• Announcements

    • iacas

      Visit FlagstickRule.com   03/13/2017

      Visit the site flagstickrule.com to read about and sign a petition for the USGA/R&A regarding the one terrible rule in the proposed "modernized" rules for 2019.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
bmartin461

Relief From Lateral Hazard Is a Bunker

20 posts in this topic

I was playing a course last week where both sides of the fairway were considered lateral hazards.  They did this to speed up play.  I hit a tee shot right and it went out of bounds (into the "lateral hazard") at the middle of a fairway bunker.

So two club lengths from the point the ball crossed would have been in the bunker.  My playing partner and I determined relief should be outside the bunker but I think this might have been incorrect.

There was a narrow grass strip, one foot wide that I could have placed the ball next to the red line, but I would have been standing in the bunker.

Thoughts?

I think my options should have been:

1 - Re-tee the ball

2 - Relief behind the bunker, in line with my original tee shot

Thanks,

Brad

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Sign up (or log in) today! It's free (and you won't see this ad anymore)!

Sign up (or log in) today! It's free (and you won't see this ad anymore)!



Quote:

I think my options should have been:

1 - Re-tee the ball

2 - Relief behind the bunker, in line with my original tee shot

Sorry, the options should be:

1 - Re-tee the ball

2 - Relief behind the bunker, in line from the point it crossed the hazard and the hole.

3 - Drop in the bunker within 2 clubs?

Thanks,

Brad

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades


Originally Posted by bmartin461

Sorry, the options should be:

1 - Re-tee the ball

2 - Relief behind the bunker, in line from the point it crossed the hazard and the hole.

3 - Drop in the bunker within 2 clubs?

Thanks,

Brad





Originally Posted by bmartin461

I was playing a course last week where both sides of the fairway were considered lateral hazards.  They did this to speed up play.  I hit a tee shot right and it went out of bounds (into the "lateral hazard") at the middle of a fairway bunker.

So two club lengths from the point the ball crossed would have been in the bunker.  My playing partner and I determined relief should be outside the bunker but I think this might have been incorrect.

There was a narrow grass strip, one foot wide that I could have placed the ball next to the red line, but I would have been standing in the bunker.

Thoughts?

I think my options should have been:

1 - Re-tee the ball

2 - Relief behind the bunker, in line with my original tee shot

Thanks,

Brad


I think option 2 is better for the play, as what you have said, there was a narrow grass strip and indeed placing the ball next to the red line is appropriate also.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Hey bmartin,

First let me put my USGA Rules hat on and say the golf course, under the rules of golf, are not allowed to do what they did.  You are not allowed to mark something that, by definition is not a water hazard, a water hazard.  There are a couple of decisions in the Decisions book on this.  I understand what the course is trying to do, but it really does not speed up play, because if you think about it, if it wasn't marked, most folks would not go back to the tee if they couldn't find their ball anyway, they'd just drop one where the trees start.  I see this all the time.  So, regardless if they put a red line there or not, that's where most folks will drop their ball anyway.  Was this a resort course?  I see this done more on this type of course.

Anyway, back to your question.  Under rule 26 you have a number of options, which you pretty well covered.  The fact that the ball last crossed the margin of the hazard by the bunker is unfortunate.  You are allowed to drop within two club lengths of that spot.  (Also, it's a drop, initially, it could wind up being a place the ball but that's another story.).  The fact that the bunker was there was irrelevant.  Taking relief from the hazard is relief from that hazard.  You can drop in another hazard if you wish.  If that's all you have, which is kind of unusual, that's all you have. Sounds like you would have to drop in the bunker to get a good stance. There are some dropping issues that could come into play, but I don't want to glaze your eyes over anymore than I already have. Being a lateral hazard, I doubt that you could keep the point where the ball last crossed the hazard line and the pin, and drop back on that line.  That would just keep you in the junk.  The other option would be to return to the tee hitting 3.  There is one more option with a lateral hazard, but that would only apply if the the hazard had another line farther to the side, and it would not probably help your situation anyway.

