Bridge over hazard

[Gary Hill]

That is as maybe but when was infallibility a human condition

I have posed the same problem to Rules Officials in the UK and on other sites. I have had many differing answers. As this thread was about the same topic I used the opportunity to seek further opinions. My responses to Gary reflect the points that other people had made to me. I am not suggesting Gary is wrong. His response agrees with some but not all others I have had.
The basic problem is -
Our paths are surfaced with either tarmac or gravel.
If they are declared to be an integral part of the course no free relief is available. Players may damage their clubs if they play the ball as it lies but more importantly, flying gravel is dangerous.
If they are immovable obstructions, free relief is available unless the path is on a bridge over (in) a WH.
The committee wish, in equity, to provide the same facility to players regardless of where on a gravelled area there ball lies.

This is all very well and good. I agree that an artificially surfaced path (no matter what type of surface) is an obstruction. The famous "Road Hole" at St. Andrews is a perfect example of a road being declared an integral part of the course from which no free relief is available.

However, this thread has NOTHING to do with types of surface on roads and paths.
We are specifically talking about bridges over water hazards.
It is irrelevant what type of artificial surface is on the bridge.

A bridge by definition has an artificial surface and it is immovable. Therefore, it is an immovable obstruction.

If the bridge is within the margins of the water hazard, then it is IN the water hazard by definition.

Rule 24-2b Note 1 says: If a ball is in a water hazard (including a lateral water hazard), the player may not take relief from interference by an immovable obstruction. The player must play the ball as it lies or proceed under Rule 26-1.

I can't make it more clear than that.

There is no free relief from a ball on a bridge over a water hazard.

[DCH]

I can't make it more clear than that.

As I have said, I understand exactly what you have said but your reading of 'open water course' and its relevance to bridges does not tally with some others I have queried. However, other people agree with you.
I promise to leave it and not take it any further here.

But as an aside, don't get so uptight - relax, play some golf.

[Golfpeasant]

As I have said, I understand exactly what you have said but your reading of 'open water course' and its relevance to bridges does not tally with some others I have queried. However, other people agree with you.
I promise to leave it and not take it any further here.

But as an aside, don't get so uptight - relax, play some golf.

I can understand his frustration. He's here providing valuable information at no profit for himself, and someone is continually ignoring his response.

Are you telling me you hit a ball on a fairway, it comes on top of that "covered pipe" you're talking about, and YOU TAKE RELIEF? If not, and you don't have any course where that rule exists, than why are you asking repeatedly? Which course are you refering to if that course exists?