Jump to content
IGNORED

Rumor: Are the Ruling Bodies considering a change in hazard marking?


Fourputt
Note: This thread is 3209 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

I saw a rumor, and at this point that's all that it is, but I thought it an interesting idea.  What about marking all water hazards with red stakes and lines, or regardless of color, making a universal rule to cover them?  All water hazards would have all 3 relief options available and the player is the judge of which option is most to his benefit.  A player could choose between option a, b or c without concern for the color of the stakes.  I've taken the liberty of lining out the unnecessary verbiage:

26-1. Relief for Ball in Water Hazard

It is a question of fact whether a ball that has not been found after having been struck toward a water hazardis in the hazard. In the absence of knowledge or virtual certainty that a ball struck toward a water hazard, but not found, is in the hazard, the player must proceed under Rule 27-1.

If a ball is found in a water hazard or if it is known or virtually certain that a ball that has not been found is in the water hazard (whether the ball lies in water or not), the player may under penalty of one stroke:

a. Proceed under the stroke and distance provision of Rule 27-1 by playing a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule 20-5); or

b. Drop a ball behind the water hazard, keeping the point at which the original ball last crossed the margin of the water hazard directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped, with no limit to how far behind the water hazard the ball may be dropped; or

c. As additional options available only if the ball last crossed the margin of a lateral water hazard, drop a ball outside the water hazard within two club-lengths of and not nearer the hole than (i) the point where the original ball last crossed the margin of the water hazard or (ii) a point on the opposite margin of the water hazard equidistant from the hole.

This is something that I never really thought about before, it seems to make good sense to me.  It would eliminate the issue that occasionally arises where a water hazard with an irregular margin is marked in yellow, but there are portions of the margin where being forced to drop back per 26-1b is both unnecessary and excessively penal.  There are holes where the drop could depend heavily on the location of the pin on any given day, and the exact spot where the ball last crossed the margin of the hazard.  A hole like #17 at Sawgrass would sometimes have the option of dropping on the island instead of always having to hit from the tee or the drop area.

Any thoughts or comments?

Rick

"He who has the fastest cart will never have a bad lie."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator

Interesting.  Thanks for posting.  It would make is a bit easier to understand and allow 26-c to happen.  It would still depend on the player to be certain where the entry point to the hazard is.  17 at TP Sawgrass may never be the same!!!

Scott

Titleist, Edel, Scotty Cameron Putter, Snell - AimPoint - Evolvr - MirrorVision

My Swing Thread

boogielicious - Adjective describing the perfect surf wave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

As I said, this is a pure rumor at the moment - just something that a poster said on another forum, and it could be complete hogwash.  I just found it to be a provocative idea, and one that would not materially change the game.  It would just be a slight simplification in Rule 26, but the requirement for the player to make a correct drop no closer to the hole would remain essentially the same.

Rick

"He who has the fastest cart will never have a bad lie."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

A hole like #17 at Sawgrass would sometimes have the option of dropping on the island instead of always having to hit from the tee or the drop area.

Any thoughts or comments?


Hole 17 at Sawgrass would be interesting. So lets say you flew the green, the ball crossed at the red dot. The green circle is equal distance to the hole. That means they could drop at the blue dot.

I honestly don't see an issue with this. They already hit the ball in the water. I don't see big advantage in not allowing them to have two club lengths from the last point of entry as long as it isn't closer to the hole.

Quote:
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 . All ground and water within the margin of a lateral water hazard are part of the lateral water hazard .

I think by definition the USGA and R&A; consider that if you were able to drop the ball such that it wouldn't put the water between you and the hole that it would be considered an advantage? The only way the lateral water hazard definition makes sense to me.

Matt Dougherty, P.E.
 fasdfa dfdsaf 

What's in My Bag
Driver; :pxg: 0311 Gen 5,  3-Wood: 
:titleist: 917h3 ,  Hybrid:  :titleist: 915 2-Hybrid,  Irons: Sub 70 TAIII Fordged
Wedges: :edel: (52, 56, 60),  Putter: :edel:,  Ball: :snell: MTB,  Shoe: :true_linkswear:,  Rangfinder: :leupold:
Bag: :ping:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

A hole like #17 at Sawgrass would sometimes have the option of dropping on the island instead of always having to hit from the tee or the drop area.   Any thoughts or comments?

I'm struggling with this a bit. It seems as if, under certain circumstances, you could virtually guarantee a bogey, with a reasonable chance to save par. I'm concerned that we could lose the fundamental of providing a consequence in proportion to the penalty in a situation such as @saevel25 outlines above.

In David's bag....

Driver: Titleist 910 D-3;  9.5* Diamana Kai'li
3-Wood: Titleist 910F;  15* Diamana Kai'li
Hybrids: Titleist 910H 19* and 21* Diamana Kai'li
Irons: Titleist 695cb 5-Pw

Wedges: Scratch 51-11 TNC grind, Vokey SM-5's;  56-14 F grind and 60-11 K grind
Putter: Scotty Cameron Kombi S
Ball: ProV1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I'm struggling with this a bit.

