Low Mow with Greenside Sprinkler Heads

[A_Clay_Man]

On yesterday's telecast of the Franklin Templeton shootout, Greg Norman, the architect of the Tiberon Course, was blessed with what appeared to be a perfect approach shot into the last. His shot, as I said, appeared perfect but struck a sprinkler head just on the edge of the green surface. His ball struck the head so perfectly that the bounce was high and true, and amazingly, his ball still remained on the green.

My question is;

On a course designed to be maintained as all one surface (low mow), is it always necessary to place the sprinkler heads that close to the edge of the putting surface? More specifically, on holes with a seemless transition from fairway to green?

[Craig Sweet]

Isn't sprinkler head location determined for the most part by coverage needs?

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Adam,

You do have to respect coverage needs, but a good designer when he stakes the irrigation starts at the greens and tries to keep the heads to either side of the main entry to the green.

[A_Clay_Man]

I know almost nothing about irrigation systems. Are there different coverage patterns for specific needs?

[Tom_Doak]

Adam:

You have hit upon one of our pet peeves of design:  sprinkler heads around the greens.

On many of our courses there is a lot of short grass around the greens, and we want players to be able to chip or putt from off the surface.  However, irrigation designers and superintendents insist on having two separate watering systems ... one shooting inside to the greens, another shooting outside to the surrounds ... with the result that they design 8-10 heads around each green.  So, half the time you miss a green there is an irrigation head between you and the hole!

[I know there is some sort of rule about being able to move your ball if you're going to putt from off the green, but we really don't want to encourage lifting and placing of the ball in our designs.]

On some projects we've insisted that one head is used to water the green and surrounds, with heads away from the green to back up the surrounds.  If the superintendent objects, we insist that they use smaller landscape heads for one system or the other, because those have a much smaller surface area and are less likely to come into play, but there is always resistance that those heads aren't that "good".  I'd sure like to see Toro or RainBird come up with a greenside sprinkler that had a very small surface so I wouldn't have to argue about this.

[Anthony_Nysse]

During tournaments, I know of several courses that have cut out small circles of sod from thier nursery to cover the heads around the green. Wtih todays demands of having firm, fast greens with everything else expected to be green, any smart superintendent in going to have half cirlces on their greens and half circles on the surrounds when bulding an irrigation system.
  As far as what happened to Norman yesterday, it's just the rub of the grain. I've had a drive it an irrigation head and give me another 50 yds, so they can be benifitial other than water!

Tony Nysse
Asst. Supt.
Long Cove Club
HHI, SC

[Don_Mahaffey]

Adam,
I know an irrigation designer who did some work for Norman in the Far East. One of the things that Norman insisted on was no heads in front of the greens. The problem is with any normal sized green your going to end up with heads between you and the pin when the hole is located on the edges of the greens. I didn't see the shot, was the sprinkler in the center of the approach or closer to the edge?

Kelly,
A very well known designer from the Southwest always starts his designs from the tee. The result is wet areas in front of the greens because the spacing is always a bit off as he works into the green and he'd rather tighten the spacing around a green then space the heads a little farther apart. If he's doing triangular spacing at 65 feet there is no way the heads on the approach are going to be exactly 65 feet away from the greens heads because he started at the tee and he's got to finish somewhere. Why any irrigation designer would ever start anywhere then the green and work away is something I do not understand at all. But this guy gets lots of work.

