Relief From Lateral Hazard Is a Bunker

[iacas]

Originally Posted by TheGeekGolfer

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 don't think they're talking in circles. If a WH or an LWH is an ESA, it can be marked as such and play from the area is prohibited. Normally you have the option to play the ball as it lies (from the WH/LWH). That's what the addition of an ESA does. You can't just define an ESA as a WH/LWH. If it doesn't meet the definition of an WH/LWH you have to call it OB or GUR.

Originally Posted by TheGeekGolfer

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.

I really don't think so. An "appropriate authority" is not whomever you want, and so no, they can't designate them as LWHs because they don't satisfy the definition for a WH. Again, OB or GUR are the only real options, and that's only if the appropriate authority deems it an ESA. That doesn't appear to be the case here at all.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by Dormie1360

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.

Yeah, I seem to recall looking into this after playing there and decided that they were ok. However, I think Olivas Links' policy is not consistent with the rules. In particular the bit about playing under a one stroke penalty whether the ball is lost or found. In their case, there are no ESAs involved---you're allowed to play out of the native areas.