Cart path through hazard - local rules

[solstrum]

Running straight across the fairway ( left to right) is a creek (Hazard) The cart path across this creek is right in the middle of the Fairway. Yes, the cart path is considered hazard. However, Local rules posted on the card states, Free lift/relief from all cart paths.

The question is do you get relief from the path because of a local rule, or do you play it as a hazard?

[jvincent]

If they put stakes on the four corners of the path then it wouldn't be in the hazard. Problem solved.

[solstrum]

I think that is still debatable. However, as is now, do you get relief (local rule - relief from paths) or not Rules of golf.

[JGT4]

I think that is still debatable. However, as is now, do you get relief (local rule - relief from paths) or not Rules of golf.

Under the rules, you get relief from any part of an artificially surfaced path that is not in a water hazard (yellow) or lateral water hazard (red) unless it had been declared an integral part of the course (think Road Hole at St Andrews). Whether the path is in the water hazard depends on how the margins of the hazard have been defined. If there are lines painted across the path at the edge of the hazard, they effectively put that part of the path over the bridge or culvert in the hazard and thus no relief. If the lines only run down the side of the path, that effectively puts all of the path outside the hazard and relief is available. As most course do not paint lines you have to depend on stakes to inform you on where the margins of the hazard go. As stated earlier, if there are stakes on all four corners of the bridge then that is meant to be the same as the lines running down the side of the path and not across it.

[jvincent]

I think that is still debatable. However, as is now, do you get relief (local rule - relief from paths) or not Rules of golf.

Local rules cannot waive the official Rules of golf so whether or not you get relief will depend entirely how the hazard/path is marked.

Most courses do a terrible job of marking hazards so the chances are it's not properly marked. In that case I would use my own judgement and play accordingly.

[AAA]

If the culvert is in the form of a closed pipe it is not a water hazard as it is not an 'open water course' as required by the definition.
However that does not prevent a committee from marking it as in the water hazard.
If the path is over an open water course (** a ditch or U shaped culvert) then it is in the water hazard and cannot be marked as if it were not because the margin of a water hazard extends vertically upwards. In this case a player may ground his club on the 'bridge/path' as it is not 'ground in the hazard'.

[BC MIST]

In looking at posts 4 and 6, there seems to be some disagreement regarding the answer to the original poster's question. On one hand, in post 4, if there are hazard stakes at the corners of the bridge/path, a ball coming to rest on the cart path is NOT in the hazard and relief is available. On the other, in post 6, because the water hazard flows under the bridge, and because the margins extend vertically upward, a ball coming to rest on the bridge is IN the hazard and no relief is available. Which is it?

If it's the former, and if my ball comes to rest in the water, under the bridge, am I in the hazard?

[AAA]

If the water course is an open ditch or stream, the path is in the WH, regardless of what the stakes may or may not imply. If the stakes are intended to ieclude the path from the WH then the WH is incorrectly marked.
If it is a closed water course (ie the water runs though a pipe), then it depends on how the committee have defined the margins of the WH. The stakes do not appear to give any sense of direction of the margin. There needs to be either a local rule specifying the situation or yellow lines making it clear.
A pipe or closed culvert is an obstruction so see Decisions 24-2b/12 and 24-3b/1 unless the path has been declared to be in the WH then there is no relief from the pipe.
If the ball is under a bridge over a WH then it is in the WH.

[adanac]

For simplicity sake, the Committee would be advised to include the path in the water hazard. Just because there are stakes at the four corners does not, of itself, mean that the path is not part of the hazard. I would always assume that the line is stake to stake on the respective sides of the hazard. Just my $0.02

[justsomeguy]

If they put stakes on the four corners of the path then it wouldn't be in the hazard. Problem solved.

If the stakes were red then I would agree with you, but if they were yellow then I would not.

[AAA]

If the stakes were red then I would agree with you, but if they were yellow then I would not.

Why does it make a difference?
A lateral water hazard is no different to a water hazard in respect of bridges or culverts and defined margins.

[justsomeguy]

It would make the intent of the local rule easier to determine.

Why does it make a difference?
A lateral water hazard is no different to a water hazard in respect of bridges or culverts and defined margins.

[AAA]

How do the red stakes at the ends of the LWH indicate that the path is in or not in the LWH?

red stakes.jpg

In the diagram the water under the path is passing through a closed culvert, which by definition is not a water hazard. But the committee could declare it to be in the LWH by local rule if they wished.

If the path had been on a bridge crossing an open ditch or stream then there would be no problem as, by definition, it is in the LWH. The committee cannot declare it to be outside the LWH.