Should Pros Play by a Different Set of Rules?

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Erik, why do you have to come on here and make sense all the time?  It's really annoying!

I guess the types of OB that I think don't make sense are the ones that aren't really far off the fairway, and in fact aren't even defining the edge of course property.  For example, there's a hole at a course I play in a retirement community that has homes lining the left side and there is OB.  But the OB is waaaay closer to the fairway than it is to the homes.  In fact, the cart path itself, which is right off the fairway, is the boundary.  Additionally, the hole doglegs to the right, so you can hit a "good" drive with a slight pull, or even straight and it just doesn't cut, and it can roll across the cart path to OB.  Yet it's sitting right there on nice grass with a clear shot to the green.

I guess in that case, my argument shouldn't be so much with the rules, but with the course in having that designation.  They could put the OB much further right, or if they really don't want anybody playing over there, just call it a lateral hazard with an ESA.

Also, the OB's put in to keep people from cutting doglegs around other holes.  I'd rather they put a warning sign, or a fence to keep people from attempting it.

This sort of arbitrary OB is frowned on by the USGA and R&A.;  My home course had a hole like this for only as long as it took a row of trees to grow tall enough to make the shortcut no longer feasible.  There are natural and effective ways of dealing with such shortcuts.  After about 5 or 6 years they removed the OB stakes, and nobody tries to intentionally cut that dogleg.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I guess the types of OB that I think don't make sense are the ones that aren't really far off the fairway, and in fact aren't even defining the edge of course property.  For example, there's a hole at a course I play in a retirement community that has homes lining the left side and there is OB.  But the OB is waaaay closer to the fairway than it is to the homes.  In fact, the cart path itself, which is right off the fairway, is the boundary.  Additionally, the hole doglegs to the right, so you can hit a "good" drive with a slight pull, or even straight and it just doesn't cut, and it can roll across the cart path to OB.  Yet it's sitting right there on nice grass with a clear shot to the green.

I guess in that case, my argument shouldn't be so much with the rules, but with the course in having that designation.  They could put the OB much further right, or if they really don't want anybody playing over there, just call it a lateral hazard with an ESA.

Yet if the OB is closer to the houses, the houses are more likely to get pelted with golf balls. Plus the houses wouldn't sell as well because their lots would advertised as being smaller than they are. :)

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by iacas

Yet if the OB is closer to the houses, the houses are more likely to get pelted with golf balls. Plus the houses wouldn't sell as well because their lots would advertised as being smaller than they are. :)

Again with the sense?  Stop it.  Just stop it.

But, again, that's why I said they could call it a hazard and an ESA  (old people are environmentally sensitive, right?) without moving the line.

OR ...

I could learn to keep the ball in the fairway and then I won't care anymore.  ('cbrian' has got his hands full regarding that one)

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Again with the sense?  Stop it.  Just stop it.

But, again, that's why I said they could call it a hazard and an ESA  (old people are environmentally sensitive, right?) without moving the line.

OR ...

I could learn to keep the ball in the fairway and then I won't care anymore.  ('cbrian' has got his hands full regarding that one)

Under the rules, to be a water hazard, it must contain water, or if dry, it must be a watercourse, even if it's nothing but a run-off ditch that sees water only after a rainstorm.  There is no flexibility to simply declare anything a hazard just because it's convenient to do so.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Under the rules, to be a water hazard, it must contain water, or if dry, it must be a watercourse, even if it's nothing but a run-off ditch that sees water only after a rainstorm.  There is no flexibility to simply declare anything a hazard just because it's convenient to do so.

I was not aware of that, even though its very logical.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by MEfree

... If arguing the other side, I would say that playing an OB like a LWH isn`t enough of a penalty.  My counter to that is to ask why should a 250 yard drive that ends up 1 foot OB penalize a player more than a whiff?

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

...But, again, that's why I said they could call it a hazard and an ESA  (old people are environmentally sensitive, right?) without moving the line...

