Embedded ball in mud, inches from concrete drainage channel - free relief?

[betarhoalphadelta]

Ok... Kicking myself for not getting a picture of this yesterday. The course is Oso Creek Golf Course in Mission Viejo, CA if anyone is familiar with it. The course was designed in a valley that allows for runoff from a manmade lake, and "creek" is in the name for the various waterways that channel through the valley. 

 

These waterways I think are most/all man-made, with concrete bottoms which channel the water in the desired directions. In *some* they look like the below picture, where you have a true "drop-off" of the land where it's easy to determine where the "creek" starts because the edge is fairly well-defined. However in other places, it looks more like a portion of the below picture where the grassy area slopes gently down to the concrete, often with grass extending right down to the edge of the concrete drainage channel. 

 

The course doesn't mark these areas. No paint, stakes, nothing. It's a very inexpensive public muni course, so I'm pretty sure if I asked the pro shop for a ruling by the "committee" they wouldn't know what I was talking about. So I think the definition of a penalty area has to be left to us, using the concept that the penalty area is defined by the physical features--i.e. the "edge" of the depression that allows the water to be there. 

 

My buddy hits his drive on hole 1 and hooks it in between the #1 and #9 fairways, which is where one of these creeks flows. We don't see it bounce. 

 

We get to the area and notice his ball is embedded in mud about 4" away from the drainage channel. This is one of those areas where the grass slopes gently towards the drainage channel, and in most of it the grass extends to the channel--in this area there was grass another 3" away from his ball. But the transition from grass to mud is not something that I would visually describe as a defined "edge" of a water feature. 

 

I told him he got free relief. IMHO in the absence of a painted line or stakes marking the penalty area, or a clear physical feature (such as the picture below where there's a physical "cliff" or drop off) that extends beyond the concrete, we should be assuming that the edge of the concrete defines the penalty area. And that in this case, I felt no such physical feature existed that would qualify. The gentle slope starts several yards away, and I couldn't in any good conscience deny relief if the ball was, say, 5 feet farther up the slope. So I felt I couldn't deny relief here, despite the fact that the grass wasn't growing well so it was just mud. 

 

Was I correct? If not, how do you define such an edge when not marked and when the physical features are, let's say, ambiguous. 

 

(Full disclosure: this was casual play, so nothing where I had any obligation to "protect the field". Further, we were competing in our own usual skins game, so if anything my conflict of interest should have been to deny relief to benefit myself lol. So I'm just asking to make sure I got the ruling right, not to assuage any guilty conscience.)

 

[Newby]

Without being there, it certainly seems to me that the first part of the definition (A penalty area is:) is satisfied. 

[Mr. Bean]

Questions like the OP are the ones I never read. A thousand words of which 900 are of no importance whatsoever.

 

Please, next time condense your text by at least 75% and you will get more answers.

 

P.S: From the title I could have given the same answer as Newby had, so what was the point of those 1 000 words..?

 

Edited April 28 by Mr. Bean

[betarhoalphadelta]

3 hours ago, Newby said:

Without being there, it certainly seems to me that the first part of the definition (A penalty area is:) is satisfied. 

 

I couldn't get your link to go to the right place, but here is what I found from Rule 17:

 

Rule 17 is a specific Rule for penalty areas, which are bodies of water or other areas defined by the Committee where a ball is often lost or unable to be played.

 

Again, I feel like I probably did myself a disservice by not snapping a picture. Think of something that looks more like the below, but concrete, and with water flowing through the concrete. Thus, the V ditch would itself be a penalty area. 😉

 

Assume the ball is embedded where the white circle is. I'd argue that a ball resting there would not be unable to be played. However, the ground at that area IS sloped towards the penalty area. 

 

Does that mean a ball embedded where the white circle is--knowing that there is no committee lines drawn or committee guidance--is inside a penalty area? 

 

[Colin L]

It  is often only by seeing a situation that one can decide where the edge of an  unmarked PA is, but in this instance there is such a distinctive line where turf gives way to the mortared stonework of the ditch that I would say that is the edge of the PA.  The ball is therefore, in my view,  in the general area and the embedded ball player was entitled to free relief.

