Golf Rules Discussion

Is a comittee authorized to declare a bridge over a water hazard not to be a part of the hazard, e.g. for being considered situated through the green?

I know that a player can ground his club on the bridge even though the bridge is in the water hazard. If the bridge is not a part of the hazard, the player is allowed to take relief after 24-2 when his ball is lying on the bridge. Since NPR cannot be in a hazard he would be allowed (and required) to drop outside the hazard.

My initially answer would be "no" but I cannot find any help in the Rules - maybe some of you can? Maybe it could be argued that it would be a breach of R33-8b since the definition of a water hazard would be modified (extends upwards...)?

Thanks
Brian Oswald.

The margins of a water hazard extend vertically upwards and downwards (Definitions)
The part of the bridge that is within the vertically extended margins is therefore an obstruction within the hazard.
The Committee has no power to waive a rule of golf ( 33-1).

That seems to me to add up to a simple no but leaves the intriguing question of why the Committee would want to do this in the first place?

Colin
This is often asked by clubs who want to allow their players to take relief from a tarmac or gravel surface without penalty. Many club members believe that a path is a path and don't understand why they can relief from one stretch but not the part that crosses the water.

I agree that the committee cannot make such a declaration.

Hello Brian,

I agree with your initial answer of” NO”. The Committee are not so authorised. It modifies Rule’s 24-2b/26-1 contrary to R33-8. However, as you may be aware,from time to time, Committees do what they do . That said, If a LR was implemented, on the lines you suggest, CONGU(Unified Handicapping System) tells us, it would render the competition Non- Qualifying. Presumably the same applies with the EGA Handicapping System.

Regards,
Ron.

Thanks all