You did mention out of bounds, which is entirely different than a hazard, I'm assuming you used the term to mean you wound up in the hazard.

If you have any questions about the drop and what's involved, let me know.

Regards,

John

Originally Posted by kathybhylton

I think option 2 is better for the play, as what you have said, there was a narrow grass strip and indeed placing the ball next to the red line is appropriate also.





Originally Posted by bmartin461

I was playing a course last week where both sides of the fairway were considered lateral hazards.  They did this to speed up play.  I hit a tee shot right and it went out of bounds (into the "lateral hazard") at the middle of a fairway bunker.

So two club lengths from the point the ball crossed would have been in the bunker.  My playing partner and I determined relief should be outside the bunker but I think this might have been incorrect.

There was a narrow grass strip, one foot wide that I could have placed the ball next to the red line, but I would have been standing in the bunker.

Thoughts?

I think my options should have been:

1 - Re-tee the ball

2 - Relief behind the bunker, in line with my original tee shot

Thanks,

Brad



0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Brad,

I re read your message and just wanted to be clear on something.  With regards to dropping a golf ball, there is not such thing as "line of flight".   Draw a line from the pin to the point where your ball last crossed the margin of the hazard. You may drop on an extension of this line (going away from the pin as far back as you want.)  That's why  lateral hazards have the added drop within two club lengths option.  If you think about it, this line would not get you out of a lateral hazard, because an extension of this line usually keeps you in a lateral hazard.

A lot of folks don't realize that with a water hazard, (yellow stakes) you DO NOT have the drop within 2 club option.  You replay the previous shot, play it as it lies, or do the extension from the pin to the point option above.

Regards,

John

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Thanks John, that was a good explaination.

No, it was not a resort course, it was a semi-private course in So. Cal. called Moorpark Country Club.

Regards,

Brad

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades



Originally Posted by bmartin461

No, it was not a resort course, it was a semi-private course in So. Cal. called Moorpark Country Club.


A bunch of the courses in that area do this with the desert/waste areas. I know I've seen it at Olivas Links and at Rustic Canyon.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Originally Posted by zeg

A bunch of the courses in that area do this with the desert/waste areas. I know I've seen it at Olivas Links and at Rustic Canyon.



I'm curious, do these courses have USGA Slope ratings?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades



Originally Posted by Dormie1360

Hey bmartin,

First let me put my USGA Rules hat on and say the golf course, under the rules of golf, are not allowed to do what they did.  You are not allowed to mark something that, by definition is not a water hazard, a water hazard.  There are a couple of decisions in the Decisions book on this.  I understand what the course is trying to do, but it really does not speed up play, because if you think about it, if it wasn't marked, most folks would not go back to the tee if they couldn't find their ball anyway, they'd just drop one where the trees start.  I see this all the time.  So, regardless if they put a red line there or not, that's where most folks will drop their ball anyway.  Was this a resort course?  I see this done more on this type of course.

Regards,

John

I would disagree on this one.  First, the area is being designated as a 'lateral water hazard', not a regular 'water hazard'.  Also, a water hazard doesn't have to contain any water.  This is quite common practice on many courses, especially in forested areas.  I doubt all these courses are breaking the rules.

Please cite the decisions you are referring to for clarification.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by TheGeekGolfer

I would disagree on this one.  First, the area is being designated as a 'lateral water hazard', not a regular 'water hazard'.  Also, a water hazard doesn't have to contain any water.  This is quite common practice on many courses, especially in forested areas.  I doubt all these courses are breaking the rules.

Please cite the decisions you are referring to for clarification.


The Rules define a “ lateral water hazard ” as a special kind of water hazard (as it relates to where you could potentially drop a ball, or in this case, not drop a ball). This makes the "lateral" portion of the thing simply a matter of geography and geometry.

The Rules then define a water hazard ’’ as any sea, lake, pond, river, ditch, surface drainage ditch or other open water course (whether or not containing water) and anything of a similar nature on the course .

