• 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

Lateral Water Hazard Boundary?

16 posts in this topic

The Keystone golf courses seem to have a shortage of stakes marking hazards.  To conserve stakes, they typically mark one side of the hazard, but not the other.  i,e. https://maps.google.com/maps?q=keystone+river+golf+course≪=39.602111,-105.985589&spn;=0.000908,0.002064&fb;=1≷=us&hq;=keystone+river+golf+course&radius;=15000&t;=h&z;=20 has two stakes near the bridge at the center of the frame, and a couple of more stakes on the fairway side of the hazard going towards the green, but no stakes on the other 3 sides of the hazard.

Where does the hazard end?  Is everything left of the stakes included?  What angle do you take from the stakes to determine what is in and what is out of the hazard?

In other cases, stakes are placed in such a way that an area that should obviously be included in a hazard is technically outside the stakes.  How should this be played?

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!

The Rules cover situations where water hazards are not marked.

Look in the Definitions as well as at Rule 26 (and Decisions like 26/3).

And then get the Committee to properly mark the course. Where you play they seem to have a lot of these kinds of problems. :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Originally Posted by Rulesman

See also Decision 33-2a/4

so this says that you can`t take advantage of a committees error by playing it as casual water...is it the same if the committees error might hurt you?  (i.e. your ball is lost in what should be within the natural margins of the hazard, but the hazard is not marked properly)

Originally Posted by iacas

The Rules cover situations where water hazards are not marked.

Look in the Definitions as well as at Rule 26 (and Decisions like 26/3).

And then get the Committee to properly mark the course. Where you play they seem to have a lot of these kinds of problems. :)

I agree that they should do a better job marking the hazards, but there are some stakes, so I am not sure if I can treat it as an "unmarked" hazard??

I read rule 26 before posting, but couldn`t find anything covering the direction a hazard is assumed to go based on the posts.  If the posts form something resembling a circle, square, rectangle or other enclosed shape, then it seems easy.  What I am trying to figure out is what happens when the posts are just a line segment?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by MEfree

If the posts form something resembling a circle, square, rectangle or other enclosed shape, then it seems easy.  What I am trying to figure out is what happens when the posts are just a line segment?

It's difficult for me to say anything about a particular hole without actually being there, but you can have a lateral hazard with only one side.

See Dec 33-2a/11

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by MEfree

so this says that you can`t take advantage of a committees error by playing it as casual water...is it the same if the committees error might hurt you?  (i.e. your ball is lost in what should be within the natural margins of the hazard, but the hazard is not marked properly)

I agree that they should do a better job marking the hazards, but there are some stakes, so I am not sure if I can treat it as an "unmarked" hazard??

I read rule 26 before posting, but couldn`t find anything covering the direction a hazard is assumed to go based on the posts.  If the posts form something resembling a circle, square, rectangle or other enclosed shape, then it seems easy.  What I am trying to figure out is what happens when the posts are just a line segment?

If the water is a lake or pond then it is reasonable to assume the whole area is a water hazard. That might not be the case where the water is an ocean (eg Pebble Beach where the far side is Hawaii).

Whether it is partially or completely unmarked, it is by definition a water hazard and should be played as such. 26/3 is the authority. Any unmarked margins should be treated as if they had been marked correctly.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Rulesman

Whether it is partially or completely unmarked, it is by definition a water hazard and should be played as such. 26/3 is the authority. Any unmarked margins should be treated as if they had been marked correctly.

I think this is correct. I almost posted the above-cited decision as evidence that the incorrect marking took precedence, but I believe that is an incorrect reading of that decision. As someone interpreted above, that ruling says that you don't get to "take advantage" of the error by using the casual water rule for a hazard.

A water hazard has a definition that can't be modified by local rule. In a case where there was a reasonable interpretation under which the stakes were correctly marking the boundary, then I think the stakes would be the deciding factor. If they're plainly wrong under the immutable definition of a water hazard, then I think the definition itself needs to be correctly interpreted and the stakes ignored (except perhaps in deciding whether it was the Committee's intent to mark it as a lateral hazard or not, based on the color of the stake).