[Hawkeye77]

Edit:  dumb post.

Edited April 28 by Hawkeye77

[Hawkeye77]

Yep, the concrete structure defines the area in at the absence of any markings, IMO.  

[Halebopp]

7 hours ago, Colin L said:

It  is often only by seeing a situation that one can decide where the edge of an  unmarked PA is, but in this instance there is such a distinctive line where turf gives way to the mortared stonework of the ditch that I would say that is the edge of the PA.  The ball is therefore, in my view,  in the general area and the embedded ball player was entitled to free relief.

 

I would consider the margin to be where the ground slopes down, leaving the ball inside the PA. That's also how I would mark it.

[Newby]

1 hour ago, Halebopp said:

 

I would consider the margin to be where the ground slopes down, leaving the ball inside the PA. That's also how I would mark it.

I agree.

 

The Definition includes.

When the edge of a body of water is not defined by the Committee, the edge of that penalty area is defined by its natural boundaries (that is, where the ground slopes down to form the depression that can hold the water).

 

A couple of years ago, my fellow county referees were given a presentation by a representative of the R&A and inter alia we were shown examples of such situations.

[Nickb333]

This topic again underscores my issue with the way the ROG can and are interpreted. Plain language and use of common definitions would go a long way to solving disputes. Too much time is spent arguing over needlessly unclear situations. Time that would be better spent enjoying your favorite beverage after a fun day on the course. 
 

A body of water? Lake, pond, ocean, year round river? OK. Those make sense. A seasonal stream, concrete irrigation or drainage ditch, puddle formed by a low spot or sink hole? None of those meet the common definition IMO. 
 

If I’m standing on concrete in an unmarked area, I get a drop. Doesn’t seem like too much to ask or expect. 

[Colin L]

On 4/29/2025 at 8:12 AM, Newby said:

I agree.

 

The Definition includes.

When the edge of a body of water is not defined by the Committee, the edge of that penalty area is defined by its natural boundaries (that is, where the ground slopes down to form the depression that can hold the water).

 

A couple of years ago, my fellow county referees were given a presentation by a representative of the R&A and inter alia we were shown examples of such situations.

The problem  I have with that is that from  the photo, we are dealing with a construction, an open stone lined drain set in  ground which slopes  down to the edge of the drain in such a regular fashion that it clearly been deliberately fashioned..  There is no natural boundary.

 

There will obviously always be different opinions on the likes of this - which is why a referees' course walk before a tournament is so important.

 

That being said, I'd entirely agree that it should marked as a PA along the line where it has been sloped down to the drain ( as indeed I had a similar set-up marked on my own course) but the reason for that is to give players a reasonably flat relief area to play from and in the by-going avoiding time being wasted by the drop, drop then place palaver. 

 

 

Edited April 30 by Colin L

[Newby]

38 minutes ago, Colin L said:

 

That being said, I'd entirely agree that it should marked as a PA along the line where it has been sloped down to the drain ( as indeed I had a similar set-up marked on my own course) but the reason for that is to give players a reasonably flat relief area to play from and in the by-going avoiding time being wasted by the drop, drop then replace palaver. 

 

 

That is just what the chap from the R&A said. (Except he didn't use the Scottish expression 😉).

[Colin L]

It's always a good feeling when the R&A agrees with me.  😎

[iacas]

7 hours ago, Nickb333 said:

This topic again underscores my issue with the way the ROG can and are interpreted. Plain language and use of common definitions would go a long way to solving disputes. Too much time is spent arguing over needlessly unclear situations.

 

The Rules of Golf already use plain language and common definitions. Also, "common definitions" aren't as common as you probably think they are. And… 99% of the time you play golf, nothing all that taxing comes up. Here, in the Rules forum… you see more of them, but this is out of thousands of golfers, tens of thousands of golfers, who play frequently.

[Imp]

Yes, I'm going against the grain of the above leaving it up to the players (as a committee) to determine relief from an unmarked penalty area. I believe it to be "not marked on purpose". If it was a brook, (like in the 1st pic), I would 100% agree it's a PA. 