The way I look at it is, a golfer *knows* (or should) that an area is OB.  Whether it's marked that way because the course is trying to discourage you from hitting close to houses, because it's the course property boundary, or simply on the whim of the course designer, the upshot is you are supposed to try especially hard to avoid going OB, because it's especially penal. That may mean you aim away from it, you try to shape your shot away from it, or you take a shorter club. Or don't do any of that, but know that the shot is then riskier than it would otherwise be.  My point being, OB and its distinction from a hazard is part of the game and part of course management. I know others think differently, but I like it that way.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

My point being, OB and its distinction from a hazard is part of the game and part of course management. I know others think differently, but I like it that way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

OB is where you literally hit the ball so badly you're off the property of the golf course. Yes, sometimes the course boundaries are close to the hole, but it's the equivalent of throwing your bowling ball into someone else's lane.

And a lost ball speaks for itself: how can you possibly know where to drop if you can't even FIND your golf ball? The entire game revolves around playing the golf COURSE with your golf BALL. Leaving the golf course and/or losing your golf ball suffer the harshest penalties.

Which makes sense.

In order of difficulty as it concerns your ball and course hazards:

OB/Lost Ball

Water

Bunkers

Rough

Trees fit in there somewhere but on some holes are worse than water and on some holes less of a penalty than rough.

And the whiff example needs to die. You're not penalized for whiffing. You made a stroke that was ineffective, same as hitting a ball and not getting it out of a bunker (vs. blading a ball out of the bunker so badly it flies into someone's back yard).

When a course is well designed, your thinking makes sense, but this is not always the case.  Can you honestly say that all your OBs and lost balls in your golfing career have been the result of really badly hit shots?  Maybe I am just unlucky, but I know I have hit balls that landed on the fairway that I never found.  In your hierarchy, rough is suppose to be less penal than bunkers/water/OB, but I`ve lost balls (and found other players lost balls) many times in long rough.  I agree that by definition that you don`t know where a lost ball is, but why does the penalty have to be stroke and distance?  Why not just distance?  (or to speed up play, add a stroke and estimate where it was lost sorta like you estimate where a ball entered a blind hazard)

I like the Keystone courses that I have been playing this summer, but there are lots of holes/potential shots where the potential penalties are not in line with how bad a player hits their shot.  I feel the biggest potential inequity can be with lost balls near hazards- if you hit a really bad shot into the middle of the hazard, it is clear that you get to play it as a hazard, but if you hit a sorta bad shot (less off line than the really bad shot) and there is long grass near the hazard, you may have to play it as a lost ball and take a worse penalty.

The 13th on the Ranch course has OB to the left of a fairway that slopes right and long grass where you can lose a ball to the right.  I hit a terrible left handed pull hook last week and put my ball on the adjacent fairway to the right of the long grass- viola, easy par.  Saturday, I hit a much better feeling shot that ended up much less off line than the left side of the fairway you need to land to avoid it rolling off the fairway to the right, but it hung up on the left hillside OB (much closer to the fairway than the houses which are way up the hill). It wasn`t a good shot, but because of the slope, the ideal landing area isn`t that far from the OB line.

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Under the rules, to be a water hazard, it must contain water, or if dry, it must be a watercourse, even if it's nothing but a run-off ditch that sees water only after a rainstorm.  There is no flexibility to simply declare anything a hazard just because it's convenient to do so.

You are correct, but I think this lack of flexibility hurts the smart course architect and can create situations where the penalties for a slightly off line shot are more than the course architect would like.  i.e. an area of gorse or other natural terrain close to the fairway that you need a certain amount of luck to find a ball without the aid of a gallery or fore caddie.  The course architect may realize that given the lack of bail out on the other side of the fairway that he would like to consider this a hazard so that a lost ball is not penalized stroke and distance, but if there is no water, then he can`t do this and the near miss on that side has the chance for a heavy penalty.

Another example might be the OB I described on the 13th hole above.  The course architect doesn`t have the option of calling the left side a hazard even if he believes that the OB penalty is too high for a shot that is not that far away from the ideal landing spot.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by MEfree

When a course is well designed

Sorry, gotta stop you right there.

Pretty sure the Rules of Golf don't care about whether a course is "well designed." They're simply the Rules of Golf, and if a course is poorly designed BECAUSE it makes improper or goofy use of OB, then that's not a reason whatsoever to change the rules for OB or anything else.