It seems as if, under certain circumstances, you could virtually guarantee a bogey, with a reasonable chance to save par. I'm concerned that we could lose the fundamental of providing a consequence in proportion to the penalty in a situation such as @saevel25 outlines above.

If they are able to drop as outlined above, then you'd be hitting the third shot. In some instances, if the hole was something like 10 feet from the water on number 17, on Sunday's pin placement. You could end up with a situation where the ball is able to be dropped on the green.

For example, the Green Circle is the equal distance line from the water hazard to the cup where the ball exited. The Cyan circle is the two club lengths, assuming 44 inch drivers. The Magenta "X" is the spot a player could drop the ball no nearer the hole. That spot would be nearly 2.5 feet from the water hazard. On a green like TPC #17, that is on the putting surface.

Matt Dougherty, P.E.
 fasdfa dfdsaf 

What's in My Bag
Driver; :pxg: 0311 Gen 5,  3-Wood: 
:titleist: 917h3 ,  Hybrid:  :titleist: 915 2-Hybrid,  Irons: Sub 70 TAIII Fordged
Wedges: :edel: (52, 56, 60),  Putter: :edel:,  Ball: :snell: MTB,  Shoe: :true_linkswear:,  Rangfinder: :leupold:
Bag: :ping:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

If they are able to drop as outlined above, then you'd be hitting the third shot. In some instances, if the hole was something like 10 feet from the water on number 17, on Sunday's pin placement. You could end up with a situation where the ball is able to be dropped on the green.  For example, the Green Circle is the equal distance line from the water hazard to the cup where the ball exited. The Cyan circle is the two club lengths, assuming 44 inch drivers. The Magenta "X" is the spot a player could drop the ball no nearer the hole. That spot would be nearly 2.5 feet from the water hazard. On a green like TPC #17, that is on the putting surface.  [URL=http://thesandtrap.com/content/type/61/id/124686/] [/URL]

I understand completely. That's exactly my point. What I meant was that I'm struggling to accept the possible change, because I don't know that the penalty is in proportion to the infraction in this case.

In David's bag....

Driver: Titleist 910 D-3;  9.5* Diamana Kai'li
3-Wood: Titleist 910F;  15* Diamana Kai'li
Hybrids: Titleist 910H 19* and 21* Diamana Kai'li
Irons: Titleist 695cb 5-Pw

Wedges: Scratch 51-11 TNC grind, Vokey SM-5's;  56-14 F grind and 60-11 K grind
Putter: Scotty Cameron Kombi S
Ball: ProV1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I understand completely. That's exactly my point.

What I meant was that I'm struggling to accept the possible change, because I don't know that the penalty is in proportion to the infraction in this case.

But isn't the example that Matt is describing already in play at #16?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25

If they are able to drop as outlined above, then you'd be hitting the third shot. In some instances, if the hole was something like 10 feet from the water on number 17, on Sunday's pin placement. You could end up with a situation where the ball is able to be dropped on the green.

For example, the Green Circle is the equal distance line from the water hazard to the cup where the ball exited. The Cyan circle is the two club lengths, assuming 44 inch drivers. The Magenta "X" is the spot a player could drop the ball no nearer the hole. That spot would be nearly 2.5 feet from the water hazard. On a green like TPC #17, that is on the putting surface.

I understand completely. That's exactly my point.

What I meant was that I'm struggling to accept the possible change, because I don't know that the penalty is in proportion to the infraction in this case.

It's completely in keeping with the principles of the game though.  There are any number of situations that arise in any round where a foot or two of difference in lie can make a significant difference in how a player is allowed to proceed.

I see it the opposite of your view.  I feel that giving the player no other option than to replay from the tee (or to play from a dropping area which is almost equally penal), is too harsh when there are significant lateral hazard possibilities in the contours of the hole.  I feel that anytime the design of the hole makes those options reasonable, that the player, not the committee, should be allowed to decide what procedure is best in his case.

Rick

"He who has the fastest cart will never have a bad lie."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator

If this rules change were adopted, at least David Feherty couldn't butcher the scenario Tiger faced at Augusta National again. :-P

I will have to give this more thought. I somewhat like the gradation that exists right now in terms of the slightly different levels of hazard, but at the same time, most of the time "on a line back from the hole to the point it last crossed" also basically swallows up "within two clublengths." It's just the "opposite side of the hazard" thing that is a sticking point for me, right now.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

But isn't the example that Matt is describing already in play at #16?

How so? I'm not doubting you, just don't know what you mean off the top of my head.... [quote name="Fourputt" url="/t/82626/rumor-are-the-ruling-bodies-considering-a-change-in-hazard-marking#post_1154929"] It's completely in keeping with the principles of the game though.  There are any number of situations that arise in any round where a foot or two of difference in lie can make a significant difference in how a player is allowed to proceed.   I see it the opposite of your view.  I feel that giving the player no other option than to replay from the tee (or to play from a dropping area which is almost equally penal), is too harsh when there are significant lateral hazard possibilities in the contours of the hole.  I feel that anytime the design of the hole makes those options reasonable, that the player, not the committee, should be allowed to decide what procedure is best in his case. [/quote] I'm going to have to chew on it. Sometimes there just aren't better options available for a given situation, and I'm generally ok with that. In the case of 17 at Sawgrass, how is the committee deciding what options the player has (or not)? What am I missing?