Informally, I wonder if it'd be fair to say that a stake can mark a hazard, but it can't "unmark" a hazard. That is, a stake can extend the margin of a hazard to be reasonably larger than the most conservative reasonable interpretation, but it can't reduce the margin to smaller than that. The area outside the stakes would, by definition, have to be included, regardless of the stake. I think this is a natural interpretation---and is the flipside of the concept that a Committee cannot "declare" a water hazard where there is no water.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To continue this, we have a meandering stream which is staked as LWH. Stakes are every 10 - 15 yards. The stream makes tight S curves so that the straight line between stakes may cut the peninsula or the river at certain points. The stakes themselves are normally about a yard from the edge of the water (quite steep slopes). How should I find the correct boundary of the hazard as there is no painted line?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The R&A; Guidance includes this:

I n general, lines or stakes defining the margins of a water hazard should be placed as nearly as possible along the natural limits of the hazard, i.e. where the ground breaks down to form the depression containing the water. This means that sloping banks will be included within the margins of the hazard.
I would suggest you use this to define the unmarked margins. ie the area between the solid red and dotted red lines is in the hazard.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Rulesman

Quote:

Originally Posted by MEfree

so this says that you can`t take advantage of a committees error by playing it as casual water...is it the same if the committees error might hurt you?  (i.e. your ball is lost in what should be within the natural margins of the hazard, but the hazard is not marked properly)

I agree that they should do a better job marking the hazards, but there are some stakes, so I am not sure if I can treat it as an "unmarked" hazard??

I read rule 26 before posting, but couldn`t find anything covering the direction a hazard is assumed to go based on the posts.  If the posts form something resembling a circle, square, rectangle or other enclosed shape, then it seems easy.  What I am trying to figure out is what happens when the posts are just a line segment?

If the water is a lake or pond then it is reasonable to assume the whole area is a water hazard. That might not be the case where the water is an ocean (eg Pebble Beach where the far side is Hawaii).

Whether it is partially or completely unmarked, it is by definition a water hazard and should be played as such. 26/3 is the authority. Any unmarked margins should be treated as if they had been marked correctly.

Part of the difficulty that MEFree is concerned with is that in the area where he plays a lot there are some wetlands where the natural boundaries can be quite indistinct.  Willows, sedge grasses and the like, along with a network of small streams and sometimes almost bog like conditions make both marking and identification of natural boundaries very difficult.  It's a case where you would almost have to be on the spot to make any sort of definitive ruling.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Part of the difficulty that MEFree is concerned with is that in the area where he plays a lot there are some wetlands where the natural boundaries can be quite indistinct.  Willows, sedge grasses and the like, along with a network of small streams and sometimes almost bog like conditions make both marking and identification of natural boundaries very difficult.  It's a case where you would almost have to be on the spot to make any sort of definitive ruling.

Exactly!  I have already run into this problem several times-

1.  A few weeks ago I hit into what was intended to be an ESA LWH- it wasn`t all water, but very easy to tell where they intended the ESA to run based on how the grass was mown.  However, looking at the states, a corner of the intended hazard was not included.  Didn`t find my ball, but it was virtually certain it was in the intended hazard, but likely to be in the corner that was not properly staked.  What to do?  We ended up looking a bit in the unstaked corner before a ranger came up, told us to get out of the ESA and later apologized to me and said he had fixed the stakes after we left.  After he arrived I played it as a LWH, but would I have had to play it as a LB without his input?

2.  The lake I described above- my ball was virtually certain to be in the lake OR the 2 foot long native grass leading into the lake.  If the hazard was marked properly according to USGA guidelines, then I think the long grass should have been included.  Can I make that assumption or was I correct to play another ball from the tee?