Originally Posted by MEfree

Can you honestly say that all your OBs and lost balls in your golfing career have been the result of really badly hit shots?

No, of course not. Sometimes I smack off a tree that's well in bounds and careen OB. I don't remember when that last occurred but I'm sure it has.

But I don't remember playing any courses I'd consider "badly designed" when it comes to OB.

Originally Posted by MEfree

Maybe I am just unlucky, but I know I have hit balls that landed on the fairway that I never found.  In your hierarchy, rough is suppose to be less penal than bunkers/water/OB, but I`ve lost balls (and found other players lost balls) many times in long rough.  I agree that by definition that you don`t know where a lost ball is, but why does the penalty have to be stroke and distance?  Why not just distance?  (or to speed up play, add a stroke and estimate where it was lost sorta like you estimate where a ball entered a blind hazard)

That's a lost ball. That's not "rough." Watch where your ball goes. I've lost the occasional ball during late autumn when there are about a thousand leaves per square foot (we're often out of handicap season then anyway). Here you go: avoid hitting your ball in the long rough and you'll greatly reduce the odds of losing your ball in the long rough.

Furthermore you don't estimate where the ball last crossed a blind hazard. The word "estimate" does not appear in Rule 26.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MEfree

I like the Keystone courses that I have been playing this summer, but there are lots of holes/potential shots where the potential penalties are not in line with how bad a player hits their shot.

Sez you.

We have a good sized par five at Whispering Woods. #15. You drive it into a very small area (the penalty for missing is a stroke as you'll be playing out laterally in almost every situation), then you're tasked with carrying the ball 230 or so off a downhill lie across a ravine/gorge that's about 70 yards wide. Come up short and you'll drop and have 170 in, off the same downhill lie, to a hole well above you.

So a player can hit a gorgeous 229-yard hybrid off a downhill lie that the wind smacks at the end (it's into the prevailing wind) and it falls one yard short into unplayable stuff. Penalty? You're hitting four from 170 off a downhill lie to a green 40 feet above you.

Pretty good shot? Yep. Too stiff a penalty? Nope. Because you knew what the situation was prior to playing, and if you didn't, only had yourself to blame for not knowing it.

You have it backwards. I can miss the flag by 15 feet. Sometimes that leaves me a straight uphill putt and sometimes it puts me in the drink. What makes one of those shots good and one bad? The layout of the hole. The fact that there's water in one and green in another. Both were exactly the same kind of shot - but the idiot who dunked it in the water did not hit a good shot and the genius who hit it to 15 feet with an uphill putt did.

The guy who hits it OB hit a lousy shot by definition. It went OB!

And if it bounced off a sprinkler head in the middle of the fairway to go OB, well, that's just rotten luck, not poor design or "too stiff a penalty."

Originally Posted by MEfree

I feel the biggest potential inequity can be with lost balls near hazards- if you hit a really bad shot into the middle of the hazard, it is clear that you get to play it as a hazard, but if you hit a sorta bad shot (less off line than the really bad shot) and there is long grass near the hazard, you may have to play it as a lost ball and take a worse penalty.

That would be a valid point except it can't really be any other way. The threshold for "it's in the hazard" has to be "virtually certain." It can't be "maybe it went in" or "it's kinda likely it went in." The rules need to make this say with near absolute certainty it's in the hazard. Otherwise, well, it's lost.

And frankly when are you not virtually certain? Most people see a splash, ripples, etc. Most courses don't have really long grass for 30 feet near a water hazard that would prevent you from finding the ball.

Originally Posted by MEfree

The 13th on the Ranch course has OB to the left of a fairway that slopes right and long grass where you can lose a ball to the right.  I hit a terrible left handed pull hook last week and put my ball on the adjacent fairway to the right of the long grass- viola, easy par.  Saturday, I hit a much better feeling shot that ended up much less off line than the left side of the fairway you need to land to avoid it rolling off the fairway to the right, but it hung up on the left hillside OB (much closer to the fairway than the houses which are way up the hill). It wasn`t a good shot, but because of the slope, the ideal landing area isn`t that far from the OB line.