 

"Concrete filled base" = drainage ditch = man-made = immovable obstruction. Status of being filled with water or not is irrelevant.

 

I would say the course *would* know what relief is appropriate given it's their course and probably have been asked multiple times. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a bulletin board in the clubhouse explaining their status. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bcjim]

On 4/30/2025 at 12:45 AM, Nickb333 said:

This topic again underscores my issue with the way the ROG can and are interpreted. Plain language and use of common definitions would go a long way to solving disputes. Too much time is spent arguing over needlessly unclear situations. Time that would be better spent enjoying your favorite beverage after a fun day on the course. 
 

A body of water? Lake, pond, ocean, year round river? OK. Those make sense. A seasonal stream, concrete irrigation or drainage ditch, puddle formed by a low spot or sink hole? None of those meet the common definition IMO. 
 

If I’m standing on concrete in an unmarked area, I get a drop. Doesn’t seem like too much to ask or expect. 

Agree.  I don't follow the logic of some others in this thread who seem to be ruling out the possibility of relief from a drain despite the rules clearly providing for such relief. 

[Hawkeye77]

I think the issue might be this:  "If an open watercourse usually does not contain water (such as a drainage ditch or run-off area that is dry except during a rainy season), the Committee may define that area as part of the general area (which means it is not a penalty area)."

 

It seems the Committee has to choose to include the area as part of the general area which suggests some sort of notice about that if one agrees the slopes down to the concrete structure are part of the penalty area.  Otherwise the drainage ditch seems to be a penalty area by definition and whether the Committee marked it (and it appears it should have marked it). 

 

Edited May 1 by Hawkeye77

[Imp]

23 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

I think the issue might be this:  "If an open watercourse usually does not contain water (such as a drainage ditch or run-off area that is dry except during a rainy season), the Committee may define that area as part of the general area (which means it is not a penalty area)."

 

Common sense prevails here. Are there markings? No. It is deemed general area by the committee. It's not like we need a new color stake that says "yes, we thought about this area, and it's not a PA". Absent any markings, and being man-made (immovable obstruction), embedded ball rule protects the issue in the OP. 

[Hawkeye77]

31 minutes ago, Imp said:

Common sense prevails here. Are there markings? No. It is deemed general area by the committee. It's not like we need a new color stake that says "yes, we thought about this area, and it's not a PA". Absent any markings, and being man-made (immovable obstruction), embedded ball rule protects the issue in the OP. 

 

I don't think imagining a new color stake is part of it, any more than posting Local Rules or anything else a committee would need to post or note would default to golfers simply "filling in blanks" as it suits them.  

 

The rule says explicitly the Committee needs to define the area as part of the general area - it's not a stake, it's a note on the scorecard, something posted, whatever the Committee uses to convey that information.  Otherwise, and I find it surprising, the definition of penalty area includes this kind of drainage ditch as a matter of definition vs. the Committee having to define it as such before it becomes so - so the default is the Committee should have marked it and didn't but it is still a penalty area, not that it is assumed to be general area unless marked otherwise.

 

If I had simply encountered it a few days ago, I'd have assumed the ball isn't in a penalty area and even said as much earlier in the thread - now, it seems like it is.  Could someone simply decide, "surely the Committee must have defined this as general area so I'll proceed as such"? I suppose, but if playing a competition and you find out later it had not, pretty costly error.   

 

 

Edited May 1 by Hawkeye77

[davep043]

23 hours ago, Imp said:

Yes, I'm going against the grain of the above leaving it up to the players (as a committee) to determine relief from an unmarked penalty area. I believe it to be "not marked on purpose". If it was a brook, (like in the 1st pic), I would 100% agree it's a PA. 

 

"Concrete filled base" = drainage ditch = man-made = immovable obstruction. Status of being filled with water or not is irrelevant.

 

You're going against the plain wording of the Definition of Penalty Area, which includes "a sea, lake, pond, river, ditch, surface drainage ditch or other open watercourse (even if not containing water).  Perhaps you've seen photos of the Swilcan Burn, which is a ditch lined with man-made walls.  That's a Penalty Area, even if there are no markings present.