In David's bag....

Driver: Titleist 910 D-3;  9.5* Diamana Kai'li
3-Wood: Titleist 910F;  15* Diamana Kai'li
Hybrids: Titleist 910H 19* and 21* Diamana Kai'li
Irons: Titleist 695cb 5-Pw

Wedges: Scratch 51-11 TNC grind, Vokey SM-5's;  56-14 F grind and 60-11 K grind
Putter: Scotty Cameron Kombi S
Ball: ProV1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

But isn't the example that Matt is describing already in play at #16?

How so? I'm not doubting you, just don't know what you mean off the top of my head....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

It's completely in keeping with the principles of the game though.  There are any number of situations that arise in any round where a foot or two of difference in lie can make a significant difference in how a player is allowed to proceed.

I see it the opposite of your view.  I feel that giving the player no other option than to replay from the tee (or to play from a dropping area which is almost equally penal), is too harsh when there are significant lateral hazard possibilities in the contours of the hole.  I feel that anytime the design of the hole makes those options reasonable, that the player, not the committee, should be allowed to decide what procedure is best in his case.

I'm going to have to chew on it. Sometimes there just aren't better options available for a given situation, and I'm generally ok with that.

In the case of 17 at Sawgrass, how is the committee deciding what options the player has (or not)? What am I missing?

The entire island green has been designated as regular (yellow) water hazard.  There are times when a ball airmails the green, or lands on it and rolls into the hazard.  In such cases there would often be the option of dropping on the island if the lateral hazard option in 26-1c was allowed.  The only downside in this particular case is that often the player wouldn't know if that option was open until he reached the green and looked at the angles from the hole to where his ball crossed the margin.  Unless they were allowed a provisional ball, it could cause pace of play issues.

I see it more of an advantage on the courses that the rest of us play where a lazy staff hasn't done its due diligence, or just just doesn't care enough to properly mark a hazard with an irregular margin.  I have seen a couple of cases where a ball rolled into a yellow hazard just a few yards off the green with an obvious possibility of dropping within two clublengths.  However, because of the yellow stakes and the size of the hazard, the player was required to replay the shot from the previous spot - there was simply no other reasonable option under the rules - and it seemed overly penal for the severity of the miss.

Mostly I just think that it would simplify educating players on the water hazard relief options.  Since we have talked a lot about simplification lately in various threads, mostly without acceptable results, I thought that this was an interesting idea that could actually be workable.  It might even be possible for a course or committee to have a local rule approved for special cases like the island green that would disallow the 2 clublength option in the interest of pace of play.

Rick

"He who has the fastest cart will never have a bad lie."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

How so? I'm not doubting you, just don't know what you mean off the top of my head....

The same lake is considered a lateral hazard all along the right side of the fairway and green and along the back of the green.  If you go for the green and hit a pull-cut that ends in the lake, it's entirely possible you would be afforded a chance at putting for birdie depending on the pin location and where you went in.  From the same position, if you hit a near perfect shot that just happens to be a slight push and the wind is keeping it from drawing and fighting its way back over land, then you could end up being forced to drop back perhaps as far back as 200 yards from the green.

My response is to your comment about the penalty being (or not being) proportional to the infraction.  The same infraction already allows for the possibility of two vastly different results one hole earlier, so I don't see that it as a very big change at this hole either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I'm still not seeing a great advantage/benefit to the change. The fact that a similar result can be imagined under a unique set of circumstances under the current rule doesn't really convince me that the current rule needs to be changed. Again, I don't know that I'm necessarily opposed to the change. So far I'm just not seeing much benefit to doing so. I'm certainly open to the possibility though.

In David's bag....

Driver: Titleist 910 D-3;  9.5* Diamana Kai'li
3-Wood: Titleist 910F;  15* Diamana Kai'li
Hybrids: Titleist 910H 19* and 21* Diamana Kai'li
Irons: Titleist 695cb 5-Pw

Wedges: Scratch 51-11 TNC grind, Vokey SM-5's;  56-14 F grind and 60-11 K grind
Putter: Scotty Cameron Kombi S
Ball: ProV1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I'm still not seeing a great advantage/benefit to the change. The fact that a similar result can be imagined under a unique set of circumstances under the current rule doesn't really convince me that the current rule needs to be changed.

Again, I don't know that I'm necessarily opposed to the change. So far I'm just not seeing much benefit to doing so. I'm certainly open to the possibility though.

Just figure how often we see questions on this forum asking how to drop from this or that water hazard.  It would be so much more sensible to just be able to give one stock answer that covers it all.  This is a situation that players face every day, every round, and still they get confused about red or yellow, and what's the difference between lateral and regular, and where can I drop if it's one or the other.  This would eliminate half of the problem because there would be one set of procedures that covers it all, and it would only rarely make any actual difference in how a player proceeded in any given situation.  The way I see it, any minor differences would be more than balanced by the added simplicity of a single process for all water hazards.

Rick

"He who has the fastest cart will never have a bad lie."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 3209 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

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


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...