or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by ColinL

I assumed IACAS  was referring to Decisions 26/2 and 26/3  which he mentioned in the thread on unmarked out of bounds - which was the subject of the reply I put here by mistake and which is now in the other thread.  
The two Decisions you have mentioned,  26/2 and 26/3 do not give a player licence to invent an OOB line where it  is marked or defined.  They are specifically and narrowly concerned with water hazards, telling us a. how to proceed if a water hazard is not marked at all  by determining that it is a water hazard by applying the Definition of a water hazard and using its natural margins;b. how to proceed if a water hazard has been badly marked and there is a part of it...
Good grief!  I've just got so muddled between this thread and the one on unmarked out of bounds, that I posted a reply relevant to the latter in this one.     Time to get some help.     !
Yes, with effect from January 2016.  
 For a both a free-standing match against your buddy for $20 or a beer  and for  your team matches,   it  makes sense e to pre-empt any disagreements and problems by playing a course as marked no matter if the marking is wrong.   In a stroke play competition, it is really important that everyone plays it as marked.  The alternative of having players making up their own minds is unworkable.
  As you see from my post above, I would, with the addition of "or defined in the local rules as being out of bounds", also be saying yes.
There are only two ways in which the boundary  or part of the boundary of a course can be established  in terms of the Rules - by its being marked with white lines/stakes or by the Committee's definition of that boundary in the local rules.   In the absence of both of these, then,  in terms of the Rules, there is no limit to the golf course whether across a street, into a backyard or across the Atlantic/Pacific ocean. There seems to me a lot of confusion in this thread...
Have a look at Appendix 1 Part A 2b and the specimen local rule in Part B 1.  It sounds as if the course could introduce this local rule that permits a provisional ball to be played where   it would be impracticable to determine whether the ball is in the hazard or to do so would unduly delay play, and if the original ball is not found, it is known or virtually certain that it is in the water hazard,  
By refusing to comply with a rule - i.e. the OP's  right to lift his ball under Rule 22-1 - his opponent loses the hole.  See Decision 2/3.   http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-02,d2-3   The corresponding rule in stroke play  is 3-4
New Posts  All Forums: