Ball in water.

I play 2 to 3 times a week in what you would describe as a group of social bogey golfers. However we like to play as best we can to the rules of golf. Our local course is an unrated social course with no slope rating and hazards are not staked so we have made the rule within our group that all hazards within the boundary of the course are lateral. However we have in particular one repeated instance where we are unsure of the ruling. We have a number of places where trees are over hanging or just past a water hazard. On numerous occassions we hit some part of the tree and it has rebounded directly back into the water or we have not seen the path of the ball after hitting the tree but the result is still the same. My question is if the ball has not been grounded past the far side of the hazard or seen to grounded can it be assumed to have passed the far boundary of the hazard. Bear in mind that some trees overhang the hazard and some are clearly just past the hazard. Does the ball clearly have to be seen to have entered the hazard from the far side to take advantage of a closer drop? Calderwoodmike.

There are no hazards so you are talking about lost balls where you replay the ball and add a penalty stroke from where you previously hit.

You can't assume the ball is in what you have chosen to call a hazard, so add a penalty, drop another ball and proceed.

I get what you are trying to do, but calling all bits of water ( I assume that's what you are calling a hazard) on the course is not right.

If anything, call them water hazards, not lateral hazards and if you didn't see the ball enter the water, don't assume it did, because you can't do that. Especially if it has hit trees.

Firstly, if what you come across meets the definition of a water hazard but is unmarked, it is indeed a water hazard and you should proceed under Rule 26 if your ball is in it.  Further, if the unmarked water hazard meets the definition of a lateral water hazard, you should treat it as one.  See Decision 26/3  http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-26/#d26-3   That being said, it seems unlikely that all the  unmarked water hazards on the course meet the definition of a lateral water hazard and you are maybe being over generous to yourselves, but without seeing them, we can't say.

I understand your main question to be  about  a ball rebounding off an overhanging tree and whether that means the ball has gone beyond the water hazard and re-entered from the other side.  .  Since the margins of a water hazard extend vertically upwards as well as downwards, any part of the tree that is overhanging the water hazard is in the hazard.  That means a ball which hits an overhanging branch and bounces back into the water has not crossed the opposite margin and has therefore not re-entered the hazard from that side.  Your point of reference for relief is where it crossed the margin on the near side.

Colin's is the proper reply.

However, there is a bit more information which may be useful. To treat a ball as being in a Water Hazard (or Lateral Water Hazard) you must know or be virtually certain it is in the hazard.

This decision give some guidance on how to consider you situations,

http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-26/#d26-1-1

If you cannot be sure that the ball is in the hazard, you cannot just drop to the side, you must play again from where you played your last shot and add a penalty stroke.

This is the rule

http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Rule-26/#26-1

There is no such thing in the Rules of Golf as a 'lateral hazard', so if you really want to play be the real rules, ignore exhortations to adopt the idea

The link to the definitions of Water Hazard and Lateral Water Hazard are here

http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/

Thankyou Colin. Our local course (Calderwood Valley GC, NSW, Australia) is privately owned and they have not deemed it nessessary to mark any hazards so I can appreciate Shortys response that strictly speaking there are no hazards so play should proceed accordingly. We questioned the course management re marking the hazards as there is some substantial water bodies with the addition of a couple of creeks. The management suggested that we adopt the position that all water and creeks are lateral water hazard and all dense bush within the property also be treated as hazard. We realize that this is a generous interpretation and our calculated social handicaps are a little low as a result... cannot hurt the ego. You have cleared up the answer to my question though. Unless we are absolutely sure the ball has crossed the vertical line of the far margin then we must adopt the near margin as the point last crossed and play accordingly. Thankyou. Calderwoodmike

A water hazard does not have to be marked to still be a water hazard.  There are some Decisions that address this:

When a water hazard is unmarked, then the margin is defined by the natural flow of the land into the hazard.  Sometimes that means the ball must be in the water.   Other times it might be obvious and logical to define the margin as where the terrain breaks to drop down to the water.  Not every bit of water on a course is necessarily a water hazard.  Definitions:

As Rulesman said, it is not proper to declare a water hazard as lateral if it doesn't fit the definition.

Thankyou Fourputt. This is most helpful.

Is it possible for there to be water on a golf course that is neither a Water Hazard (lateral or otherwise) nor casual water?

My initial thought is no, but initial thoughts have a way of being wrong sometimes so I submit the question to the group for your thoughts.

Yes.  My former home course had a small (8 feet wide) irrigation ditch that meandered through the course and came into play on several holes.  On the par 5 6th hole, it was channeled under the fairway from left to right through a concrete culvert for nearly 50 yards.  The hazard margin ends at the start of the culvert and begins again where the water comes out.  In between the culvert is an obstruction, and the ball would be lost in the obstruction or so I thought before I started researching this answer.   I now see that Rule 24-3b(iii) applies.  Even though the ball lies in an obstruction under the fairway, the player must take relief with penalty under rule 26-1.