Tom Doak,
Its only my opinion and lots of superintendents would say what I'm about to write is crazy, but I don't think irrigation spacing around greens is all that critical when building USGA or some sort of modified USGA greens system. Why? In theory the green is a cavity filled with sand, with a perched water table at the sand/drainage interface that is designed to hold water until the cavity fills. If the superintendent simply fills up the cavity each time he irrigates, why does spacing matter so much? I think greens heads could be placed around the green in the most sensible manner and as long as the spacing is with in, say, 20% of what would be a uniform precip rate then I think it would work provided the supt adjusted his irrigation management. (It would not work if the greens were watered lightly each night) The surrounds heads could then be properly spaced from the greens heads, spraying in towards the green, not away from it.  One note on sprinkler size, the newer Toro and Rainbird heads are really not that big. If we supts didn't feel like we had to keep them edged in an attempt to keep the course looking detailed they would almost become unnoticeable. With 4" pop up height, the fact that quick couplers are almost always installed at greens, and individual head control, there is almost no reason that a greens head ever needs to be "flagged" on. If it doesn't need to be flagged on then there is no reason to edge around it other then it looks good to do so. Don't edge around the heads and soon the opening for the sprinkler would be the size of the nozzle body-about 2” in diameter. BTW, there is a course in the Coachella Valley that has part circle heads for the greens, part circle heads at the greens spraying out for the surrounds, AND full circle heads used during overseed. 3 sets of heads at each green.  

[Anthony_Nysse]

Don,
  The Honors course has something similar because of their bent greens, bermuda/zoysia surrounds and rye collars.

Tony Nysse
Asst. Supt.
Long Cove Club
HHI, SC

[Don_Mahaffey]

Tony,
I've seen a few courses in AZ which had back-to-back part circles and a row of pop-ups around the green for rye collars. The idea was to grow a rye collar all year, knowing full well that by August it would be toast. Going into overseed you then spray round-up on the collars to knock out any bermuda and then seeded it to rye again during overseed. Very good at keeping the bermuda out of the bent, but not so good at having a quality collar around the greens during the summer.
The latest efforts I've seen have the greens mix blended out into the surrounds which gives the expendable cool season collar a fighting chance. I'm a fan of this as in the desert the abrupt edge where the greens cavity meets the native soil has always been a pain to manage.

[Anthony_Nysse]

Don,
  To the best of my knowledge, that is what the pop ups are for at The Honors. I don't have to tell you how quick bermuda can overtake other grasses....

Tony Nysse
Asst. Supt.
Long Cove Club
HHI, SC

[Tom_Doak]

Anthony:

Please explain to me why you couldn't have a full circle head doing your green and the surrounds, and then a back-up head away from the green to help with the surrounds?  The surrounds would only be getting half as much water as the green when you used the full-circles, then you could water however much more you needed to for the surrounds with the heads away from the green.

I understand this might be a problem if you had USGA greens and crappy clay soils around them, but I've had superintendents insist on the dual system even when the soils on the green and off were exactly the same, and even when the grasses were exactly the same.  [Ken Nice did not insist on this at Pacific Dunes, and I dare you to go there and show me how it's not working.]

Trivia question:  do you know what the irrigation system looks like around the greens at Muirfield in Scotland?  I was told by one superintendent whom I have great respect for that it's really the ideal system.

[A_Clay_Man]

Thank you all for your considered replies.

Don, The head Norman hit was directly online with the hole, which if I recall correctly, was center frontish.

While I suspected this issue would be totally site specific, I believe I understand better now, how some politics (and business)  enters into it. I can only imagine that total respect for the turf is paramount and what's best for it, is the way to go.

[Anthony_Nysse]

Mr. Doak,
  As I understand it, we're talking about having full circle heads around the greens and part cirlce heads as backups for your surrounds.
  Particulary with water issues today, having part circle heads for greens and approaches is way to go. At a course like Pebble Beach, where you have to flush the greens at least every month, the amount of water that is placed on the greens for a flush will wash out all your bunkers with a full circle head. (We're talking at least a 30 minute cycles at 60 gpm)
  I also think that if your on a more windy site, a superintendent would want his surfaces more consistant around his/her greens. The water will cover more arean near the green than it waill away from the green. I would have to think that if you had back up surround heads, wind would either dispurse unwanted water onto the green, or not cover the surround areas.
  The biggest negative to having full circle heads around you greens is what if you didn't want to water your approaches? What is you have a fertilizer that you put on your greens that had to be water in? Now you're watering your approaches, bunkers and other unwanted areas?
 I just think that is a much simplier system to have-It puts more control in the superintendents hand, where as having full cirlce leave too many hands tided. My father has full cirlce heads at his course and they end up having to handwater more than they'd like because of the risk of putting water where they don't want it. Their system is 15 years old.

