| Artificial paths [message #799682] |
Tue, 10 January 2006 19:31 |
|
Can you designate a path as having an artificial surface if it hasn't?
We have a public footpath across a fairway and do not put anything on it so
we wont be liable if Joe Public were to slip as a result of a uneven surface
etc - but it becomes very muddy and our Green committee have designated it
an artificial path so we can drop off it. Is that OK?
|
|
|
| Re: Artificial paths [message #799684 ] |
Tue, 10 January 2006 20:28 |
|
"MaggieB" <f [at] HEADCOVERvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:o4Twf.40742$zt1.11318 [at] newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
> Can you designate a path as having an artificial surface if it hasn't?
>
> We have a public footpath across a fairway and do not put anything on it
> so
> we wont be liable if Joe Public were to slip as a result of a uneven
> surface
> etc - but it becomes very muddy and our Green committee have designated it
> an artificial path so we can drop off it. Is that OK?
>
>
Perhaps deeming the path GUR would be more in keeping.
The result is the same - relief without penalty - just the Rule number is
different - 24-2 or 25-1.
The main problem will be deciding whether a ball lies on the path or not,
since I assume it has no clearly defined margin.
The Committee will need to find a way of defining the margin and also needs
to decide whether relief is to be given if the path merely "interfers" with
stance or whether relief should only apply if the ball lies on the path (See
Note to 25-1).
HTH,
Malcolm
|
|
|
| Re: Artificial paths [message #799685 ] |
Tue, 10 January 2006 20:31 |
|
MaggieB wrote:
> Can you designate a path as having an artificial surface if it hasn't?
>
> We have a public footpath across a fairway and do not put anything on it so
> we wont be liable if Joe Public were to slip as a result of a uneven surface
> etc - but it becomes very muddy and our Green committee have designated it
> an artificial path so we can drop off it. Is that OK?
I think there are two questions here:
1. Can the Committee declare something to be artificial when it isn't
? I would say no. It can adjoin natural ground to an artificial
obstruction to extend the obstruction, however.
2. Can the Commitee provide relief anyway ? The answer to this is
yes. The Appendix on local rules includes these words:
"(ii) Providing relief of the type afforded under Rule 24-2b from roads
and paths not having artificial surfaces and/or sides, if they could
unfairly affect play."
which would seem to cover your example. The "unfairly affects play"
consideration might only apply in certain ground conditions or at
certain times of the year.
--
Time waits for no man.
|
|
|
| Re: Artificial paths [message #799687 ] |
Tue, 10 January 2006 22:55 |
|
MaggieB wrote:
> Can you designate a path as having an artificial surface if it hasn't?
>
No.....but the Committee does have authority (under the all encompassing
Rule 33-8) to provide relief from an unsurfaced road (or pathway). See
Decision 33-8/20 as an example.
cheers
david
|
|
|
| Re: Artificial paths [message #799690 ] |
Wed, 11 January 2006 07:41 |
|
"MaggieB" <f [at] HEADCOVERvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:o4Twf.40742$zt1.11318 [at] newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
> Can you designate a path as having an artificial surface if it hasn't?
>
> We have a public footpath across a fairway and do not put anything on it
> so
> we wont be liable if Joe Public were to slip as a result of a uneven
> surface
> etc - but it becomes very muddy and our Green committee have designated it
> an artificial path so we can drop off it. Is that OK?
>
As others have said - best to declare it to be an obstruction (R 24)
--
Sam
He uses statistics as others use lamp posts: for support rather than
illumination
(Remove cap to reply)
|
|
|
| Re: Artificial paths [message #799693 ] |
Wed, 11 January 2006 10:59 |
|
"Malcolm Wadsworth" <mTHEwadsworth [at] blueCACKLEyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:WVTwf.24020$iz3.14231 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "MaggieB" <f [at] HEADCOVERvirgin.net> wrote in message
> news:o4Twf.40742$zt1.11318 [at] newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
>> Can you designate a path as having an artificial surface if it hasn't?
>>
>> We have a public footpath across a fairway and do not put anything on it
>> so
>> we wont be liable if Joe Public were to slip as a result of a uneven
>> surface
>> etc - but it becomes very muddy and our Green committee have designated
>> it
>> an artificial path so we can drop off it. Is that OK?
>>
>>
> Perhaps deeming the path GUR would be more in keeping.
>
I seem to remember, in a discussion relating to water in bumpers, that:
Simply to declare a part of the couse as GUR without any action being
undertaken
was not allowed.
