially said it is GUR but they must be wrong and you must be right as you really know the Rules.

They have? Except for one guy saying it here I’ve seen nothing “official.” And I have multiple USGA people telling me it’s IO.

 

2 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

But tell me, what if that sprinkler head was to be removed from that hole, would that hole still be an IO?

I’m not interested in hypotheticals. If there was no sprinkler head there, there probably wouldn’t be anything but fringe or fairway.

 

At what point does a “hole” cease to be a hole and become a “depression” or something else (rhetorical, as we don’t have a large sample to see in real life and discuss together)?

 

2 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

P.S. In the original question the sprinkler head did not interfere with the player's stance

 

We disagree there. It interferes hence it’s IO relief.

 

We’re not really covering anything new here and it feels like you’re taking this more “seriously” (for lack of a better word) than I wish to take it, so…

 

Edited May 20, 2023 by iacas

[Mr. Bean]

4 hours ago, antip said:

Returning to Augie's OP...

 

You asked if 2+2 applies here. Even if MLR F-5 is in place (no info here), IMO it would not apply as the sprinkler is not on the line of play.

 

On the question is it a play as lies issue? Short answer is only if the player chooses to play as lies. Relief is clearly available, if the player wishes to take it. I cannot envisage ANY referee denying relief. And the most logical call is 16.1b relief for interference with the IO. Interference does not actually require disruption.

 

But if that sprinkler is well and truly below the foot AND the player is making the kind of stroke that involves zero weight transfer, then I can understand the player thinking there is no interference so doesn't that mean no 16.1 relief? (This is, presumably, why the OP was brought to this forum.) I understand it, but I would still advise that 16.1 relief is available for the reason noted above.

 

However, even if this player is the maddest of mad rule zealots who says I can't in good conscience take 16.1 relief because I believe I have no interference then I would say "fine, that is up to you, however I can assure you that relief remains available - and it is available without recourse to interference with the IO itself. That empty space between ground level and the sprinkler is a hole that qualifies as GUR and I have a written USGA ruling to that effect. So you are free to take relief or not, entirely up to you."

 

Great post!

[Mr. Bean]

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

 

Mr. Bean: P.S. In the original question the sprinkler head did not interfere with the player's stance

 

Iacas: We disagree there. It interferes hence it’s IO relief.

 

How hard-headed can a person be...?

[iacas]

5 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

How hard-headed can a person be...?

I don’t know. How far are you going to keep going? 🤣

[Bigarch]

4 hours ago, iacas said:

I don’t know. How far are you going to keep going? 🤣

Down a hole apparently LOL   

Been following this and enjoying the back and forth, and I'm sorry to burst the bubble of the referees present who want to claim the hole could be GUR... you are correct...it is not.  The hole that houses the sprinkler head is an IO.  Without the sprinkler head, there is no hole.  Now... if you were to take the sprinkler head out of the hole (in the process of fixing or replacing it), then the hole would fit the definition of GUR.  But in the OP's picture and original scenario... it is an IO all day, every day.  Others can "what if" all they want.  I realize some of our "referees" pride may be bruised, but good for you sticking to your guns.  Sometimes it's hard to be right.  I'm sure this will prompt a response... but this will be my last words on this.  Others can choose to beat this dead horse all they want.

[antip]

34 minutes ago, Bigarch said:

Down a hole apparently LOL   

Been following this and enjoying the back and forth, and I'm sorry to burst the bubble of the referees present who want to claim the hole could be GUR... you are correct...it is not.  The hole that houses the sprinkler head is an IO.  Without the sprinkler head, there is no hole.  Now... if you were to take the sprinkler head out of the hole (in the process of fixing or replacing it), then the hole would fit the definition of GUR.  But in the OP's picture and original scenario... it is an IO all day, every day.  Others can "what if" all they want.  I realize some of our "referees" pride may be bruised, but good for you sticking to your guns.  Sometimes it's hard to be right.  I'm sure this will prompt a response... but this will be my last words on this.  Others can choose to beat this dead horse all they want.

LOL, if you believe you are capable of bruising my pride, you are truly deluded.

[Mr. Bean]

3 hours ago, Bigarch said:

The hole that houses the sprinkler head is an IO.

 

Based on which definition?

 

The hole is GUR whether it is empty or half-empty or full, the status will not change. A hole is not an artificial object, it is a hole. Once you put an artificial object in that hole that object is an IO but the hole is still a hole and thus GUR by definition.

 

As already noted a player gets a free relief in the OP scenario and the outcome will be the same as both GUR and IO are ACC's. That does not hinder a person to separate those two concepts and recognize them as such and base the ruling on what is the thing interfering the player's stance. In the OP case it is not the sprinkler head but the hole.

[antip]

14 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Based on which definition?

 

The hole is GUR whether it is empty or half-empty or full, the status will not change. A hole is not an artificial object, it is a hole. Once you put an artificial object in that hole that object is an IO but the hole is still a hole and thus GUR by definition.

 

As already noted a player gets a free relief in the OP scenario and the outcome will be the same as both GUR and IO are ACC's. That does not hinder a person to separate those two concepts and recognize them as such and base the ruling on what is the thing interfering the player's stance. In the OP case it is not the sprinkler head but the hole.

And the Rule book affirms that a hole on a wrong green or a second hole on a double green is GUR, not an IO, despite an IO being at the bottom of the hole. 

 

Time to move on, nothing more to see here.

[sui generis]

6 hours ago, Bigarch said:

I'm sorry to burst the bubble of the referees present who want to claim the hole could be GUR

 

Not to worry, pal, but we usually get the last laugh, with this being yet another instance. 😉

[Colin L]

Well, that's been some thread to have missed.   Just read through it and astonished how assertive some folk can be in being wrong.  But it's not worth adding anything much.  A hole made to put in a sprinkler or a drain is GUR by Definition  and that by the same Definition there is nothing to support the notion that GUR has actually be an area being repaired or that it is necessarily temporary in nature. Just being assertive to the contrary won't change the words.  

Edited May 21, 2023 by Colin L