The OP did not specify what was outside of "both sides of the fairway" but did refer to them as "out of bounds." If he later clarified, I missed it, but the overhead implies that these areas off the side of the fairways are most often not what the USGA would deem "water hazards", as the ponds and lakes are fairly easily distinguished: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Moorpark+Country+Club&hl;=en≪=34.302571,-118.898828&spn;=0.005717,0.010858&client;=safari&oe;=UTF-8&hq;=Moorpark+Country+Club&radius;=15000&t;=h&z;=17 .

There's nothing about a "lateral water hazard" that makes it not a "regular" water hazard except that it's impossible or really inconvenient to drop a ball behind the water hazard. That's the only thing separating a LWH from a regular old WH.

The courses are breaking the Rules most of the time. Unless these areas are routinely swampy (which I would not call a "forested area"), then they're not "water hazards" and the areas should either be marked as OB or simply left alone. For example, a course nearby here has a few holes along a fairly steep cliff. It used to be marked as OB, but now it's simply not marked at all. No matter though - a lost ball is basically the same penalty as OB, but now they don't have to maintain or mow around a bunch of white stakes. :)

So no decisions necessary. Just the definitions of "water hazard" and "lateral water hazard."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades



Originally Posted by iacas

The Rules define a “lateral water hazard” as a special kind of water hazard (as it relates to where you could potentially drop a ball, or in this case, not drop a ball). This makes the "lateral" portion of the thing simply a matter of geography and geometry.

The Rules then define a “water hazard’’ as any sea, lake, pond, river, ditch, surface drainage ditch or other open water course (whether or not containing water) and anything of a similar nature on the course.

The OP did not specify what was outside of "both sides of the fairway" but did refer to them as "out of bounds." If he later clarified, I missed it, but the overhead implies that these areas off the side of the fairways are most often not what the USGA would deem "water hazards", as the ponds and lakes are fairly easily distinguished: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Moorpark+Country+Club&hl;=en≪=34.302571,-118.898828&spn;=0.005717,0.010858&client;=safari&oe;=UTF-8&hq;=Moorpark+Country+Club&radius;=15000&t;=h&z;=17 .

There's nothing about a "lateral water hazard" that makes it not a "regular" water hazard except that it's impossible or really inconvenient to drop a ball behind the water hazard. That's the only thing separating a LWH from a regular old WH.

The courses are breaking the Rules most of the time. Unless these areas are routinely swampy (which I would not call a "forested area"), then they're not "water hazards" and the areas should either be marked as OB or simply left alone. For example, a course nearby here has a few holes along a fairly steep cliff. It used to be marked as OB, but now it's simply not marked at all. No matter though - a lost ball is basically the same penalty as OB, but now they don't have to maintain or mow around a bunch of white stakes. :)

So no decisions necessary. Just the definitions of "water hazard" and "lateral water hazard."

Any 'environmentally-sensitive' area may be declared by the local rules committee as a 'lateral' or regular water hazard and played as such.  This happened, for example, at the 2003 US Women's Open played at Pumpkin Ridge (just outside Portland, OR). See video here .  These areas did not and never do have anything resembling a sea, lake, pond, river, ditch, etc , yet are played as water hazards.  This is the same for forested areas on wooded courses, basically, if the course doesn't want you going into that area to find and play your ball because you might damage the foliage, bird nesting areas, whatever; then that is up to that course and well within the rules of golf and the USGA.

USGA Definition of 'Lateral Water Hazard'  - Note 2: The Committee may make a Local Rule prohibiting play from an environmentally-sensitive area defined as a lateral water hazard .

If the course referred to above by the OP has a local rule declaring these areas to be 'lateral water hazards', then that is their ruling and would not be played as out-of-bounds, since they aren't defined as such.  Out-of-bounds is any area that is declared as such by the local rules committee, and since these areas are listed (according to the OP) as 'lateral hazards', they are to be treated as such and would NOT be out-of-bounds.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by TheGeekGolfer

Any 'environmentally-sensitive' area may be declared by the local rules committee as a 'lateral' or regular water hazard and played as such.  This happened, for example, at the 2003 US Women's Open played at Pumpkin Ridge (just outside Portland, OR).  See video here.  These areas did not and never do have anything resembling a sea, lake, pond, river, ditch, etc, yet are played as water hazards.