It seems like Keystone might not be the only course that suffers from these problems http://thesandtrap.com/t/62215/in-the-hazard-or-ob

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by MEfree

2.  The lake I described above- my ball was virtually certain to be in the lake OR the 2 foot long native grass leading into the lake.  If the hazard was marked properly according to USGA guidelines, then I think the long grass should have been included.  Can I make that assumption or was I correct to play another ball from the tee?

The correct answer is to play two balls under rule 3-3.

The pragmatic answer if simply playing under the USGA handicap system, is to play as if the LWH was marked as per the guidelines. But don't quote me

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the case of a water hazard, whether regular (yellow) or lateral (red) the margin of the water-line and or/any boundary stakes/lines are considered to be in the hazard, and play a ball touching this area per applicable USGA and local rule.  The boundary is found from running a string (imaginary line) between the two nearest outer most points.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In some cases the outermost edge of the water and the nearest stake, if the stakes do not continue, if that was not clear.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Part of the difficulty that MEFree is concerned with is that in the area where he plays a lot there are some wetlands where the natural boundaries can be quite indistinct.  Willows, sedge grasses and the like, along with a network of small streams and sometimes almost bog like conditions make both marking and identification of natural boundaries very difficult.  It's a case where you would almost have to be on the spot to make any sort of definitive ruling.

I encountered this today at Keystone Ranch- today was the first day they were open (they opened the River 2-3 weeks ago).  They had not put up ANY hazard stakes yet.

I hit a shot just left of the back of the 17th green http://maps.google.com/maps?q=keystone+ranch+golf+course≪=39.578361,-105.994923&spn;=0.000852,0.001039&fb;=1≷=us&hq;=keystone+ranch+golf+course&cid;=0,0,13240230494915743703&t;=h&z;=20&iwloc;=A

and wasn't sure if I was inside last years hazard boundary.  I also couldn't remember if it had been marked as an ESA or not or if it had been a read or yellow staked area.  I had a decent lie on some matted down longer grass.  What would you do under these circumstances?

I saw my options as-

1.  Play it as being outside the hazard and hit a regular chip/pitch grounding my club.

2.  Play it as a hazard and hit the shot not grounding my club

3.  Play it as a lateral ESA and make a guess as to where the boundary was and see if I could drop within 2 club lengths no near the hole

4.  Play it as a regular ESA hazard and go back to where I hit my previous shot (as there is no way to go back keeping the point between you and the hole).

I went with options 1 & 4 (under 3-3) and later the pro said that it is a lateral ESA and it starts just left of the green/bunker, so I was in fact in the hazard.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by MEfree

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Part of the difficulty that MEFree is concerned with is that in the area where he plays a lot there are some wetlands where the natural boundaries can be quite indistinct.  Willows, sedge grasses and the like, along with a network of small streams and sometimes almost bog like conditions make both marking and identification of natural boundaries very difficult.  It's a case where you would almost have to be on the spot to make any sort of definitive ruling.

I encountered this today at Keystone Ranch- today was the first day they were open (they opened the River 2-3 weeks ago).  They had not put up ANY hazard stakes yet.

I hit a shot just left of the back of the 17th green and wasn't sure if I was inside last years hazard boundary.  I also couldn't remember if it had been marked as an ESA or not or if it had been a read or yellow staked area.  I had a decent lie on some matted down longer grass.  What would you do under these circumstances?

I saw my options as-

1.  Play it as being outside the hazard and hit a regular chip/pitch grounding my club.

2.  Play it as a hazard and hit the shot not grounding my club

3.  Play it as a lateral ESA and make a guess as to where the boundary was and see if I could drop within 2 club lengths no near the hole

4.  Play it as a regular ESA hazard and go back to where I hit my previous shot (as there is no way to go back keeping the point between you and the hole).

I went with options 1 & 4 (under 3-3) and later the pro said that it is a lateral ESA and it starts just left of the green/bunker, so I was in fact in the hazard.

If the marking isn't identifiable and I have a shot I can play, then I play it.  It is the responsibility of the course to define hazard margins, and lacking that definition, you can only go by your best estimate of the natural boundary.  Trying to play under last year's lines is overthinking the situation.

