Please settle a bet (and outcome of a Nassau). My playing partner's ball struck the side of an embankment, rolled down into the water hazard and came to rest (and was unplayable) on a large drain grate in the water hazard at the bottom of the embankment - the grate slightly above the level of the water. What's the applicable rule? In the water hazard, or on man made obstruction?

In the hazard. See definition of a water hazard as well as dec 26/1 and dec 26/1.5. The margin of the wh extends upward & downward. Also, no relief in wh's.

Thanks Jev, appreciate the quick answer!

However, if you choose to play it as it lies you may ground your club, as a ball on an immovable obstruction is deemed not to be on the ground in the WH.

True, it ain't ground, but it still is part of the hazard. No relief from it.

jev wrote:

True, it ain't ground, but it still is part of the hazard. No relief from it.

I imagine the same approach applies to a bridge over a hazard. I believe you get no relief as the bridge is considered part of the hazard, right? And grounding one's club is prohibited.

bkuehn1952 wrote:

I imagine the same approach applies to a bridge over a hazard. I believe you get no relief as the bridge is considered part of the hazard, right? And grounding one's club is prohibited.

Grounding is not prohibited.

Decision 13-4/30 - Grounding Club on Bridge in Water Hazard

Q. A player's ball lies on a bridge over a water hazard within the margins of the hazard when extended upwards. May the player ground his club?

A. Yes. A bridge is an obstruction. In a hazard, the club may touch an obstruction at address or in the backward movement for the stroke - see Note under Rule 13-4. Touching the bridge prior to address is also permissible, since an obstruction in a water hazard is not "ground in the hazard."

This applies even if the bridge has been declared an integral part of the course.

Rulesman wrote:

bkuehn1952 wrote: I imagine the same approach applies to a bridge over a hazard. I believe you get no relief as the bridge is considered part of the hazard, right? And grounding one's club is prohibited. Grounding is not prohibited. Decision 13-4/30 - Grounding Club on Bridge in Water Hazard Q. A player's ball lies on a bridge over a water hazard within the margins of the hazard when extended upwards. May the player ground his club? A. Yes. A bridge is an obstruction. In a hazard, the club may touch an obstruction at address or in the backward movement for the stroke - see Note under Rule 13-4. Touching the bridge prior to address is also permissible, since an obstruction in a water hazard is not "ground in the hazard." This applies even if the bridge has been declared an integral part of the course.

Thanks. Learn something new every week!

Jev, your rebuttal?

(I love watching Jev and Rulesman go at it.)

DougE wrote:

Jev, your rebuttal?

Why, are there any questions left open?

Look at note 1 from rule 24-2:
-----8<-----------------------
Note 1: 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.
-----8<-----------------------

Rule 26-1 describes relief from a water hazard. If a ball on the obstruction is not in the WH, you wouldn't be allowed to apply 26-1.
So:
* Is the ball on an obstruction? Yes.
* Is the ball in the water hazard? Yes.
* Is the ball on the ground in the water hazard? No.
* Do you get relief from the obstruction? No.
* May you touch the obstruction with your club? Yes.
* May you touch other parts of the hazard not being water or ground? Yes.
* May you drop the ball outside the hazard? Yes (one penalty stroke!)
* May you deem the ball unplayable? No.

No worries. For most practical purposes I would say it is in the hazard. Note I'm not saying it is not on the obstruction too... .

If you prohibit the kids from throwing balls in the livingroom, are they allowed to do so when they're sitting on the couch that is in the livingroom? I don't think so eh? .

DougE wrote:

Jev, your rebuttal? (I love watching Jev and Rulesman go at it.)

I wasn't aware that we did.