I bladed a ball out of a bunker once that smacked into the flagstick and fell in.

Maybe we should change that rule too?

BTW, learn to cut the ball into the slope and you won't have to land it exactly where you're saying, perhaps? Or take less club off the tee and leave yourself a longer shot in? Lots of ways to play the hole.

Originally Posted by MEfree

You are correct, but I think this lack of flexibility hurts the smart course architect and can create situations where the penalties for a slightly off line shot are more than the course architect would like.  i.e. an area of gorse or other natural terrain close to the fairway that you need a certain amount of luck to find a ball without the aid of a gallery or fore caddie.  The course architect may realize that given the lack of bail out on the other side of the fairway that he would like to consider this a hazard so that a lost ball is not penalized stroke and distance, but if there is no water, then he can`t do this and the near miss on that side has the chance for a heavy penalty.

If that were the case he could create a ditch and thus a water hazard.

Perhaps I simply haven't seen many courses where I feel that OB is used inappropriately. I've played a lot of golf. One course used to have internal OB, but they changed the 90° dogleg par four into a par three with the next hole starting around the corner.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by iacas

Furthermore you don't estimate where the ball last crossed a blind hazard. The word "estimate" does not appear in Rule 26.

So what do you do when your ball goes into a blind hazard?  Do you lose options 26-1b & c?  Even when the hazard is not blind, it is unlikely that you know the EXACT point, so I would say that most players make an educated guess as to the point it crossed (with pros making a better educated guess because they have spotters/rules officials that can help them).  The words estimate, approximate and educated guess might not be in the rules book, but realistically speaking, unless the hazard has a sensor that lights up to show you the exact spot the ball crossed, this is what most players are doing.

Originally Posted by iacas

That would be a valid point except it can't really be any other way. The threshold for "it's in the hazard" has to be "virtually certain." It can't be "maybe it went in" or "it's kinda likely it went in." The rules need to make this say with near absolute certainty it's in the hazard. Otherwise, well, it's lost.

Why can`t it be any other way?  You seem to be assuming the the rules can never change.  If this was the case, we would still be playing with the original 13 rules which made no mention of OB.  If a lost ball was played similar to a LWH, then you wouldn`t have to be certain at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

"And frankly when are you not virtually certain? Most people see a splash, ripples, etc. Most courses don't have really long grass for 30 feet near a water hazard that would prevent you from finding the ball."

I am not certain when the hazard is blind or doesn`t actually contain much/any water.  As examples, here are some pictures of the 5th and 6th holes at Keystone`s River course.  The hazard on 5 is an ESA area that might have some water, but not enough that you would see a splash.  From the white tees it is a 215 lay-up or a 265 carry on a 495 yard par 5.  Notice the bushes in the hazard and the long stuff outside the hazard (on both the far side where this photo was taken as well as short of the hazard)

Here is a shot that ended up a foot outside the hazard on the far side (flew it or came pretty close).  If this ball had not been found, it would have been hard to be virtually certain that it was in the hazard.

Below is #6- the pond is not visible from the tee, so you wouldn`t see the splash.  To fly it into the pond is a really bad shot while getting into the long grass outside the hazard is only a moderately bad shot, but has the potential for a lost ball.  While PGA pros might have the benefit of a spotter, normal players don`t so the practical effect of this is that an identical shot hit by a regular player towards, but not obviously into the hazard should probably be played as a lost ball, while a PGA pro would either have his ball found outside the hazard or know that his ball is actually in the hazard.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by MEfree

So what do you do when your ball goes into a blind hazard? Do you lose options 26-1b & c? Even when the hazard is not blind, it is unlikely that you know the EXACT point, so I would say that most players make an educated guess as to the point it crossed (with pros making a better educated guess because they have spotters/rules officials that can help them). The words estimate, approximate and educated guess might not be in the rules book, but realistically speaking, unless the hazard has a sensor that lights up to show you the exact spot the ball crossed, this is what most players are doing.

