Where can I drop ?

[justsomeguy]

Actually, I've seen many lateral (red stakes) hazards with peninsulas like that. Marshes #2 is a prime example. You can cross one or two of those en route to the water. It's quite common to drop on one of those peninsulas.

I was talking about rezadue's diagram, which is the one that started the "drop zone" discussion. Sorry for the confusion.

[BC MIST]

PS: Just out of curiosity, which rules are violated by creating a (1) drop zone or (2) marking the bush as a lateral hazard?

(1) Decision 33-8/2

(2) The definitions of water hazard and lateral water hazard.
Sea, lake, pond, river, ditch, drainage ditch, open water course.... I would add, "that is not casual water." Some think that because there is a "temporary accumulation" (casual water) of water after a heavy rain, that this justifies marking the area with red stakes.

[Hearzy]

I dont want to start a new thread so I will just add to this.

Stonebridge hole 14. Playing from blues.

A players tee shot starts off down the fairway and slices off into the water. There was no bounce on the ground prior to going in. Where does he get to drop? He ended up dropping at the edge where it was assumed to go in.

[BC MIST]

Stonebridge hole 14. Playing from blues.

A players tee shot starts off down the fairway and slices off into the water. There was no bounce on the ground prior to going in. Where does he get to drop? He ended up dropping at the edge where it was assumed to go in.

Was it possible for the ball to come to rest at a location OTHER than in the hazard? If the terrain and length of grass is such that the ball is either found or in the hazard then the reference point will be where the player felt it crossed the hazard's margin. However, on cannot assume that the ball went into the hazard if it IS possible for the ball to be elsewhere, in long grass, for example. In that case, the ball is lost - stroke and distance.

[AAA]

He ended up dropping at the edge where it was assumed to go in.

Assuming it was in the water, that's OK (2cl from the reference point) if it is a Lateral Water Hazard (red markings) but not if it is a Water Hazard (yellow markings).

[PapaPat]

Those who question the harm done by inappropriate red staking do not allow that it changes the risk reward ratio of the design of the course. Also, many take the advantages of the hazard markings without accepting any of the restrictions such as moving impediments, soling your club, limited practice swinging and relief from paths that now run through the middle of hazards. Staking everything red comes with a whole set of problems for the player who knows the rules and wishes to play by them.

[Ruskie]

(1) Decision 33-8/2

I stand corrected.

I must say I'm surprised the courses that have these kinds of drop areas get rated, or, even worse, add them after getting rated. A recent example comes to mind - #1 at Smuggler's Glen. There's a drop area after the ditch. Unless I'm mistaken, it's been there since day one.

(2) The definitions of water hazard and lateral water hazard.
Sea, lake, pond, river, ditch, drainage ditch, open water course.... I would add, "that is not casual water." Some think that because there is a "temporary accumulation" (casual water) of water after a heavy rain, that this justifies marking the area with red stakes.

To continue that quote from the definitions - "... and anything of a similar nature on the course"

Further quote - "Note 2: The Committee may make a Local Rule prohibiting play from an environmentally-sensitive area defined as a water hazard."

I realize I'm stretching the definition, but these two quotes suggest to me that it is not inconceivable to define an unplayable area as a water hazard, as long as it is reflected in the course rating.

Cheers,
Alex.

[Ruskie]

Those who question the harm done by inappropriate red staking do not allow that it changes the risk reward ratio of the design of the course.

I'd say risk/reward ratio is already skewed for regular golfers compared to the pros, since we don't get the spotters who'll find your ball 99% of the time. A chip out, even a difficult one, is not the same thing as lost ball. I'd also think that course designers would most likely intend the wooded areas bordering the fairways to be findable/playable most of the time and it's the fault of the course maintenance if those areas are essentially black holes. If a course like Outaouais, for instance, suddenly decided to mark all the woods with red stakes, I'd be very surprised. On the other hand, Le Sorcier and Pakenham should, IMHO (and do) mark some of the trees as hazards.

Cheers,
Alex.