You forgot something:

If an appropriate authority prohibits entry into and/or play from an area for environmental reasons, it is the Committee's responsibility to decide whether an environmentally-sensitive area should be defined as ground under repair, a water hazard or out of bounds.

However, the Committee may not define the area as a water hazard or a lateral water hazard unless it is, by Definition, a water hazard. The Committee should attempt to preserve the character of the hole.

So no, still not proper to define these areas as a lateral water hazard.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades



Originally Posted by TheGeekGolfer

I would disagree on this one.  First, the area is being designated as a 'lateral water hazard', not a regular 'water hazard'.  Also, a water hazard doesn't have to contain any water.  This is quite common practice on many courses, especially in forested areas.  I doubt all these courses are breaking the rules.

Please cite the decisions you are referring to for clarification.


Hi GeekGolfer,

Here you go.  As mentioned above there is a specific definition for what constitutes a water hazard.  This decision clarifies what I was talking about.

33-8/35

Local Rule Treating Rough as a Lateral Water Hazard

Q. The areas immediately adjacent to the fairways consist of large embedded boulders, thick desert brush and prickly cactus. A player whose ball comes to rest in such areas has no opportunity to play a stroke. Would it be proper to make a Local Rule under which such areas would be treated as lateral water hazards?

A. No. There are many courses where the areas adjacent to the fairways are of such a nature that a ball therein is almost always lost or unplayable. Thus, such a situation is not abnormal.

Regards,

John

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades



Originally Posted by Dormie1360

I'm curious, do these courses have USGA Slope ratings?


Yes, and they're quite reputable golf courses. I just checked and Olivas doesn't actually declare the "native areas" to be hazards, but provides a special relief procedure:

"Relief procedures from Native Areas: When the ball is resting in the native areas, you may play it as it lies; or (under penalty of one stroke whether ball is lost or found) you may drop a ball at the point where it last crossed the Native margin, within 2 club lengths, no nearer the hole"

Rustic Canyon actually may be in the clear (or nearly so) on this. The areas are (apparently) valid environmentally-sensitive areas, and the terrain is such that most of them are probably reasonably considered to be drainage areas during rainy periods. The fairways/rough are generally slightly elevated above the rest of the canyon, so it's probably at most a few mis-categorized areas.

Originally Posted by TheGeekGolfer

Any 'environmentally-sensitive' area may be declared by the local rules committee as a 'lateral' or regular water hazard and played as such.  This happened, for example, at the 2003 US Women's Open played at Pumpkin Ridge (just outside Portland, OR).  See video here.  These areas did not and never do have anything resembling a sea, lake, pond, river, ditch, etc, yet are played as water hazards.  This is the same for forested areas on wooded courses, basically, if the course doesn't want you going into that area to find and play your ball because you might damage the foliage, bird nesting areas, whatever; then that is up to that course and well within the rules of golf and the USGA.


In addition to Erik's clarification, note that the committee may specify the relief for an environmentally-sensitive area, but they cannot decide for themselves whether an area is environmentally sensitive, an "appropriate authority" must make that declaration.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks zeg, that makes more sence.  ESA's are a different animal all together.  Here is the full decision referenced above on how they should be marked depending on what they are and where they are.

33-8/41

Marking Environmentally-Sensitive Areas

If an appropriate authority prohibits entry into and/or play from an area for environmental reasons, it is the Committee's responsibility to decide whether an environmentally-sensitive area should be defined as ground under repair, a water hazard or out of bounds.

However, the Committee may not define the area as a water hazard or a lateral water hazard unless it is, by Definition, a water hazard. The Committee should attempt to preserve the character of the hole.

