Trees Marked as Lateral Hazard - Playing from Them

[Phil McGleno]

We all know resort courses and other places like to mark trees or tall grass or other things as lateral hazards to help speed up play-But here is my question. The Rules of golf define a water hazard and say that anything that meets the definition is one. So if you have a creek with no lines and your ball is in it you have to follow the water hazard rules-Like not grounding your club. But is the opposite true too? If a bunch of trees or tall grass that never has water in it is marked red can you just treat them as trees or grass through the green? Can you ground your club?

[Rulesman]

If the area is marked as a water hazard, even though it doesn't match the definition, play it as such.

If it isn't marked, play it as defined in the RoG.

[iacas]

If the area is marked as a water hazard, even though it doesn't match the definition, play it as such.

Care to justify the thought process on that one?

An unmarked water hazard is to be played as a water hazard ( 26/3 )

Why should a player be prevented from picking up a loose impediment, say, or grounding his club in a stand of trees on a hill when the committee has clearly mis-marked the golf course?

[Asheville]

Erik, I say play the course as it is marked (or mis-marked) or, if that's not good enough, play a second ball under 3-3 (assuming stroke play) and take it up with the Committee.

[iacas]

Erik, I say play the course as it is marked (or mis-marked) or, if that's not good enough, play a second ball under 3-3 (assuming stroke play) and take it up with the Committee.

I didn't ask the original question.

[Phil McGleno]

Erik, I say play the course as it is marked (or mis-marked) or, if that's not good enough, play a second ball under 3-3 (assuming stroke play) and take it up with the Committee.

Let us be real about this-There is no committee and nobody is going to play two balls. The area is clearly NOT a water hazard so why should a golfer not be allowed to do things he can do when he is just in regular old trees or tall grass? Like Erik said. But okay-If you were the committee what would you say? Play it as marked?-Seems dumb to me. The area is NOT a water hazard. There is precedent for golfers doing what is right in the face of a mismarked course.

[Martyn W]

Care to justify the thought process on that one?

An unmarked water hazard is to be played as a water hazard (26/3)

Why should a player be prevented from picking up a loose impediment, say, or grounding his club in a stand of trees on a hill when the committee has clearly mis-marked the golf course?

The answer lies in the Decision you cited: " The Committee erred in not properly defining the margin of the hazard as required by Rule 33-2a , but a player is not entitled to take advantage of such an error . "

[Rulesman]

If you are playing in a competition on a course where the area of trees was marked wrongly as a LWH, grounding your club would not be a good idea. If the committee are made aware of your action they would penalize you. You would have no recourse to the USGA or any other authority.

They are the ultimate referee. Whether they are right or wrong, they are right.

Please ignore casual play aspects. Just do as you wish.

[David in FL]

There is precedent for golfers doing what is right in the face of a mismarked course.

Disagree. There is precedent for golfers doing what is right in the face of an unmarked course. [quote name="Phil McGleno" url="/t/84014/trees-marked-as-lateral-hazard-playing-from-them#post_1189369"] The area is clearly NOT a water hazard....[/quote] It is if it's so marked. Having said that, I agree that it's wrong, and often used with no justification whatsoever....

[iacas]

The answer lies in the Decision you cited: "The Committee erred in not properly defining the margin of the hazard as required by Rule 33-2a, but a player is not entitled to take advantage of such an error. "

Martyn, you'd be taking advantage to take a drop where the ball crossed the margin of the water-hazard-that-wasn't-a-water-hazard, too.

And… I think you looked at the wrong decision. I cited 26/3. I think you cited 26/2 where a player was trying to claim that some water was casual water.

If you are playing in a competition on a course where the area of trees was marked wrongly as a LWH, grounding your club would not be a good idea. If the committee are made aware of your action they would penalize you. You would have no recourse to the USGA or any other authority.

That doesn't address the point of a guy just wanting to play by the proper Rules. These "resort course" rules are used far too frequently. If a committee was there they should remove the stakes, but for every day play what is the guy who just wants to play by the rules to do?

Disagree.

There is precedent for golfers doing what is right in the face of an unmarked course.