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

    • Looking for new irons - - - HELP!!
      Just bought new irons myself.  It's a process.  Not sure if you're a single-digit hdcp'er or a relative hack like me.  Ether way, here are some suggestions to get you moving in the right direction. 1. As example only, a link to Golf Digest 2016 GI Hot List clubs:  http://www.golfdigest.com/hot-list/golf-clubs/game-improvement-irons 2.  Determine what you expect to get from a new set of irons.  Straighter?  Higher flight? Distance? 3. Identify 3-5 iron models that you think fit your requirements 4. Go to a Golfsmith, Golf Galaxy or other location where you can try irons from each manufacturer, hit and evaluate results on launch monitor. 5. Go with the set that delivers the best results based on your swing. Other thoughts as I just went through the process: Get a thorough fitting.  There is a point at which hybrids might make more sense than longer irons.  My new set starts at 6-iron and include 4- and 5-hybrids on the longer side. Irons and hybrids are NOT the same brand, either. You should be able to order ONLY the clubs you want from reputable dealers. So many sets come 4-AW off the shelf.  That club lineup might not be best for you. A fitting to determine what club complement is best for you is what's most important before plunking down a lot of money. I don't like to be brand conscious when I go though a decision process like this.  Keep it fact-based and data driven and you'll arrive at the best option for you.  Launch monitors don't lie.  At least I believe they don't. You should go into a club fitting with a short list of irons you think might work for you. ASK the club fitter if there are other models he or she would recommend you try.  This should round out your 'possibles' to 5 or 6 at most. Be prepared to make a lot of swings. Bring a glove.  You'll need it. Good luck and keep us posted on your journey. dave
    • What did you buy on your last trip to the golf store?
      No, she doesn't want ME TO BUY new irons, SHE WANTS TO BUY ME new irons. She is probably thinking, hey if I buy him new irons maybe he will spend more time out golfing and give me more time to myself. There is a method to her madness.
    • Custom Headcovers?
      Custom embroidery would be an option. Your initials, a logo or image could be used for a set. Premium Head Covers are available. Caddy Daddy offers the Inferno, Lucky and High Roller Casino based Themed Driver Head Covers. Features include 40,000 stitch embroidery on synthetic leather fabric with inside padding and polyester ribbed sock. http://www.caddydaddygolf.com/driver-head-covers.htm
    • Using Game Golf to Analyze Gaps
      That might be the case. My 4 iron is a more game improvement iron. It's a cavity back versus a muscle back. Also, I do use it off the tee more than the 5 iron, so the lie is perfect.  Maybe my game is more suited for a more GI type iron in the long iron set. It's something to consider looking into.   
    • "The Putting Bible" by Dave Pelz
      The very first thing Dave Pelz says In his book----- after the acknowledgements is. " I want to start this book with a short explanation. Look closely at the title. Notice that  I don't claim this to be  "THE" putting bible. I call it Dave Pelz's Putting Bible because it truly is "my" bible on putting. It is a compendium of my research, my studies, my test results, my teaching philosophy, and my beliefs about the art and science of putting. It is my bible or if you prefer, my notebook or data log  book-into which I have transcribed my thoughts, interpretations of test results, observations, and theoretical work that have been instrumental in forming my understanding of putting. It is also from this work that I draw my philosophy for teaching the putting game in the Dave Pelz Scoring Game Schools".      As far as the 8 seconds is concerned, and with apologies to Mr. Pelz let me summarize on page 122 5.6 Two Types of Muscle Memory Ridding a bicycle is one type of memory (long term) you never really forget. Your mind remembers only the body's most recent sensations (short term memory), and these, too, fade by 30 percent every 8 seconds. True or not I will still take his word for it. As it was done as scientific research. "about as accurate as the story of Noah's Ark"...............don't know, can't say, wasn't there, but will say this. If a booming voice coming out of the sky tells me to build a boat....trust me, I'm building a boat!!        
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    No users celebrating today
  • Blog Entries