Does it require 'repair' either by actual work or by natuarally to
recovery before that peice of ground can be marked as GUR or can one simply
declare any part of the course as GUR when it is obvious that no 'repair' of
any kind is taking place.
Denis
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Artificial paths [message #799697 ] |
Wed, 11 January 2006 23:37 |
|
Denis Cary wrote:
> I seem to remember, in a discussion relating to water in bumpers, that:
> Simply to declare a part of the couse as GUR without any action being
> undertaken
> was not allowed.
>
> Does it require 'repair' either by actual work or by natuarally to
> recovery before that peice of ground can be marked as GUR or can one simply
> declare any part of the course as GUR when it is obvious that no 'repair' of
> any kind is taking place.
We need to remind ourselves that the Rule providing relief from GUR
(R25-1) is actually providing relief from'Abnormal Ground Conditions',
which by 'Definition' includes 'Ground Under Repair'...and the only
requirement in identifying GUR is that it should be declared as such by
the Committee. The Rule also implies that GUR is temporary in nature (eg
grass cuttings or foliage etc. piled for removal)...and this would
include any area where repairs are actually in progress...or are
INTENDED. The situation with the path in question does not appear to be
temporary in nature, it is however a LOCAL abnormal condition which
allows the Committee to issue a Local Rule in accordance with the
authority in Rule 33-8, but which should be consistent with the policy
'set forth in Appendix l'.
Incidentally, it is useful to note that it is not 'anybody' who can
declare a part of the course as GUR, it has to be the Committee or
someone specifically appointed as representative of the Committee, such
as a greenkeeper or groundsman. This also includes a "Referee' in
Matchplay, but not a 'Rules Official'. It is not unknown for Pros, in
particular, to 'try it on' with 'Rules Officials', when they find their
ball in a particularly disadvantaged lie....they want it declared 'GUR'
on the spot! It has certainly happened with me (as a Rules Official) on
more than one occasion, and they get fairly shirty when you tell them
you have to call in the Committee to adjudicate.
cheers
david
|
|
|
| Re: Artificial paths [message #799748 ] |
Wed, 11 January 2006 23:37 |
|
Denis Cary wrote:
> I seem to remember, in a discussion relating to water in bumpers, that:
> Simply to declare a part of the couse as GUR without any action being
> undertaken
> was not allowed.
>
> Does it require 'repair' either by actual work or by natuarally to
> recovery before that peice of ground can be marked as GUR or can one simply
> declare any part of the course as GUR when it is obvious that no 'repair' of
> any kind is taking place.
We need to remind ourselves that the Rule providing relief from GUR
(R25-1) is actually providing relief from'Abnormal Ground Conditions',
which by 'Definition' includes 'Ground Under Repair'...and the only
requirement in identifying GUR is that it should be declared as such by
the Committee. The Rule also implies that GUR is temporary in nature (eg
grass cuttings or foliage etc. piled for removal)...and this would
include any area where repairs are actually in progress...or are
INTENDED. The situation with the path in question does not appear to be
temporary in nature, it is however a LOCAL abnormal condition which
allows the Committee to issue a Local Rule in accordance with the
authority in Rule 33-8, but which should be consistent with the policy
'set forth in Appendix l'.
Incidentally, it is useful to note that it is not 'anybody' who can
declare a part of the course as GUR, it has to be the Committee or
someone specifically appointed as representative of the Committee, such
as a greenkeeper or groundsman. This also includes a "Referee' in
Matchplay, but not a 'Rules Official'. It is not unknown for Pros, in
particular, to 'try it on' with 'Rules Officials', when they find their
ball in a particularly disadvantaged lie....they want it declared 'GUR'
on the spot! It has certainly happened with me (as a Rules Official) on
more than one occasion, and they get fairly shirty when you tell them
you have to call in the Committee to adjudicate.
cheers
david
|
|
|
| Re: Artificial paths [message #799749 ] |
Thu, 12 January 2006 00:18 |
|
"david s-a" <dsantwyk [at] bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:42lfknF1dtvrjU1 [at] individual.net...
> Denis Cary wrote:
>
>> I seem to remember, in a discussion relating to water in bumpers,
>> that:
>> Simply to declare a part of the course as GUR without any action
>> being
>> undertaken
>> was not allowed.
>>
>> Does it require 'repair' either by actual work or by naturally to
>> recovery before that piece of ground can be marked as GUR or can one
>> simply
>> declare any part of the course as GUR when it is obvious that no 'repair'
>> of
>> any kind is taking place.