The fact remains that:

a) blind hazards are rare

b) even if a hazard is blind you can much more easily estimate where that ball crossed the line than you can guessing where a ball is lost. If you knew where the ball was lost, but couldn't find it in five minutes, then you probably didn't know where the ball was lost.

c) you're not making the argument you seem to think you're making.

d) if you're not certain where your ball went in the hazard I'm not certain you can be virtually certain your ball went in at all, thus, it's probably lost.

Originally Posted by MEfree

Why can`t it be any other way?  You seem to be assuming the the rules can never change.  If this was the case, we would still be playing with the original 13 rules which made no mention of OB.  If a lost ball was played similar to a LWH, then you wouldn`t have to be certain at all.

I'm not assuming it can't change. I'm simply saying you haven't supported your claim that they should change very well.

Originally Posted by MEfree

Below is #6- the pond is not visible from the tee, so you wouldn`t see the splash.  To fly it into the pond is a really bad shot while getting into the long grass outside the hazard is only a moderately bad shot, but has the potential for a lost ball.  While PGA pros might have the benefit of a spotter, normal players don`t so the practical effect of this is that an identical shot hit by a regular player towards, but not obviously into the hazard should probably be played as a lost ball, while a PGA pro would either have his ball found outside the hazard or know that his ball is actually in the hazard.

So have them mow the grass. Or look along the line of the ball's flight for a few minutes, and if you don't find it and can be virtually certain it had enough pace to get into the water, play it that way.

One poorly laid out course does not support your argument. It works the other way: the rules exist, and the course should act to provide a platform which allows the players to best follow with them, not the other way around. You're going about your argument from the exact opposite side.

There are some funny rules situations out there. You do the best you can with them. But in situations where the COURSE could do something about it, then they should. You should be talking to that course, not talking about changing the Rules to allow for a LOST BALL to be played as a water hazard.

[MEfree]

You have some valid points, so I`ll take a different approach- what % of the players do you think properly follow the lost ball rule all the time?

When you lose a ball that you didn`t think you would lose (i.e. didn`t hit a provisional) do you ALWAYS go back to the spot you originally played from?

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by MEfree

So what do you do when your ball goes into a blind hazard?  Do you lose options 26-1b & c?  Even when the hazard is not blind, it is unlikely that you know the EXACT point, so I would say that most players make an educated guess as to the point it crossed (with pros making a better educated guess because they have spotters/rules officials that can help them).  The words estimate, approximate and educated guess might not be in the rules book, but realistically speaking, unless the hazard has a sensor that lights up to show you the exact spot the ball crossed, this is what most players are doing.

Why can`t it be any other way?  You seem to be assuming the the rules can never change.  If this was the case, we would still be playing with the original 13 rules which made no mention of OB.  If a lost ball was played similar to a LWH, then you wouldn`t have to be certain at all.

Below is #6- the pond is not visible from the tee, so you wouldn`t see the splash.  To fly it into the pond is a really bad shot while getting into the long grass outside the hazard is only a moderately bad shot, but has the potential for a lost ball.  While PGA pros might have the benefit of a spotter, normal players don`t so the practical effect of this is that an identical shot hit by a regular player towards, but not obviously into the hazard should probably be played as a lost ball, while a PGA pro would either have his ball found outside the hazard or know that his ball is actually in the hazard.

Decision 26-1/16 mentions using one's best judgement when the point where the ball crossed the margin is not precisely identifiable.  I bolded the portions below which apply to that uncertainty.

26-1/16

Point Where Ball Last Crossed Margin of Lateral Water Hazard Determined and Ball Dropped; Point Then Proves to Be Wrong Point

Q.In stroke play, A's ball goes into a lateral water hazard and is not found. A uses his best judgment in determining the point where the ball last crossed the hazard margin. B, A's marker and a fellow-competitor, agrees with that judgment and A drops a ball in accordance with Rule 26-1c, using the agreed point on the margin as the reference point. Before A makes his next stroke, C, another fellow-competitor, says that A's ball last crossed the hazard margin 20 yards beyond the point judged by A to be the point where the ball last crossed. A's ball is then found where C said it would be. What is the ruling?

