• Announcements

    • iacas

      Create a Signature!   02/05/2016

      Everyone, go here and edit your signature this week: http://thesandtrap.com/settings/signature/.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
MEfree

2 Hazards- How to play?

13 posts in this topic

Suppose you hit it in the direction of two distinct water hazards with short grass between the two.  You can`t find your ball and are virtually certain that your ball is in one of the two hazards, but are not certain which hazard it is in.  How do you proceed?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

Originally Posted by MEfree

Suppose you hit it in the direction of two distinct water hazards with short grass between the two.  You can`t find your ball and are virtually certain that your ball is in one of the two hazards, but are not certain which hazard it is in.  How do you proceed?

You have to make your best honest estimate of where it last crossed into a hazard.  Since most of us don't have the luxury of forecaddies to spot the ball, we often have to use our best judgment.  As long as you use something to spot the line where the ball was last seen, you should be able to get pretty close.  If it's a case of one hazard being beyond the other on the same line of flight, and you are unsure as to whether the ball carried into the farther hazard, then I would make the assumption that it was in the nearer one and proceed from that margin under Rule 26-1.   You just have to try to be as correct as you possibly can.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Fourputt

You have to make your best honest estimate of where it last crossed into a hazard.  Since most of us don't have the luxury of forecaddies to spot the ball, we often have to use our best judgment.  As long as you use something to spot the line where the ball was last seen, you should be able to get pretty close.  If it's a case of one hazard being beyond the other on the same line of flight, and you are unsure as to whether the ball carried into the farther hazard, then I would make the assumption that it was in the nearer one and proceed from that margin under Rule 26-1.   You just have to try to be as correct as you possibly can.

That makes sense to me...so are  you saying that you just have to be virtually certain that your ball is in a hazard and don`t have to be virtually certain which hazard it is?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by MEfree

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

You have to make your best honest estimate of where it last crossed into a hazard.  Since most of us don't have the luxury of forecaddies to spot the ball, we often have to use our best judgment.  As long as you use something to spot the line where the ball was last seen, you should be able to get pretty close.  If it's a case of one hazard being beyond the other on the same line of flight, and you are unsure as to whether the ball carried into the farther hazard, then I would make the assumption that it was in the nearer one and proceed from that margin under Rule 26-1.   You just have to try to be as correct as you possibly can.

That makes sense to me...so are  you saying that you just have to be virtually certain that your ball is in a hazard and don`t have to be virtually certain which hazard it is?

In the case you describe, I don't see how you can be virtually certain if you couldn't see which hazard the ball entered and both were close enough to each other to cause some doubt.  You know it's lost in a hazard and you have to use what little information is available to make your decision.  It's something which would be decided on a case by case basis.

I'm not a particularly long hitter, while the next guy up might be a bomber.  We hit on the same line and find the problem you describe.  I play my drop from the near hazard line, while he has the privilege of moving up to the farther one because it might be virtually certain that his ball carried the first hazard.  In this case, the disparity in our shots created a different virtual certainty for each of us.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Fourputt

In the case you describe, I don't see how you can be virtually certain if you couldn't see which hazard the ball entered and both were close enough to each other to cause some doubt.  You know it's lost in a hazard and you have to use what little information is available to make your decision.  It's something which would be decided on a case by case basis.

I am saying you are virtually certain it is in one hazard or the other, but not sure which.  Not sure why that wouldn`t be possible.  i.e. suppose there are two creeks that crosses a wide firm fairway 40 yards apart.  You hit a low shot right down the middle that you hope carried the first creek and stayed short of the second one.  You get up to where you suspect your ball to be and see it nowhere with no long grass in site.  The only two real possibilities are that you didn`t carry the first creek or that you carried the first creek and rolled into the the second creek.  You are virtually certain that it is in one of the two, but not sure which.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by MEfree

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

In the case you describe, I don't see how you can be virtually certain if you couldn't see which hazard the ball entered and both were close enough to each other to cause some doubt.  You know it's lost in a hazard and you have to use what little information is available to make your decision.  It's something which would be decided on a case by case basis.

I am saying you are virtually certain it is in one hazard or the other, but not sure which.  Not sure why that wouldn`t be possible.  i.e. suppose there are two creeks that crosses a wide firm fairway 40 yards apart.  You hit a low shot right down the middle that you hope carried the first creek and stayed short of the second one.  You get up to where you suspect your ball to be and see it nowhere with no long grass in site.  The only two real possibilities are that you didn`t carry the first creek or that you carried the first creek and rolled into the the second creek.  You are virtually certain that it is in one of the two, but not sure which.