[AAA]

To continue that quote from the definitions - "... and anything of a similar nature on the course"

Further quote - "Note 2: The Committee may make a Local Rule prohibiting play from an environmentally-sensitive area defined as a water hazard."

I realize I'm stretching the definition, but these two quotes suggest to me that it is not inconceivable to define an unplayable area as a water hazard, as long as it is reflected in the course rating.

Cheers,
Alex.

'Anything of a similar nature' means anything that would normally have water in it or running through it. Thick undergrowth, rough or rocky ground of itself does not satisfy that.

The Note is specifically addressed at Water Hazards that happen to be ESAs.

[Ruskie]

'Anything of a similar nature' means anything that would normally have water in it or running through it. Thick undergrowth, rough or rocky ground of itself does not satisfy that.

The Note is specifically addressed at Water Hazards that happen to be ESAs.

Oh, I see, I read the note wrong. I understood it to mean that an ESA can be declared a water hazard.

So does it follow that an ESA that doesn't normally contain water would always be stroke and distance penalty?

Cheers,
Alex.

[PapaPat]

Oh, I see, I read the note wrong. I understood it to mean that an ESA can be declared a water hazard.

So does it follow that an ESA that doesn't normally contain water would always be stroke and distance penalty?

Cheers,
Alex.

The choice for ESA's is either as a WH/LWH or GUR. If it does not meet the WH/LWH criteria, then it must be defined as GUR from which free relief is allowed.

[AAA]

See


Appendix I Part B 2b. Environmentally-Sensitive Areas

If an appropriate authority (i.e., a government agency or the like) prohibits entry into and/or play from an area on or adjoining the course for environmental reasons, the Committee should make a Local Rule clarifying the relief procedure.
The Committee has some discretion in terms of whether the area is defined as ground under repair, a water hazard or out of bounds. However, it may not simply define such an area to be a water hazard if it does not meet the Definition of a "Water Hazard" and it should attempt to preserve the character of the hole.

[PapaPat]

I'd also think that course designers would most likely intend the wooded areas bordering the fairways to be findable/playable most of the time and it's the fault of the course maintenance if those areas are essentially black holes. If a course like Outaouais, for instance, suddenly decided to mark all the woods with red stakes, I'd be very surprised. On the other hand, Le Sorcier and Pakenham should, IMHO (and do) mark some of the trees as hazards.

Cheers,
Alex.

I take it that the concept of playing the course as you find it is not one that you are in favour of. Unlike it often seems with the Pro's, we are not entitled to certain playing conditions and the use of our driver on every tee. At our club, players are constantly whining about unmarked GUR. Mud on a ball which is addressed in the RofG, is just something that should never be allowed. Course management is fast becoming a lost art. Really good players are much better at managing virtually all conditions and situations.

[Ruskie]

I take it that the concept of playing the course as you find it is not one that you are in favour of. Unlike it often seems with the Pro's, we are not entitled to certain playing conditions and the use of our driver on every tee. At our club, players are constantly whining about unmarked GUR. Mud on a ball which is addressed in the RofG, is just something that should never be allowed. Course management is fast becoming a lost art. Really good players are much better at managing virtually all conditions and situations.

No, i suppose I'm not. I'm in favour of playing the course as it was designed. I don't quite see how that affects course management. If your ball trickles into the woods and you have virtually no chance of finding it and have to re-hit, is that really what the design intended? Or was the goal of the design to force a chip-out at that point, or at least an option to chip-out? And would a chip-out, potentially from deep in the woods, not be a sufficient deterrent to hitting driver on every hole?

As for GUR markings and mud on the ball, I don't quite see how that affects course management. It's basically a roll of the dice (which I personally think shouldn't come into play if you're in position). Yes, really good players manage these things better, but really good players are better at pretty much every aspect of the game. Yet, give two players of equal skill, the one with mud on the ball or the ball on hard pan would score worse majority of the time.

If you insist on playing the course as you find it, do you have a problem with rules that allow you to lift the ball out of its own pitchmark (but for some reason not from another ball's pitchmark), or the ability to repair pitchmarks on the green (but some some reason not spike marks), or the ability to mark and clean the ball on the green (but not on the fairway). No? Why not? There was a time when these rules didn't exist, and golfers of those times would've been appalled if somebody proposed them.