A.When A dropped the ball under Rule 26-1, it was known or virtually certain that his original ball lay in the lateral water hazard. Therefore, Rule 26-1 was the applicable Rule and the player proceeded correctly in that he was permitted to put a ball into play under that Rule. However, as he dropped his ball in a wrong place, A must correct the error under Rule 20-6. He must proceed in accordance with any of the applicable options under Rule 26-1 with respect to the correct reference point

When deep grass or brush borders the margin of a water hazard, proper course marking will make every effort to include that rough within the margin of the marked hazard.  This is how it is taught in USGA course marking classes.  If that isn't the case at Keystone, then they need some retraining. My home course at Foothills in South Jeffco has many such areas and all are marked correctly with the line painted at the edge where the mowed rough meets the unmowed rough.  I can think of only one case where there is a large area of deep grass that runs up to a hazard where it would be impractical to mark it so, a sort of triangular no man's land between the 6th and 16th holes, and that area is clearly visible from anyplace you might hit into it from.  It's pretty easy to tell if the ball carries or rolls into the hazard.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Decision 26-1/16 mentions using one's best judgement when the point where the ball crossed the margin is not precisely identifiable.  I bolded the portions below which apply to that uncertainty.

When deep grass or brush borders the margin of a water hazard, proper course marking will make every effort to include that rough within the margin of the marked hazard.  This is how it is taught in USGA course marking classes.  If that isn't the case at Keystone, then they need some retraining. My home course at Foothills in South Jeffco has many such areas and all are marked correctly with the line painted at the edge where the mowed rough meets the unmowed rough.  I can think of only one case where there is a large area of deep grass that runs up to a hazard where it would be impractical to mark it so, a sort of triangular no man's land between the 6th and 16th holes, and that area is clearly visible from anyplace you might hit into it from.  It's pretty easy to tell if the ball carries or rolls into the hazard.

To me, "best judgement in determining" sounds a lot like the use of "estimate" that Erik slammed me for, but maybe I`m not splitting the hairs fine enough.

I agree that in some cases Keystone could do a better job of marking hazards to include nearby long grass, but in some cases, it is a catch 22 because they are ESAs where you are not allowed to enter or hit out of.  If they want to expand the hazard to include nearby non-ESA terrain, then they either have to make more terrain off limits making the hole that much tougher for the average player or have two sets of hazard markers with the first line being the hazard line and the second line being where the ESA starts.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by MEfree

You have some valid points, so I`ll take a different approach- what % of the players do you think properly follow the lost ball rule all the time?

Roughly 0%. But you could change the rule and the answer would still be the same. Roughly 0% follow the OB rule either. Hell, roughly 0% follow the "don't roll your ball in the fairway" rule(s) too.

Originally Posted by MEfree

When you lose a ball that you didn`t think you would lose (i.e. didn`t hit a provisional) do you ALWAYS go back to the spot you originally played from?

I remember the last time I lost a ball. It was two years ago. I drove back to the tee and hit another ball.

I don't post rounds for handicap though, so I don't even know that I tap in on half of the holes I play anymore. I'm either playing a tournament round or a round with friends, and if it's the latter, it's either a match that's going to involve concessions (or if I happened to lose a ball I'd just lose the hole, or my partner would be on the spot, though I might play in just to stay in rhythm) or it's just goofing around for practice.

I played 18 the other day and didn't hit a shot inside of 50 yards because my primary task was to map the greens. I think I might have whacked one of those balls into some trees somewhere, but I didn't even look for it.

When I was an amateur, I didn't lose balls either. The courses I played where you could lose a ball I'd hit provisionals. One course doesn't have OB but if you hit your ball there it's lost so sometimes I wouldn't even look for the ball. I treated it like it was OB. Some of those were probably in, but meh, whatever. It was probably just going to be an ESC hole if I did that anyway, and not a hole where I'd win a skin or anything.

Originally Posted by MEfree

I agree that in some cases Keystone could do a better job of marking hazards to include nearby long grass, but in some cases, it is a catch 22 because they are ESAs where you are not allowed to enter or hit out of.  If they want to expand the hazard to include nearby non-ESA terrain, then they either have to make more terrain off limits making the hole that much tougher for the average player or have two sets of hazard markers with the first line being the hazard line and the second line being where the ESA starts.

