second hole cut on the green

[goochy]

So, I had a slightly unusual situation happen to me at Canadian GC yesterday on their 9 hole East course.
They have cut two holes on each green, one regular hole and one larger hole with a yellow flag to help youngsters and beginners (an excellent idea I believe btw).
However, on the par 3 6th hole my tee shot goes just off the back of the green. When I size up my chip the large hole is in my line of play, about 10ft onto the green and about half way to my hole. I figure to myself what are the odds of hitting this large hole...I'll just chip it up close and hopefully save par.
Needless to say after hitting a good chip my ball hits the flagstick in the large hole and drops straight in. It was a little frustrating as i thought the chip I hit had great pace and line.
I proceeded by treat the large hole as an immovable obstruction. I placed my ball just to the left of the large hole (no nearer to my hole) without penalty and proceeded to inevitably 2 putt for bogey. Was this correct? could I have taken relief before my chip? Anyone else had a similar situation?

[AAA]

You were correct in proceeding as you did once on the putting green but as your chip was from off the green you were not entitled to any relief at that time.
You would have had relief for line of play if your ball had been on the putting green originally. (24-2a)

[rxp]

could the course make a local rule allowing relief for his chip shot?

[jvincent]

I was thinking the that they could use the same (or similar) rule that they use for sprinkler heads within two clubheads of the green.

[AAA]

could the course make a local rule allowing relief for his chip shot?

No. If they could, they would have done so at St Andrews on the double greens.

[Shivas Irons]

could the course make a local rule allowing relief for his chip shot?

Pretty sure any course can make any local rule they want. Hence the name.

[jvincent]

Actually they can't make any local rule. Im pretty sure there is something in the Rules that limits the scope of local rules. I don't remember exactly what it says, but I'm nearly 100% sure its there.

[Shivas Irons]

Actually they can't make any local rule. Im pretty sure there is something in the Rules that limits the scope of local rules. I don't remember exactly what it says, but I'm nearly 100% sure its there.

You're right it is there, but the way I read it there is a provision for something like this even though it isn't spelled out as such. I would think that the course could use the two club lenghts for line of sight, same as the sprinkler head rule.

Just out of curiosity if a course were to invoke a local rule, let's say 'foot wedges allowed today' would there be any recourse for the RCGA? Is there such thing as a golf course blacklist?

[AAA]

A Rule of Golf must not be waived by a Local Rule. However, if a Committee considers that local abnormal conditions interfere with the proper playing of the game to the extent that it is necessary to make a Local Rule that modifies the Rules of Golf, the Local Rule must be authorized by the USGA.

An example of what you can't do
33-8/17

Local Rule Providing Line-of-Sight Relief from Irrigation-Control Boxes

Q.Irrigation-control boxes, which are about two feet wide and four feet high, have been installed near a number of fairways. Would it be appropriate for a Committee to adopt a Local Rule under which relief would be provided from such boxes when they intervene on the line of play, i.e., line-of-sight relief?
A.No. Providing line-of-sight relief from permanent immovable obstructions is not authorized, except in very unusual circumstances. It is not unusual for irrigation-control boxes to be located near fairways.

[Shivas Irons]

]Local Rule Providing Line-of-Sight Relief from Irrigation-Control Boxes
Q.Irrigation-control boxes, which are about two feet wide and four feet high, have been installed near a number of fairways. Would it be appropriate for a Committee to adopt a Local Rule under which relief would be provided from such boxes when they intervene on the line of play, i.e., line-of-sight relief?
A.No. Providing line-of-sight relief from permanent immovable obstructions is not authorized, except in very unusual circumstances. It is not unusual for irrigation-control boxes to be located near fairways.

So my question then is what if said course decided they were going to implement a local rule allowing line of sight relief for the irrigation boxes anyway?

[Kilroy]

The same thing that happens when they put red stakes along a forest's edge. Nothing. It still should not be done.

[AAA]

So my question then is what if said course decided they were going to implement a local rule allowing line of sight relief for the irrigation boxes anyway?

Scores should not be recorded for handicap but I doubt many players would be bothered. It will get their handicaps down.
If RCGA were aware and were asked to give any rulings, they would walk away as any competition would not have been played according to the RoG.

[Shivas Irons]

The same thing that happens when they put red stakes along a forest's edge. Nothing. It still should not be done.

Didn't realize this was a rules violation. I've seen this employed at a number of courses simply to speed up play.

[Kilroy]

A forest is not a water hazard. Red and yellow stakes are for water hazards.

[jvincent]

Scores should not be recorded for handicap but I doubt many players would be bothered. It will get their handicaps down.
If RCGA were aware and were asked to give any rulings, they would walk away as any competition would not have been played according to the RoG.

For the Tunis that was just hosted at Rideauview the OVGA had the course remove red stakes from several forested areas since they deemed that they weren't hazards. It was kept that way for the City and District.

[AAA]

Didn't realize this was a rules violation. I've seen this employed at a number of courses simply to speed up play.

33-8/35

Local Rule Treating Rough as a Lateral Water Hazard

Q.The areas immediately adjacent to the fairways consist of large embedded boulders, thick desert brush and *ly cactus. A player whose ball comes to rest in such areas has no opportunity to play a stroke. Would it be proper to make a Local Rule under which such areas would be treated as lateral water hazards?
A. No. There are many courses where the areas adjacent to the fairways are of such a nature that a ball therein is almost always lost or unplayable. Thus, such a situation is not abnormal.

[BC MIST]

Didn't realize this was a rules violation. I've seen this employed at a number of courses simply to speed up play.

While players have 5 minutes to look for a lost ball, very few actually take the full amount of time. If a ball goes near a forested " lateral water hazard," players still look for the ball. So except for the 30 seconds or so it takes to hit a provisional ball, how does red staking everything actually speed up play? It's a myth and disrespectful of the Rules.

[Shivas Irons]

While players have 5 minutes to look for a lost ball, very few actually take the full amount of time. If a ball goes near a forested " lateral water hazard," players still look for the ball. So except for the 30 seconds or so it takes to hit a provisional ball, how does red staking everything actually speed up play? It's a myth and disrespectful of the Rules.

So Rideauview and many other courses are disrespecting the rules based on a myth? Doubt it.

If it doesn't speed up play what would be the motivation for so many courses staking a forested area?

[gbower]

They think it speeds up play and also players don't want to play a provisional.

[Shivas Irons]

They think it speeds up play and also players don't want to play a provisional.

They think it speeds up play because it speeds up play.

[AAA]

They think it speeds up play because it speeds up play.

There is no evidence to prove it one way or the other.

[jonf]

Slightly off topic here, but was playing greensmere legacy recently and we found a red stake 2 feet into the woods on the left of 17 (short par three). We were all surprised, including the member we were playing with. Could only find the one stake, but it was there.

[gbower]

Where is it jonf and I'll check it tomorrow? That whole hole is either water hazard or lateral as it's wet 90% of the time. It's LWH all the way down the left of the cart path.

[jonf]

Left of the path. I think it was near or slightly past the end of the pond. So that area on the left has a tendency to be wet?

[gbower]

There should have been a few stakes up that side and is usually very wet.

[jonf]

It was very thick undergrowth....we may just not have seen the others.