As examples:

(a) A small area of rare plants close to a putting green has been declared an environmentally-sensitive area. The Committee may define the area to be ground under repair or out of bounds, but it may not be defined as a water hazard or lateral water hazard. In view of the area's proximity to a putting green, it should not be defined as out of bounds because a stroke-and-distance penalty would be unduly harsh. It would be more appropriate to define the area as ground under repair.

(b) A large area of sand dunes along the side of a hole has been declared an environmentally-sensitive area. In contrast to (a) above, it should not be defined as ground under repair because the absence of a penalty would be unduly generous. It would be more appropriate to define the area as out of bounds.

(c) A large area of wetlands along the side of a hole has been declared an environmentally-sensitive area. As in (b) above, it could be defined as out of bounds, but it would be more appropriate to define it as a lateral water hazard.

An environmentally-sensitive area should be physically protected to deter players from entering the area (e.g., by a fence, warning signs and the like) and it should be marked in accordance with the recommendations in the Rules of Golf (i.e., by yellow, red or white stakes, depending on the status of the area). It is recommended that stakes with green tops be used to designate an environmentally-sensitive area.

Regards,

John

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades



Originally Posted by Dormie1360

Hi GeekGolfer,

Here you go.  As mentioned above there is a specific definition for what constitutes a water hazard.  This decision clarifies what I was talking about.

33-8/35

Local Rule Treating Rough as a Lateral Water Hazard

Q.The areas immediately adjacent to the fairways consist of large embedded boulders, thick desert brush and prickly cactus. A player whose ball comes to rest in such areas has no opportunity to play a stroke. Would it be proper to make a Local Rule under which such areas would be treated as lateral water hazards?

A.No. There are many courses where the areas adjacent to the fairways are of such a nature that a ball therein is almost always lost or unplayable. Thus, such a situation is not abnormal.

Regards,

John



Thanks for this posting, I didn't find this, I was looking in section 26-1, concerning water hazards.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Originally Posted by iacas

You forgot something:

So no, still not proper to define these areas as a lateral water hazard.

Quote (33-8/41):

If an appropriate authority prohibits entry into and/or play from an area for environmental reasons, it is the Committee's responsibility to decide whether an environmentally-sensitive area should be defined as ground under repair, a water hazard or out of bounds.

However, the Committee may not define the area as a water hazard or a lateral water hazard unless it is, by Definition, a water hazard. The Committee should attempt to preserve the character of the hole.

Thanks Eric, yeah, didn't see that in section 33 (about the committee), I was looking in section 26.  Still sounds like they are talking in circles.  They say the Committee may not mark an area as a water hazard unless it is by definition a water hazard, but then when they define a water hazard, they say that the committee may designate an area as a water hazard if it's environmentally sensitive.  As usual, they are being vague to allow for decisions to further clarify things, as needed.

I would say that since you can probably find any 'appropriate authority' to say whatever you want with regards to some environmental factor these days, they can go ahead and designate those areas as lateral hazards.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Originally Posted by iacas

You forgot something:

Quote (33-8/41):

If an appropriate authority prohibits entry into and/or play from an area for environmental reasons, it is the Committee's responsibility to decide whether an environmentally-sensitive area should be defined as ground under repair, a water hazard or out of bounds.

However, the Committee may not define the area as a water hazard or a lateral water hazard unless it is, by Definition, a water hazard. The Committee should attempt to preserve the character of the hole.


Note that the decision specifically mentions " appropriate authority ".  This means a local environmental entity must be involved.  It's not a condition which a course can simply declare just to improve pace of play.  The course can designate any area as out of bounds or any wetland or watercourse as a water hazard, but it can only be considered as environmentally sensitive with input from such an agency.  For an out of bounds area it doesn't matter, but for a water hazard it must be so designated in order for the committee to prohibit play from within the margin.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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
  • 2017 TST Partners

    PING Golf
    Leupold Golf
    Snell Golf
    Talamore Golf Resort
    Lowest Score Wins
  • Posts