Once again, you have to weigh the evidence without giving yourself the benefit of any doubt.  If there any reason to doubt that the ball carried the first part of the hazard, then you have to proceed as if the ball is in that one.  I don't see any way that I would rule differently unless there is real evidence to the contrary.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by MEfree

I am saying you are virtually certain it is in one hazard or the other, but not sure which.  Not sure why that wouldn`t be possible.  i.e. suppose there are two creeks that crosses a wide firm fairway 40 yards apart.  You hit a low shot right down the middle that you hope carried the first creek and stayed short of the second one.  You get up to where you suspect your ball to be and see it nowhere with no long grass in site.  The only two real possibilities are that you didn`t carry the first creek or that you carried the first creek and rolled into the the second creek.  You are virtually certain that it is in one of the two, but not sure which.

Maybe possible, but extremely unlikely to have something designed like this.  This is more of a hypothetical.  I think with a 40 yard difference you still would be able to judge which hazard you got to by your estimated distance of the shot you played.  If a hole were actually designed where the ball could not be lost outside the hazard, however which hazard it was actually in could be impossible to determine..............I'd make the limits of the hazard cover both hazards.........or a drop zone.......which to me means a badly designed hole.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Dormie1360

Quote:

Originally Posted by MEfree

I am saying you are virtually certain it is in one hazard or the other, but not sure which.  Not sure why that wouldn`t be possible.  i.e. suppose there are two creeks that crosses a wide firm fairway 40 yards apart.  You hit a low shot right down the middle that you hope carried the first creek and stayed short of the second one.  You get up to where you suspect your ball to be and see it nowhere with no long grass in site.  The only two real possibilities are that you didn`t carry the first creek or that you carried the first creek and rolled into the the second creek.  You are virtually certain that it is in one of the two, but not sure which.

Maybe possible, but extremely unlikely to have something designed like this.  This is more of a hypothetical.  I think with a 40 yard difference you still would be able to judge which hazard you got to by your estimated distance of the shot you played.  If a hole were actually designed where the ball could not be lost outside the hazard, however which hazard it was actually in could be impossible to determine..............I'd make the limits of the hazard cover both hazards.........or a drop zone.......which to me means a badly designed hole.

Actually I've seen holes with a winding creek where the ball could cross in and out of several hazard margins in its flight and it would be quite difficult to determine what part of the hazard it actually last crossed into if you didn't find the ball.  Its a real possibility and you just have to assess as honestly as possible where you think that the ball would have most likely ended up.  It isn't a common situation, but it's certainly possible.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Actually I've seen holes with a winding creek where the ball could cross in and out of several hazard margins in its flight and it would be quite difficult to determine what part of the hazard it actually last crossed into if you didn't find the ball.  Its a real possibility and you just have to assess as honestly as possible where you think that the ball would have most likely ended up.  It isn't a common situation, but it's certainly possible.

Thanks, good to know.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re-hit from the original lie, drop on your line anywhere behind the first hazard crossed, or drop two club lengths perpendicular to the line and behind the first hazard encountered.  Any of the three with an added stroke.  To save time, you may take your relief and declare the second ball a provisional before you honestly search up to five minutes for the first ball---if you find your first ball the provisional is no longer in play.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How far back in history are you going to go?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by stangmark

Re-hit from the original lie, drop on your line anywhere behind the first hazard crossed, or drop two club lengths perpendicular to the line and behind the first hazard encountered.  Any of the three with an added stroke.  To save time, you may take your relief and declare the second ball a provisional before you honestly search up to five minutes for the first ball---if you find your first ball the provisional is no longer in play.

More nonsense.

Anyone looking for actual answers, ignore this guy.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by stangmark

Re-hit from the original lie, drop on your line anywhere behind the first hazard crossed, or drop two club lengths perpendicular to the line and behind the first hazard encountered.  Any of the three with an added stroke.  To save time, you may take your relief and declare the second ball a provisional before you honestly search up to five minutes for the first ball---if you find your first ball the provisional is no longer in play.

UH??? No!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Golf Evolution
  • Posts

