Rules Violations You Witness

[David in FL]

If there's no marked (painted) line, it's a straight line connecting the two points. Otherwise you'd be guessing as to where the arc was.

Now there's one that I didn't know. In the absence of lines, depending on the location of the stakes and the curvature of the hazard itself, a ball could actually rest in the water, but still not be in the hazard? Worth keeping in mind........

[Fourputt]

Now

Not true. Decision 26/2 covers this:

26/2 Ball Within Natural Margin of Water Hazard But Outside Stakes Defining Margin Q. Stakes defining the margin of a water hazard were improperly installed. As a result, an area which clearly was part of the water hazard was outside the stakes and, thus, technically was outside the hazard. A player’s ball came to rest in water in this area. The player claimed that, in view of the alignment of the stakes, his ball was in casual water through the green. Was the claim valid? A. No. 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. Since it was clear that the place where the player’s ball lay was within the natural boundaries of the water hazard, the claim should not be upheld.

[David in FL]

Thanks.......

Amazing how often common sense actually applies!

[iacas]

Thanks.......

Yeah, plus they may have had a stake at the apex of the lake, but someone could have moved it or thrown it in the lake or something. So it may not even have been "committee error."

[billm408]

Amazing how often common sense actually applies!

Also consider that stakes & tee markers, etc... are often moved and placed by the grounds crew based on mowing schedules and not always replaced with rules of the game in mind.