    • I don't know that it'll add anything. It likely won't even do all that SAM does.
    • No, not exactly...just a general or rough definition of "in the vicinity" will do. Not all of us are 1.5ers. 
    • Which range in the US, the piece doesn't say. Trackman Range is basically setting up multiple radars, 3 for example, so that it can provide numbers for a range of a given length, like 130 yards in the example here and everyone on that range in selected spots basically has radar. Here's the piece that talks about the setup some more plus putting. The new ability to measure putt related data is interesting as well, wonder what it'll add in addition to SAM Puttlab. 
    • Well,  you said for most people,  and I do not have a large sample size to draw from in my own experience in golf so... I draw from my own personal experience.    As a player there was a time when I wanted to change the shape of my swing very badly in a certain way.  I have found that when I tried to do that and hit a ball at the same time it was too much for my brain and I would find contact with the ball over making the change or the change I saw on video would be miniscule if present at all.  I found though that if I removed the ball I was able to make changes.  Now,  obviously this was making an air swing that might not even hit a ball on the ground.  No accuracy,  but that's the point!  Free the brain from having to put clubhead on ball for a minute and focus on something else to harness it a bit!  I removed all intention of a precise strike or clubface control by doing this.  I am talking now seriously make a swing or two look at video...most times exaggerate the move even more...look at video.  Repeat repeat repeat.   Same exact video angle all the time!   This is not a fast process I am just explaining what I was doing.  Backyard was perfect for this feel vs real experimentation feedback loop I was working on.  The only purpose of this was to develop a way I could learn to somewhat repeat what I was looking for.  Stage two would be targeting a tuft of grass and doing it again video.  Stage three would be maybe going out to the range and like you said rehearsing a few and then bringing in the ball and striking it. For me going out and shanking and slicing a bucket of balls working on a change costs money and it's hard to convince myself it's a success regardless of what I see on video.  I've done it several times. So,  before I did the whole air swing thing I hit many buckets and basically it was not effective at anything except maybe excercise and grooving compensations to the point I built myself a nice yip impact block on full swings.  Yes I admit at first I thought I could beat golf by athletic ability alone like every moron high cap that beats balls ingraining moves that need to be eliminated if they are ever to improve.  Without a couple simple workable concepts imo hitting balls is really the worst thing to do for a relatively inexperienced player.  So,  that's my take. For background info on me I played tennis in college and it was sport of focus from maybe sixth grade on and I took proper instruction with one coach for quite a while.  I feel I maximized my potential there.  Often in college I would surf in the morning early (skipping class obviously) and then for the afternoon travel for matches and play my singles and a doubles match.  My coach seriously used to ask me if I surfed that day because he said I played better when I did! I have a lot of experience in teaching athletics of various sorts  including surfing and soccer and I have been told many many times by many people that I have a natural affinity for teaching in a minimalistic simple fashion.  I succeeded in many ways in athletics but for me it was always a personal focus on technique that led to success.  Growing up I could never jump high or run very fast or lift heavy weights,  but I developed a pretty good jump shot in hoops.   I could kick a ball far and score goals in soccer. I am just not one of those naturally athletic fearless types who as a kid could jump their bike real huge or Ollie a skateboard a couple feet into the air or do a tuck flip off a diving board into a pool without thinking a bit how they did it.  I can identify those types and imo there's something happening there most of the rest of us ain't got!  Sure I could flip but it was an extended body flop of sorts lol.  In tennis I got decent,  but it was from good instruction,  good practice, an absolute ton of hours of hard work,  and if I might say so very good technique.  In golf I can't break par so I don't really ever bother people in swing threads unless I can speak from personal experience.  I realize I am not qualified to develop a swing to say a par shooter,  so I don't try to.   I think I might have some thoughts relative to some though.  Sorry for boring those who have read this but I must say I value my time spent on this site highly;  most sites are crud these days filled with Internet warrior liars who don't offer much true Quality.        
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Blog Entries

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Golfgirl10543
      Golfgirl10543
      (43 years old)
    2. jkettman
      jkettman
      (28 years old)
    3. old man1953
      old man1953
      (64 years old)
  • Get Great Gear with Amazon