Bridge obstruction offers timely relief

This past weekend, while enjoying the 19th hole after a miserable round of golf, some friends and I were discussing some golden oldies. Since then, I have been unable to shake off one of the songs from my mind.

“Bridge over troubled water” by Simon and Garfunkel has been my earworm this week.

The simple lyrics: “when you’re weary, feeling small, when tears are in your eyes, I will dry them all…” have an allure that is just timeless.

There is a marked contrast between this style and the current hits that are just a mishmash of words, some of which have no recognisable theme. I am sorry if I come across as a fuddy-duddy in my musical taste but I must admit that the same applies to my preference of the setup of golf courses.

In tune with my earworm for this week, let me use the example of bridges over water hazards to explain a harmonious setup and one that is, well, not so harmonious.

Harmonious bridge over water hazard on 18th hole at Karen Country Club: There is a water hazard across the 18th fairway at Karen Country Club that makes golfers choose the club to play approach shots carefully.

There are golfers who can easily get their second shot across the water hazard on this par 5 hole. However, many like myself, will usually want to play a shot that will leave us just short of the water hazard to allow for a good chance at getting on the green on the third shot.

It is not uncommon for the bridge over the water hazard to come into play on this hole.

According to the Rules of Golf, the bridge is an immovable obstruction. A small part of the bridge is outside the water hazard but the rest of it is within its margins.

The committee at Karen have even gone as far adding water hazard stakes right next to the bridge to help players determine which part of the bridge is in the hazard and the part that is not.

Since the bridge is an immovable obstruction, a player may take relief if their ball lies on the bridge, if it interferes with their stance or if it is in the way of their intended swing.

The relief is only available if the ball is not within the margin of the water hazard. If the ball as much as touches the margin of the water hazard, then the relief is not permissible.

Discordant bridge over water hazard on 10th hole at Thika Sports Club: This week, while playing the 10th hole at Thika Sports Club, Tim “The Driving Bandit” Kiburi, got his second shot next to a culvert within the ditch that runs across the fairway that seemed to be excluded from the water hazard.

I think that the culvert is excluded since there are white stakes at the edges of this bridge that is over the culvert.

The stakes of the water hazard are interrupted by white stakes which seem to divide the water hazard into two. By adding the white stakes I could not tell whether the Committee at Thika Sports Club intended for the culvert to be Ground Under Repair (GUR).

If this culvert is considered Ground Under Repair, is it within or without the water hazard?

If the culvert is within the water hazard, then the Ground Under Repair stakes will be redundant. This is because a player is not entitled to relief from Ground Under Repair within a water hazard. It is therefore a waste of good white stakes. They may as well not be there.

I would like to think that the team at Thika had not intended for the culvert to be part of the water hazard hence white stakes. This meant that Tim’s ball, which was on the right side of the culvert as we approached the 10th green, was not within the margin of the water hazard.

Since his stance would have been impeded by the culvert, then he was entitled to relief under the Rules of Golf. Relief from the culvert that is marked as Ground Under Repair must not be in the water hazard. Tim got a “get out of jail free” card as he could now get his ball out of the ditch with no penalty.

The principle reason for elaborate Rules of Golf is for similar situations in different golf courses to be treated the same way.

The Swilcan Bridge at St. Andrews should be treated the same way one would treat the bridge at Karen or at Thika. Adding a peculiarity just creates a cacophony.