Cheers,
Alex.

[PapaPat]

No, i suppose I'm not. I'm in favour of playing the course as it was designed. I don't quite see how that affects course management. If your ball trickles into the woods and you have virtually no chance of finding it and have to re-hit, is that really what the design intended? Or was the goal of the design to force a chip-out at that point, or at least an option to chip-out? And would a chip-out, potentially from deep in the woods, not be a sufficient deterrent to hitting driver on every hole?

As for GUR markings and mud on the ball, I don't quite see how that affects course management. It's basically a roll of the dice (which I personally think shouldn't come into play if you're in position). Yes, really good players manage these things better, but really good players are better at pretty much every aspect of the game. Yet, give two players of equal skill, the one with mud on the ball or the ball on hard pan would score worse majority of the time.

If you insist on playing the course as you find it, do you have a problem with rules that allow you to lift the ball out of its own pitchmark (but for some reason not from another ball's pitchmark), or the ability to repair pitchmarks on the green (but some some reason not spike marks), or the ability to mark and clean the ball on the green (but not on the fairway). No? Why not? There was a time when these rules didn't exist, and golfers of those times would've been appalled if somebody proposed them.

Cheers,
Alex.

I consider how a course was designed as pretty much irrelevant. I believe that inappropriate red stakes are an artificial design change which is ruining the play of many fine courses. It is not just that it is against the rules. If you have not done so, I wish you could spend a few days trying to officiate an event under these local rules that are outside the RofG.

I'm also in favour of playing the rules pretty much as I find them as well.

[BC MIST]

If a course like Outaouais, for instance, suddenly decided to mark all the woods with red stakes, I'd be very surprised. On the other hand, Le Sorcier and Pakenham should, IMHO (and do) mark some of the trees as hazards.

Outaouais DOES mark much of it's bush with red stakes. East course. FYI: Red stakes mean lateral WATER hazard, not bush. And if Le Sorcier and Pakenham do it as well, it is also bogus and insults the rules of golf. However, it is typical of the North American phenomenon of dummying down the rules for those golfers who don't want to improve their skills and who don't enjoy the challenge of dealing with a wide variety of playing conditions. How do you think "Really good players" become really good players?

Maybe the simplest solution for those of like mind would be to carry a 12" by 12" piece of Fiberbuilt astro turf to use just in case they land in a divot and perhaps a 30' piece of green outdoor carpet just in case the putting green in not perfectly smooth. Gosh, next you be asking golf clubs to erect barriers so that the wind won't affect the ball or a dome over the course to protect one from rain.

[PapaPat]

At Rick Smith's TreeTops in Michigan, there is a sign that says all wooded areas are to be regarded as LWH. Do not look for balls. Have I seen the future? Add an automatic 2 putt rule and we could really get things moving.

[Ruskie]

I consider how a course was designed as pretty much irrelevant. I believe that inappropriate red stakes are an artificial design change which is ruining the play of many fine courses. It is not just that it is against the rules. If you have not done so, I wish you could spend a few days trying to officiate an event under these local rules that are outside the RofG.

I'm also in favour of playing the rules pretty much as I find them as well.

I don't think you quite understand my position on this matter. I'm not advocating breaking the rules, and after the discussion in this thread, I'm convinced that red staked forests are indeed a violation. (while I'm on the subject, thank you all for setting me straight on this).

I also do my best to play the game by the rules as I know them, weather I think they're fair of not. You won't hear me complaining about them during the round.

I do, however, believe that the game of golf, just like anything else in life, changes over time, and I do believe that discussing the possibilities for these changes is only healthy. I think this discussion now migrated in that direction, but something tells me the overwhelming position of the readers of this thread would be that the game is just fine and doesn't need any changes, since all my points on that front so far are contered with wild exagerations. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

So, once again, thanks for the clarification of the drop zone and water hazard rules, I've learned something new.

Cheers,
Alex.