    • 2016 TST Initiative: Forward Tees Tournament
      In Lowest Score Wins, we recommend that golfers play from the forward tees in order to experience "breaking 80" for the first time, or shooting 65, or having more birdie putts than they've ever had, or whatever. This year, in 2016, we're taking it one step farther: we're encouraging everyone here to work with the head pro at your home course (or, if you play multiple courses, the head pro at each of them!) and to set up a serious "Forward Tees Tournament." A Forward Tees Tournament (FTT) will be: FUN! Enlightening Unique Challenging I'll give anyone who creates and/or participates in a FTT this year the special achievement/award seen to the left. Anyone with this award will be entered to win a TST prize to be determined at the end of the year (and I'll do my best to make it a fairly good prize, but that shouldn't be the main reason why anyone should do this). You can play: With or without handicaps. With or without brackets/divisions/flights. Stroke play or match play. 18, 27, 36, 54+ holes. One day, two days, three days. Etc. I think golfers will love playing in this type of tournament. I think it will challenge them to think about how they play and score. I think it will result in faster play, more fun, more birdies, more chances to hit 7-iron into par fives and feel like a Tour player for once, and… lower scores (or higher scores for the dumb players!). So there you have it. What can you do from here? Pledge here in this thread to talk to your head pro. Recruit your buddies and local golfers to play in your event. Work with your head pro to make the event a success. Play in the event! Post here after your tournament has been played to claim your super-exclusive award/achievement! I'm in. I'll be doing this, hopefully at multiple courses this year. Are you?
    • Posting old scores
      I haven't had an official handicap for about 15 years because in the past several I've only been able to play 6-8 times per year. This year I joined a club so that I could play in tournaments and since I need five scores to get a handicap, I entered some scores in GHIN from my last few rounds in 2015 (since I play so rarely, I can remember them). When I was doing this, I forgot to change the date when posting a score from August so it defaulted to today and is now my most recent reported score. GHIN won't let me change the entry but says to "contact my club" to fix it, which seems like a hassle for everyone involved. It's not my lowest score but it's close, so it will probably be included in my handicap calculation for quite a while unless the date is changed. How big of a deal is this?
    • How to eliminate blowup holes
      Another thing is sometimes to 'give up' on par. For example, as a bogey golfer, if I hit a bad tee shot and end up say 220yds from the hold on a par 4 rather than the usual 130yds, play the hole as if bogey is the new par. You've made the hole more difficult for yourself and rather than trying to hit the green with a 3 wood (a green designed to be hit with a mid/short iron), take 2 shots to get on the green and 2 shots to get down. 1 220yd par 4 is an easy hole (could even make birdie (which becomes par and a great save) whereas a 220 yd par 3, not off the tee, is asking for trouble. Not always the best way to play golf (read Lowest Score Wins) but the best way to avoid blowing up.
    • Jack or Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?
      Find it yourself please. I don't think that would provide much insight. Courses, technology… all very different. Too many differences. People who qualify for the Opens rarely actually compete for them. The winners and top finishers almost always come from those who qualify automatically. I'm not. Very few foreign golfers played on the PGA Tour in the 60s. It's been steadily growing - and travel has made it easier, too - through to now. And even now we're starting to see Asian golfers really take over. The only Asian golfer many could name who competed against Nicklaus was Isao Aoki. Maybe Jumbo Ozaki. I'm just talking about the number of golfers. There are a ton more now. I don't care. I realize perhaps your condition forces you to take everything literally, but I wasn't being literal here. The PGA Tour takes the best 150 players or so out of X. As X grows, the amount of separation between those top 150 players narrows. We're in a very narrow phase right now. When Jack was playing, the gap was significantly wider. No. Tiger was quite a bit more dominant and "above" even MORE highly competitive fields. Both halves of that are true: Tiger won by larger margins and against stronger fields. I agree. And I've said similar things. No…? You don't say? (On page 273 of a thread doing just that…)? You seem to be the only person who regards WGCs as weaker fields that offer a "competitive break." It says a lot about how others should consider your opinions on strength of field. You're assuming or haven't read many of my posts in this thread, because I've said several times that I'd put it within a few points of 50/50. Maybe 55/45. Hardly what I'd call "strong." Of course we're both "estimating." Tiger's record, IMO, against significantly stiffer competition, puts him ahead. Not by a lot. Not really. If only 30 players had a realistic chance to win a tournament, adding players beyond that 30th player does little to affect the strength of the field. The WGCs could add 200 club professionals that would never win and… the strength of field would remain exactly the same. Where have I said this? Because even if I did, it doesn't support whatever you're trying to force it into supporting here. The odds of a club pro beating anyone on the PGA Tour these days are slim to none. They were slightly more likely back when fewer "A" players played the PGA Tour… like in the 60s and 70s. A "C" player's game almost never varies enough - not for four days - to beat even 10 or 15 "A" players. Here's an opinion, but one I could probably back up if I cared enough to take the time (I do not): a modern WGC has a stronger field than many (perhaps all) of the majors Nicklaus won. I've said this before, and will say it again here: In Jack's day, there were maybe 10-15 "A" players, 25 "B" players, and the rest were "C" players. Today there are 100+ A players and the rest B players. I'm also going to request, mostly because of the number of times I've had to repeat myself in this thread, that you not quote or respond to me, @natureboy, in this thread. I'm not keen on repeating myself about something that, ultimately, I don't care that much about. It is what it is, their records are what they are, and they could only beat the guys they played against.
    • How to eliminate blowup holes
      Never try to hit through trees, always just get back to the fairway.
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    No users celebrating today
  • Blog Entries