Tony Nysse
Asst. Supt.
Long Cove Club
HHI, SC

[Mike Nuzzo]

I'd sure like to see Toro or RainBird come up with a greenside sprinkler that had a very small surface so I wouldn't have to argue about this.

I thought they did ...  at the Rawls course.
I could barely find those spritzers.

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

There are some smaller landscape heads around the greens at The Rawls Course, at Jim Urbina's insistence.  But they're not really "golf course" heads.  I can't remember if they are Toro landscape heads, or a third-party manufacturer.

Anthony:

We've done several courses without USGA greens, so there is no need to "flush" those greens.  I understand that a superintendent would always prefer more irrigation control, but there is often no recognition that the hardware can get in the way of playing the game of golf.

P.S.  The "ideal" irrigation system at Muirfield?  They have single heads around the greens throwing out, and no sprinklers throwing in at all ... if they are going to water greens they have to water them by hand.    It certainly discourages overwatering the greens!

[TEPaul]

"[I know there is some sort of rule about being able to move your ball if you're going to putt from off the green, but we really don't want to encourage lifting and placing of the ball in our designs.]"

TomD:

I don't think so, or nothing I'm aware of. The Obstruction Rule (Rule 24) is pretty black and white. An Immovable Obstruction which a sprinkler head is has to interfer with a player's ball (the ball has to lie in or on the obstruction or the obstruction has to interfere with the player's stance of swing. Intervention of something like a sprinklerhead on the player's line of play is not, of itself, interference under this Rule or the Rules.

A player can take relief from an obstruction if it's on his line of play but both his ball and the sprinkler head (immovable obstruction) has to be on the putting green, and frankly in all my years of golf I don't ever recall seeing something like that.

If a player's ball is off the green and something like a sprinkler head is on his line of play most players forego putting the ball and just try to chip it over the sprinkler head. Just because a player might want to putt from off the green he cannot move his ball away from intervention by a sprinkler head on his line of play. Not unless he wants to pay a price in strokes that is.  

[Chris Munoz]

Adam, if you want to talk to the experts you should contact a irrigation consultant;Brian Vinchesi or Jim Barrett, they might answer all of your questions, regarding irrigation design around, an enivronment with low mowing areas.

http://www.irrigationconsulting.com/

http://www.asic.org/Data/barrett.htm

Chris Munoz

[John_Cullum]

"[I know there is some sort of rule about being able to move your ball if you're going to putt from off the green, but we really don't want to encourage lifting and placing of the ball in our designs.]"

....If a player's ball is off the green and something like a sprinkler head is on his line of play most players forego putting the ball and just try to chip it over the sprinkler head. Just because a player might want to putt from off the green he cannot move his ball away from intervention by a sprinkler head on his line of play. Not unless he wants to pay a price in strokes that is.  

Tom

You know that I know you are fully familiar with the local rule in the Appendix regarding obsructions near the green intervening on the line of play.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I suggest we take a poll - in reality, how many times have we had a shot affected similarly or even in any way by the sprinkler heads?  My experience has been a half dozen times in 35 years of golf.  One was in Scotland where my ball came to rest on a green side sprinkler head.

We do try to keep them off the front of the greens, as do irrigation designers, but they are techies for the most part.  Coverage is determined by appropriate spacing, given the model of sprinkler, and they are most influenced by getting nearly uniform spacing to provide the best coverage.  Sometimes the green design ends up requiring a sprinkler right in front, as a result of the designer just designing from feel, and ignoring those situations.

But really, for the few times sprinklers happen to affect a shot, do you really want gca types to put one more design limit on their creativity to avoid a freak situation? I think not!

[Mike Nuzzo]

But really, for the few times sprinklers happen to affect a shot, do you really want gca types to put one more design limit on their creativity to avoid a freak situation? I think not!

Jeff,
I agree from a playability aspect.
But would prefer them not as visible from an asthetic perspective.
They draw the players eyes away from the green surface - which I guess could be an unconscious strategic design intent...