Look at 26/2 ( @Martyn W can help you find it). It sets a precedent for a mismarked hazard.

[Patch]

A dry ditch can be deemed a water way of America if water runs through it just every so often;  like during heavy rains. There are few courses in southern Nevada that use this definition to mark their lateral hazards. There may be no water in the ditch, but there could be bushes, trees, boulders, and other things in that ditch.  I believe this definition is listed in the CFR 29 regulations regarding storm water control.

[David in FL]

Look at [URL=http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-26,d26-2]26/2[/URL] ( @Martyn W can help you find it). It sets a precedent for a mismarked hazard.

I don't need anyone's help to find a specific decision if I'm referred to it, but thanks. ;-) 26/2 is specific and provides precedence for doing what is right in the face of a mismarked margin but no precedence for changing the nature of the marked hazard itself. Neither could I play a marked WH (yellow staked) as a LWH just because that's how I would have designated it.

[Club Rat]

Some resort courses have "environmental sensitive areas" which are played as lateral hazards.

These areas are restricted "no entry"

I've seen native tall grass areas marked as lateral, but I guess "tree / wooded" areas could be also, to speed up play.

Definitely out of the norm...

Club Rat

[iacas]

26/2 is specific and provides precedence for doing what is right in the face of a mismarked margin but no precedence for changing the nature of the marked hazard itself. Neither could I play a marked WH (yellow staked) as a LWH just because that's how I would have designated it.

@David in FL , you wanted a mismatched hazard, so I gave you an example of one. Rather than go on about semantics and stuff, let's actually discuss the OP and the topic.

When rating a golf course (for rating/slope), we rate the course as it SHOULD be marked, not as it is marked. If there are trees or tall grasses that clearly aren't water hazards, we rate them as trees or extreme rough or whatever - we do not rate them as water hazards.

If I were to encounter an area like this, I'd play it as through the green and ignore the red stakes. The red stakes, in areas like this, are concessions to golfers who don't play provisionals and who want to get around the golf course in a reasonable amount of time. It is also typically softer on the scorecards of those golfers.

@Club Rat , we aren't talking about ESAs. @Phil McGleno can correct me if I'm wrong but I think he's talking about areas that are definitely NOT water hazards (i.e. do not meet the definition) which are marked as such (typically red, for the two-clublength drop) to speed up play by letting people take drops.

[Phil McGleno]

@Club Rat , we aren't talking about ESAs. @Phil McGleno can correct me if I'm wrong but I think he's talking about areas that are definitely NOT water hazards (i.e. do not meet the definition) which are marked as such (typically red, for the two-clublength drop) to speed up play by letting people take drops.

I am-Yes. Trees or grass or just things that are not water hazards marked with red stakes for golfers to basically cheat.-Hit the ball in the trees and get to take a drop because it is marked as a LWH.

[imsys0042]

So I have a question. There are a couple of holes in my home course where the is either drainage or some type of water in an area on one side of the hole. However the hazard lines are approx 150-200 yards along the side of the hole away from where the water is, in unmaintained areas. Does the meet the criteria of a LWH?

[wadesworld]

So I have a question. There are a couple of holes in my home course where the is either drainage or some type of water in an area on one side of the hole. However the hazard lines are approx 150-200 yards along the side of the hole away from where the water is, in unmaintained areas. Does the meet the criteria of a LWH?

We need a better description.  You're saying the hazard lines are on the opposite side of the fairway from the water?  Show us a google Earth image perhaps.

[Rulesman]

That doesn't address the point of a guy just wanting to play by the proper Rules. These "resort course" rules are used far too frequently. If a committee was there they should remove the stakes, but for every day play what is the guy who just wants to play by the rules to do?

.

He's paid his money so makes his choice.

Re your comment about rating.

I had this from the USGA a few years ago.

When the authorized golf association rates a golf course to establish a USGA Course rating and Slope the rating is done as if the course was in mid-season playing conditions, and that the golf course was marked in accordance with the Rules of Golf.  If the course is using preferred lies or markings that are not in accordance with the Rules of Golf those would not be considered when performing the course rating.

Thank you, ***, USGA

The responder did not answer my question about what a player should do.