>
>
> We need to remind ourselves that the Rule providing relief from GUR
> (R25-1) is actually providing relief from'Abnormal Ground Conditions',
> which by 'Definition' includes 'Ground Under Repair'...and the only
> requirement in identifying GUR is that it should be declared as such by
> the Committee. The Rule also implies that GUR is temporary in nature (eg
> grass cuttings or foliage etc. piled for removal)...and this would include
> any area where repairs are actually in progress...or are INTENDED. The
> situation with the path in question does not appear to be temporary in
> nature, it is however a LOCAL abnormal condition which allows the
> Committee to issue a Local Rule in accordance with the authority in Rule
> 33-8, but which should be consistent with the policy 'set forth in
> Appendix l'.
>
> Incidentally, it is useful to note that it is not 'anybody' who can
> declare a part of the course as GUR, it has to be the Committee or someone
> specifically appointed as representative of the Committee, such as a
> greenkeeper or groundsman. This also includes a "Referee' in Matchplay,
> but not a 'Rules Official'. It is not unknown for Pros, in particular, to
> 'try it on' with 'Rules Officials', when they find their ball in a
> particularly disadvantaged lie....they want it declared 'GUR' on the spot!
> It has certainly happened with me (as a Rules Official) on more than one
> occasion, and they get fairly shirty when you tell them you have to call
> in the Committee to adjudicate.
>
> cheers
> david
My use of 'one' was not intended to imply that such decisions were to be
made off-handily by one individual. It was not a good choice of word.
The discussion relating to water in bunkers included bunkers which were
completely flooded, a condition which surely come within your statement 'a
LOCAL abnormal condition which allows the Committee to issue a Local Rule in
accordance with the authority in Rule 33-8, but which should be consistent
with the policy 'set forth in Appendix l'.' The general opinion of
contributors to the discussion was that such bunkers could not be properly
declared by local rule to be GUR if no work was taking place. It was
suggested, with I believe tongue in cheek, that by placing a fork in the
bunker GUR conditions could be established.
None of these opinions or considerations of the rules were from me. I am
merely a reader pf opinions from those more able than myself to lead me down
the paths of understanding. To help me understand your view I must ask are
you of the opinion that GUR is not a valid condition that could be applied
to the paths in the original posting although relief could be granted for
some specific condition specified in a local rule?
Denis
|
|
|
| Re: Artificial paths [message #799752 ] |
Thu, 12 January 2006 04:25 |
|
Denis Cary wrote:
> The discussion relating to water in bunkers included bunkers which were
> completely flooded, a condition which surely come within your statement 'a
> LOCAL abnormal condition which allows the Committee to issue a Local Rule in
> accordance with the authority in Rule 33-8, but which should be consistent
> with the policy 'set forth in Appendix l'.'
In have often been involved in 'discussions' relating to bunkers full of
water.
The issue has often been confused because players believe they should be
entitled to 'free' relief from a bunker full of water, which they would
not get if the bunker was dry.......and this is simply not the view of
the powers that be. A bunker, whether full of water or not is still a
bunker, and a hazard,...and subject to all the rules relating to a
bunker. Water in a bunker is considered a natural occurrence, and the
rules regard this as 'casual water' (an abnormal ground condition), so
'free' relief IS available, provided that the relief is taken and the
ball is dropped IN the bunker. As a special consideration the Rules do
provide an extra option for casual water in a bunker, where the relief
can be taken OUTSIDE the bunker, BUT under a 1-stroke penalty.(See
Rule25-1b(ii)(b)). (See Decisions 33-8/27 and 25-1b/8)
The Rules will only allow free relief from a bunker if it is truly under
repair or reconstruction, and its condition is due to this repair or
construction. This is done by allowing the Committee to effectively
delete it as a bunker, by declaring it to be 'GUR through the green'
(note the 'through the green' component)...in which case Rule 25-1b(i)
becomes effective, allowing a free drop outside the total area
concerned....remember though that the unplayable condition must be
man-made, and not due to a natural occurance.
> To help me understand your view I must ask are
> you of the opinion that GUR is not a valid condition that could be applied
> to the paths in the original posting although relief could be granted for
> some specific condition specified in a local rule?
Correct, noting that the original posting asked actually asked if a
Committee could declare the surface to be artificial if it was not!
A Committee can however actually declare the reverse (in effect) by
declaring an artificially surfaced pathway/road to be an 'integral part
of the course', as distinct from an 'obstruction' from which relief
would be available. (a la the 'Road Hole' road at St Andrews)
cheers
david
|
|
|