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

You must be one of those guys who plays a strictly aerial game, like Nicklaus.    I keep the ball on the ground around the greens a lot, and it seems like I get a sprinkler head between my ball and the hole once every 5-10 rounds.

Tom P:

I thought the R & A had a rule about being able to move the ball if the sprinkler was on your line from a "closely mowed area".  It comes into play on links courses more than occasionally.  Perhaps it is just a local rule and they don't use it for the Open, I'm not sure.

[John_Cullum]

Tom P:

I thought the R & A had a rule about being able to move the ball if the sprinkler was on your line from a "closely mowed area".  It comes into play on links courses more than occasionally.  Perhaps it is just a local rule and they don't use it for the Open, I'm not sure.

Here is the local rule:

5. Immovable Obstructions Close to Putting Green  
Rule 24-2 provides relief without penalty from interference by an immovable obstruction, but also provides that, except on the putting green, intervention on the line of play is not, of itself, interference under this Rule.

However, on some courses, the aprons of the putting greens are so closely mown that players may wish to putt from just off the green. In these conditions, immovable obstructions on the apron may interfere with the proper playing of the game and the introduction of the following Local Rule providing additional relief without penalty from intervention by an immovable obstruction would be warranted:  
“Relief from interference by an immovable obstruction may be taken under Rule 24-2. In addition, if a ball lies off the putting green but not in a hazard and an immovable obstruction on or within two club-lengths of the putting green and within two club-lengths of the ball intervenes on the line of play between the ball and the hole, the player may take relief as follows:
The ball must be lifted and dropped at the nearest point to where the ball lay that (a) is not nearer the hole, (b) avoids intervention and (c) is not in a hazard or on a putting green. The ball may be cleaned when lifted.”

Relief under this Local Rule is also available if the player’s ball lies on the putting green and an immovable obstruction within two club-lengths of the putting green intervenes on his line of putt. The player may take relief as follows:
“The ball must be lifted and placed at the nearest point where the ball lay which (a) is not nearer the hole, (b) avoids intervention and (c) is not in a hazard. The ball may be cleaned when lifted.
PENALTY FOR BREACH OF LOCAL RULE:
Match play — Loss of hole; Stroke play — Two strokes.”
 

[Tom_Doak]

John:

Thanks for posting that rule.  I did not know the ball had to be within two club lengths of the sprinkler head.  I had a sprinkler on my line twice while playing St. Andrews during the Dunhill tournament, but I just played the ball where it lay instead of holding up play asking for a ruling, or risking DQ.  [Neither would look very good on an amateur's record!]

[Andy Troeger]

Jeff,
  I remember one incident where a sprinkler had a big effect on the result of a tournament. It was in a junior tournament, I was the clubhouse leader and another guy came to the last hole tied with me. His lay-up on the final hole (a par five with water in front) hit a sprinkler head and took a huge bounce forward and went into the water. He took double and I won  
  Obviously its the type of thing you'd love to be able to eliminate altogether, but its pretty rare to have something like that happen. I would tend to agree with you though, its best to cover them as best as possible, but the chances of the "freak" shot as I described above is pretty rare. I do get frustrated when there is a sprinkler head between myself and the hole since I like to putt whenever possible around the green, but on those occasions my thought is that maybe I should learn to chip better instead of wondering who the stupid guy was that put a sprinkler head in my way

[James Bennett]

P.S.  The "ideal" irrigation system at Muirfield?  They have single heads around the greens throwing out, and no sprinklers throwing in at all ... if they are going to water greens they have to water them by hand.    It certainly discourages overwatering the greens!

Has anybody done a cost-benefit calculation on the additional cost of double sprinklers at the green edge (greens set plus surrounds set) versus the wages cost of an occasional hand-water of the greens?  

I assume the greens receive more water than the surrounds - well thats what is required at my club.  It seems to me that an occasional hand water of the greens will keep the water down on the greens, down on the surrounds and away from the bunkers, leading to a better turf and firmer playing conditions.

James B