 

1 hour ago, Imp said:

Common sense prevails here. Are there markings? No. It is deemed general area by the committee. It's not like we need a new color stake that says "yes, we thought about this area, and it's not a PA". Absent any markings, and being man-made (immovable obstruction), embedded ball rule protects the issue in the OP. 

No, following the Rules and Definition prevails here.  If its a ditch that (even occasionally) carries water, its a Penalty Area, unless noted otherwise.  

[Colin L]

2 hours ago, Imp said:

Common sense prevails here. Are there markings? No. It is deemed general area by the committee. It's not like we need a new color stake that says "yes, we thought about this area, and it's not a PA". Absent any markings, and being man-made (immovable obstruction), embedded ball rule protects the issue in the OP. 

I hadn't noticed Dave's post above and said pretty well the same.  

Edited May 1 by Colin L

[Mr. Bean]

On 4/30/2025 at 7:45 AM, Nickb333 said:

This topic again underscores my issue with the way the ROG can and are interpreted. Plain language and use of common definitions would go a long way to solving disputes. Too much time is spent arguing over needlessly unclear situations. Time that would be better spent enjoying your favorite beverage after a fun day on the course. 
 

A body of water? Lake, pond, ocean, year round river? OK. Those make sense. A seasonal stream, concrete irrigation or drainage ditch, puddle formed by a low spot or sink hole? None of those meet the common definition IMO. 
 

If I’m standing on concrete in an unmarked area, I get a drop. Doesn’t seem like too much to ask or expect. 

 

You seem to interpret Rules to your own convenince instead of the purpose and spirit if them.

 

I am sure you know that there is no free relief from Immovable Obstructions when a ball is in a Penalty Area. What you may have missed is the Definition of a PA. That has been esplained earlier in this thread by at least Haleboop and Colin so I will not repeat it. I only say that once both the ball and the IO are within the edges of a PA you get no free relief.

 

Perfectly logical and absolutely nothing to interpret.

[Mr. Bean]

  

2 hours ago, Imp said:

Common sense prevails here. Are there markings? No. It is deemed general area by the committee. It's not like we need a new color stake that says "yes, we thought about this area, and it's not a PA". Absent any markings, and being man-made (immovable obstruction), embedded ball rule protects the issue in the OP. 

 You cannot tell whether the Committee had decided not to mark the area as PA or simply forgotten to do it. This or that, there are guidelines how a player should treat an unmarked PA (as this clearly is) and that is not how you seem to think.

 

The Definition of Penalty area says in part:

 

"When the edge of a body of water is not defined by the Committee, the edge of that penalty area is defined by its natural boundaries (that is, where the ground slopes down to form the depression that can hold the water)."

 

Very clear to me.

 

If the Committee would, for some strange reason, want to limit the edge of that PA only by the conctrete structure they would declare it somehow, either by markings of by a Local Rule. In the absence of both the area is treated as a PA according to the Definition.

 

Edited May 1 by Mr. Bean

[bcjim]

But if an area that might or might not be an unmarked PA, is unmarked,  the reasonable course of action is to regard it as a part of the general area and not an unmarked PA. Especially if it is a long-standing part of the course which the committee has had years or decades to mark.

 

 

[Newby]

16 minutes ago, bcjim said:

But if an area that might or might not be an unmarked PA, is unmarked,  the reasonable course of action is to regard it as a part of the general area and not an unmarked PA. Especially if it is a long-standing part of the course which the committee has had years or decades to mark.

 

 

So a reasonable course of action overrules a Rule of Golf (ie Definition).

[bcjim]

32 minutes ago, Newby said:

So a reasonable course of action overrules a Rule of Golf (ie Definition).

The rules seem to be in conflict absent marking by the committee. Never mind that clearly all areas where "the ground slopes down to form a depression that can hold the water" are not PAs.

 

Obviously all drains are intended to carry water at some point. Are there any drains which I get relief from in your opinion? 

 

I would also say picture 1 is a PA but picture 2 is not.

 

What about a French drain? An area with earth replaced by coarse gravel but otherwise level to the turf?

[Newby]

58 minutes ago, bcjim said:

1) The rules seem to be in conflict absent marking by the committee. Never mind that clearly all areas where "the ground slopes down to form a depression that can hold the water" are not PAs.

