Sweeping rules change proposals

[Kilroy]

[URL]
New rule: Committees are given the discretion to mark all penalty areas as red so that lateral relief is always allowed (but they may still mark penalty areas as yellow where they consider it appropriate).
Current rule: All water hazards should be marked yellow, except where their location on the course makes it impossible or unreasonable to drop behind the hazard; only when this is the case may these water hazards be marked red as lateral water hazards.

It makes sense to recognize that there are hazardous areas other than those that actually contain water. Many courses already do this. This change validates the markings and allows courses that would not have done this in the past to do so. This will indeed speed up play in a big way.

[BC MIST]

It makes sense to recognize that there are hazardous areas other than those that actually contain water. Many courses already do this. This change validates the markings and allows courses that would not have done this in the past to do so. This will indeed speed up play in a big way.

We have often discussed this point and the consensus is that, while there may be some time gains in marking "penalty areas" with red stakes, it is minimal. Depending on the area, players are going to look for their ball anyway, whether the area is marked or not. If a provisional is NOT hit, how many players actually walk back to apply the stroke and distance penalty and thereby consuming more time? The greatest gain in time is going to occur because of the search time reduction from 5 minutes to 3, which is a great move.
Marking non hazard areas with red stakes will reduce scores overall, but most importantly, it will give the long, and sometimes crooked, long hitters, another advantage. particularly on the par 5's.

[justsomeguy]

We have often discussed this point and the consensus is that, while there may be some time gains in marking "penalty areas" with red stakes, it is minimal. Depending on the area, players are going to look for their ball anyway, whether the area is marked or not.

There are many areas on many courses where I would not even bother to look for my ball and/or would not want to find my ball and be forced to abandon my provisional (and I do play provisionals). Time is saved both because players will not bother looking for a ball and they will not have to play a provisional.

OTOH, the change I don't like is the new dropping procedure. I don't a whole lot of difference between dropping a ball and placing it when you only have to drop it one inch. I can see a lot more players asking for free relief in questionable circumstances because it will truly amount to a "get out of jail free" card.

[AAA]

I don't a whole lot of difference between dropping a ball and placing it when you only have to drop it one inch.

Placing allows you to perch your ball precariously on a 'near enough' worm cast or tuft of grass with no danger of it falling just behind or just in front of said cast.
Placing will almost always guarantee the best lie.

[stevek]

We have often discussed this point and the consensus is that, while there may be some time gains in marking "penalty areas" with red stakes, it is minimal. Depending on the area, players are going to look for their ball anyway, whether the area is marked or not. If a provisional is NOT hit, how many players actually walk back to apply the stroke and distance penalty and thereby consuming more time? The greatest gain in time is going to occur because of the search time reduction from 5 minutes to 3, which is a great move.
Marking non hazard areas with red stakes will reduce scores overall, but most importantly, it will give the long, and sometimes crooked, long hitters, another advantage. particularly on the par 5's.

Like Legacy 10 on the right tree side which is red staked, at points, or is it?

[BC MIST]

Like Legacy 10 on the right tree side which is red staked, at points, or is it?

Steve, In the spring time much of the right side of #10, up to near the corner of the dogleg, contains water, which is why we marked it as a lateral water hazard. I am not sure if the additional red stake is still there but near the corner there is the last visible red stake and I had placed another one slightly inside the trees at right angles to hole, signifying the end of the lateral water hazard. So from that last red stake to the green is not marked as a lateral water hazard because it does not normally contain water, except for the occasional small amount of casual water.

[stevek]

Steve, In the spring time much of the right side of #10, up to near the corner of the dogleg, contains water, which is why we marked it as a lateral water hazard. I am not sure if the additional red stake is still there but near the corner there is the last visible red stake and I had placed another one slightly inside the trees at right angles to hole, signifying the end of the lateral water hazard. So from that last red stake to the green is not marked as a lateral water hazard because it does not normally contain water, except for the occasional small amount of casual water.

Hi Lyle; Hope your winter is going well.

That is a lot like Legacy#2 in the spring (2/3rds of the way up on right) which I don't believe is staked. That's why this new rule change could make it easier to predict the staking of the course in a more consistent, if not a bit easier(playing) and perhaps faster. (The speed factor is perhaps the reason why you usually own the first tee-time of the day.)

See you soon

[BC MIST]

Hi Lyle; Hope your winter is going well.

That is a lot like Legacy#2 in the spring (2/3rds of the way up on right) which I don't believe is staked. That's why this new rule change could make it easier to predict the staking of the course in a more consistent, if not a bit easier(playing) and perhaps faster. (The speed factor is perhaps the reason why you usually own the first tee-time of the day.)

Thanks, Steve.

Yes, that is an area that we will have to look at and mark accordingly.