24-3b(iii)

Thanks for asking the question.  I learned something today.  I've seen a ball be unretrievable in that culvert, and I never questioned it when the player took relief without penalty under Rule 24.

Even more specifically:

24-3b/1

Ball Lost in Underground Drainpipe

Q. A player's ball goes into an underground drainpipe, but he cannot reach or identify it. What is the ruling?

A. An underground drainpipe or culvert is an obstruction. If it is known or virtually certain that the ball is in the immovable obstruction, the player may invoke Rule 24-3b . Under Rule 24-3b the ball is deemed to lie at the spot where it last crossed the outermost limits of the obstruction.

If the entrance to the underground drainpipe or culvert is in a water hazard, Rule 24-3b(iii) applies and the player is not entitled to relief without penalty and must proceed under Rule 26-1 .

I am trying to visualize this.

Are you talking about a ball that enters the culvert at its extreme left or right, before it goes under the fairway?  Since the culvert runs under the fairway.

I was thinking more of water on the surface, but you raise an interesting point.

Thanks for the response.

Yeah.  If for some reason the hazard margin was marked incorrectly to end before the water entered the culvert, it would raise all sorts of issues, because the start of the culvert would be through the green, so the ball would be out of the hazard when it entered the culvert.  That would create a difficult virtual certainty situation.  The player must be virtually certain that the ball is in the obstruction to proceed under Rule 24-2, but he must also be virtually certain that the ball is in the water hazard to proceed under Rule 26-1.  Lacking either virtual certainty, he would be required to play under rule 27-1 under stroke and distance.

It shows how marking the course properly is crucial for correctly applying the rules.

The Rules allow for inaccurate marking of a water hazard.      If a water hazed is marked incorrectly, the player must proceed on the basis of the natural margins of the hazards,  In this instance the section of the ditch between the last marker and the start of the underground culvert is still a water hazard by definition and the player must   treat it as such.  He would not, for example be able to claim that his ball was lying in casual water if it were in that unmarked section of the ditch.    See Decision 26/2

http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-26/#d26-2

HIs ball will either be in the water hazard or the obstruction just the same as when the water hazard is correctly marked.

That does not resolve the difficulty, however, if the player is not virtually certain that his ball is in the culvert.  In that case, there are two possibilities:

1. He is virtually certain his ball is either in the culvert or in the water hazard in which case I would rule that he must proceed under Rule 26 on the same principle as Decision 1-4/7 http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-01/#d1-4-7

2. He does not have virtual certainty that his ball is in one or the other, in which case it is lost and he must proceed under Rule 27-1

If you don't actually know that the ball went into the hazard, it is a lost ball which requires stroke and distance if a provisional was not declared and played prior to the search.

If you know for a fact that it is inside a "lateral hazard" (normally red staked), you have 5 options rather than 3 for normal water hazards.

The first of the two extra options you have for a lateral is to play it normally from the point where it last crossed or to the opposite margin. I presume this is to accommodate left or right handed players?

I'm a little sketchy on this second option as well, and am hoping for some clarification as well. . .

The primary reason is that it may be impossible or impracticable to get to one side of a lateral water hazard.

If you look at the definition of a LWH, that is the justification for making it a lateral water hazard in the first place.

A “ lateral water hazard ” is a water hazard or that part of a water hazard so situated that it is not possible, or is deemed by the Committee to be impracticable, to drop a ball behind the water hazard in accordance with Rule 26-Ib .

Imagine a ditch running alongside the fairway. On the far side is deep jungle. The ditch is too wide to jump over and there are no bridges. The ball crosses the ditch, hits a tree and bounces back into the ditch. The reference point is on the far side but you may drop on the near side.

In the past I've seen some rather generous estimates as to what is equidistant from the hole when a player chose the option of moving to the opposite side of the hazard.  Those days are mostly gone now with players using GPS and laser measuring devices.  There is no excuse for mistaking ones dropping area when you have an accurate measurement to go by.

Thanks for the clarifications. I can't add reputation with my phone for some reason.

Ok, thought I understood this, but want to make sure.

A culvert or pipe entrance starts in a water hazard, (regardless of whether or not the margins of the water hazard are correctly marked.)  The pipe then proceeds outside the boundaries of the hazard onto the course.

A player's ball enters the culvert, however the ball can be identified and is outside the margins of the hazard .  The ball is lying through the green and the player may proceed under R24-2b(i)  When finding the NPR vertical distance is considered and the ball will be dropped above ground.  Although the opening to the pipe might be closer, because it's in the hazard it can not be the NPR.

Assuming the player is certain that his ball is in the pipe but can not be found, or positively identified , then he must proceed under R24-3b(iii) which means proceed under R26 using the entrance of the culvert or pipe as the reference point.

Thanks.