 

2) Obviously all drains are intended to carry water at some point. Are there any drains which I get relief from in your opinion? 

 

3) I would also say picture 1 is a PA but picture 2 is not.

 

4) What about a French drain? An area with earth replaced by coarse gravel but otherwise level to the turf?

1) Did you read the Definition. Where is the conflict?

 

2) Yes

 

3) It depends on whether there is a Local Rule. But the recommendation from the guy from the R&A would say picture 2 is also.

 

4) French Drains are Immovable Obstructions by definition.

The USGA had suggested that they be identified as GUR in Local Rules and the R&A were happy with that. The reasoning apparently was that players were more familiar with taking relief from GUR than IOs. Either is satisfactory.

 

 

[Socrates]

On 4/29/2025 at 11:45 PM, Nickb333 said:

This topic again underscores my issue with the way the ROG can and are interpreted. Plain language and use of common definitions would go a long way to solving disputes. Too much time is spent arguing over needlessly unclear situations. Time that would be better spent enjoying your favorite beverage after a fun day on the course. 
 

A body of water? Lake, pond, ocean, year round river? OK. Those make sense. A seasonal stream, concrete irrigation or drainage ditch, puddle formed by a low spot or sink hole? None of those meet the common definition IMO. 
 

If I’m standing on concrete in an unmarked area, I get a drop. Doesn’t seem like too much to ask or expect. 

 

On 4/30/2025 at 7:23 AM, iacas said:

 

The Rules of Golf already use plain language and common definitions. Also, "common definitions" aren't as common as you probably think they are. And… 99% of the time you play golf, nothing all that taxing comes up. Here, in the Rules forum… you see more of them, but this is out of thousands of golfers, tens of thousands of golfers, who play frequently.

I disagree with Nickb333.  Using common language leads to problems.  I much prefer it when precise words are used.  Much like in the pre-2000's where every word meant exactly what the word meant.  Yes, it sometimes read like a lawyer wrote it, but it was concise.  When "common" and "plain" language is used, it often isn't common and plain to everyone and things can get muddied.  I have been and will continue to be disappointed in how the "new" Rules are written.  Dumbed down. IMO.

[sui generis]

1 hour ago, Socrates said:

 

I disagree with Nickb333.  Using common language leads to problems.  I much prefer it when precise words are used.  Much like in the pre-2000's where every word meant exactly what the word meant.  Yes, it sometimes read like a lawyer wrote it, but it was concise.  When "common" and "plain" language is used, it often isn't common and plain to everyone and things can get muddied.  I have been and will continue to be disappointed in how the "new" Rules are written.  Dumbed down. IMO.

Of course, you're entitled to your own opinion, but I suspect that most "Rulies" consider 2019 to be a watershed major improvement in the written Rules. 😉

[Mr. Bean]

11 hours ago, bcjim said:

But if an area that might or might not be an unmarked PA, is unmarked,  the reasonable course of action is to regard it as a part of the general area and not an unmarked PA. Especially if it is a long-standing part of the course which the committee has had years or decades to mark.

 

 

 

On one of my home courses there is a shallow unmarked ditch where there is water extremely seldom but it is a PA by definition. Probably for practical reasons (whatever they are...) it has not been marked and in normal course of play it makes no difference to players as balls are easily playable from the ditch. Problem arises once a ball is close to the steel cover of the well where water is supposed to flow. As this ditch is a PA by Definition there is no free relief from that IO but as it has not been marked free relief is taken by everyone with no further thoughts or questions.

 

The wording in Committee Procedures 5B(2) gives the impression that a Committee may leave a PA unmarked making it part of the General Area. IMO there should be a solid reason for that and it would be wise to inform players about that particular choice as some players may in fact know the Rules. Some courses have solved this problem by inserting the text "all Penalty Areas on the course have been marked" into their Local Rules. Works well provided ALL the necessary PA's have been marked. I know a course where this is not the case and they defend the lack of markings around some PA's by saying "nobody ever hits their ball there". A sad explanation IMO.

 

Edited May 2 by Mr. Bean