1) ESAs are really, really rare.

2) Make the hazard area part of the ESA.

3) Mow the grass outside the ESA if it's not a hazard.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by MEfree

To me, "best judgement in determining" sounds a lot like the use of "estimate" that Erik slammed me for, but maybe I`m not splitting the hairs fine enough.

I agree that in some cases Keystone could do a better job of marking hazards to include nearby long grass, but in some cases, it is a catch 22 because they are ESAs where you are not allowed to enter or hit out of.  If they want to expand the hazard to include nearby non-ESA terrain, then they either have to make more terrain off limits making the hole that much tougher for the average player or have two sets of hazard markers with the first line being the hazard line and the second line being where the ESA starts.

Then Erik's suggestion of better grooming is the only other out.   If you choose to play a course with such pitfalls, then you may occasionally have to accept the penalty.  If there is no way to be certain that the ball is in the hazard, then by the rules, it isn't in the hazard, it's lost.

[TourSpoon]

Originally Posted by iacas

1) ESAs are really, really rare.

2) Make the hazard area part of the ESA.

3) Mow the grass outside the ESA if it's not a hazard.

ESAs are rare, but not really, really rare depending on what part of the country you are in. They are common on many courses in South Florida as some of these are concessions to build the course. Definitely not on every course, which is your point, and probably not found in many areas. I prefer that these areas are marked as hazards, but if the intention is to keep you out then I see why they are also marked as OB.

One course that I worked at was built specifically for a Tour Stop in the early 90s. It had ESAs on many of the holes that were marked as OB. That course played really tough because of the OB and had a course rating and slope to match. They looked like water hazards (marshy, wetlands type) but because they were true ESAs (maybe there were special snails, turtle nests, owl nests, estuary, etc)  they were marked to stay out. There was never a question if you were going towards one, we just hit a provisional. Whether you went in it (OB) or just couldn't find your ball (lost ball) it didn't really matter as the penalty was the same. This course had many water hazards too and luckily most of the hazards included the long grass inside the hazard markings.

Another course I play has many blind shots into ESA type areas that are marked as hazards. In these areas we do run into problems because the links style course has some serious rough. We use the honor system and try to concur on these types of rulings. Luckily, we know the course well enough to determine lost vs. hazard, but in the beginning it was tough because we didn't know the course. If it is close, we hit a provisional, but if it is certain to be in the hazard we agree on where it most likely crossed. In all of these cases everyone helps to look for the ball because in the end, if you find the ball in the hazard, then you know for sure.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by TourSpoon

I prefer that these areas are marked as hazards, but if the intention is to keep you out then I see why they are also marked as OB.

I would tend to prefer they be marked as such too, but Decision 33-8/41 clarifies all of this:

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.

Originally Posted by TourSpoon

One course that I worked at was built specifically for a Tour Stop in the early 90s. It had ESAs on many of the holes that were marked as OB. That course played really tough because of the OB and had a course rating and slope to match. They looked like water hazards (marshy, wetlands type) but because they were true ESAs (maybe there were special snails, turtle nests, owl nests, estuary, etc)  they were marked to stay out. There was never a question if you were going towards one, we just hit a provisional. Whether you went in it (OB) or just couldn't find your ball (lost ball) it didn't really matter as the penalty was the same. This course had many water hazards too and luckily most of the hazards included the long grass inside the hazard markings.

Those could have been marked as water hazards. Sometimes courses will mark water hazards that are also ESAs by putting a green cap on top of the stakes. They clearly mean "do not enter this area" (as all ESAs do) and they still play as water hazards and afford players those same options.

If they marked water hazards as OB, then perhaps they shouldn't have.

More from the same Decision, including some examples. Bolded text is my doing.

(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.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by iacas

Those could have been marked as water hazards. Sometimes courses will mark water hazards that are also ESAs by putting a green cap on top of the stakes. They clearly mean "do not enter this area" (as all ESAs do) and they still play as water hazards and afford players those same options.

The one course that I play that has ESA's does exactly this.