Oosthuizen loses drive left into the "water"?????

[reedf]

I'm sure most of you saw Louis Oosthuizen pull his drive off the tee deep into the woods yesterday. Which happened to be lined with a red line! No water, just woods! There are several threads here about course designers using OB lines and hazard lines abnormally (internal OBs and rough marked as lateral haz). It looks like this isn't a practice reserved for low income courses. Why in the hell would they have marked that huge section of woods as a lateral hazard????

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by reedf

I'm sure most of you saw Louis Oosthuizen pull his drive off the tee deep into the woods yesterday. Which happened to be lined with a red line! No water, just woods! There are several threads here about course designers using OB lines and hazard lines abnormally (internal OBs and rough marked as lateral haz). It looks like this isn't a practice reserved for low income courses. Why in the hell would they have marked that huge section of woods as a lateral hazard????

If you looked closely, those areas had a small creek, almost hidden in the grass.  I'm not sure how far into the woods the hazard actually extended, and it probably varied from place to place.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

If you looked closely, those areas had a small creek, almost hidden in the grass.  I'm not sure how far into the woods the hazard actually extended, and it probably varied from place to place.

I question the ruling.  It is hard to see how virtual certainty can exist when the call could have gone anywhere once t went into the trees.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by turtleback

I question the ruling.  It is hard to see how virtual certainty can exist when the call could have gone anywhere once t went into the trees.

It went in the trees. How can you "question the ruling"?

If ever there was a case of virtual certainty, that was it.

[robrey85]

Isn't it "virtually certain" if someone sees the ball go "that way into the woods" but the ball is never found? If that is the case, I'd say the ruling is good.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by turtleback

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

If you looked closely, those areas had a small creek, almost hidden in the grass.  I'm not sure how far into the woods the hazard actually extended, and it probably varied from place to place.

I question the ruling.  It is hard to see how virtual certainty can exist when the call could have gone anywhere once t went into the trees.

The ruling is made by a Tour rules official.  His decision is the last word regardless of what we may or may not think.  He has access to more information than we do, so there is no way you can back up such a statement without knowing all of the facts.

[reedf]

The ruling was good. The cameras showed the ball going in the woods. My question is still the classification of that area as a lateral water hazard. Maybe there was a creek as Fourputt says, but IMO it was a pretty liberal marking! Lots of people looking for that ball, they found 2 others, and nobody came out with wet feet!

[Dormie1360]

Jon Brendle made the ruling.  He's been doing this a long time.  During the telecast I heard him say  "we had enough people who saw the ball to have virtual certainty".   His ruling was that there was no doubt that 1) the ball crossed the hazard line and 2) where this point was.  If you remember in the telecast when they showed a replay from the blimp, the ball went over a number of spectators as it entered the hazard.  I assume he got his information from them.

So the only other questions would be if the ball stayed in the hazard......ie. hit a tree and bounced out, or crossed another boundary.  Again, spectator testimony plus the boundaries of the hazard could be used to determine certainty.

I think the hazard was a large area, if not I think the ruling could have been different.

As far as whether or not it should have been marked as such, I wasn't there so I really can't comment on that.

[Rulesman]

The RBs suggest that a player should have a 'reasonable' place at which to drop given that he already gets a penalty for getting out at all.

It is unlikely that he would get a reasonable drop in deep woods.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Rulesman

The RBs suggest that a player should have a 'reasonable' place at which to drop given that he already gets a penalty for getting out at all.

It is unlikely that he would get a reasonable drop in deep woods.

You always have a reasonable place to drop.  The place you last played from.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by turtleback

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rulesman

The RBs suggest that a player should have a 'reasonable' place at which to drop given that he already gets a penalty for getting out at all.

It is unlikely that he would get a reasonable drop in deep woods.

You always have a reasonable place to drop.  The place you last played from.

Not necessarily.  What if you hit your drive into the woods (not a hazard).  You find your ball, attempt to play it through a gap in the trees, but hit a tree and it bounces into a lateral water hazard.  Now your stroke and distance spot is unreasonable, and if the other options under Rule 26-1 are bad too, you may be punished unreasonably harshly when taking relief from the hazard.

This why the USGA recommends for course marking that heavy native rough or brush be included within the hazard boundary so that any penalty drop will at least leave a chance for the player to make a decent stroke.  That doesn't mean that the drop area can't be in primary rough, or that the line of play can't be obstructed by trees or the like - it only means that the player should have a fair opportunity to make a stroke and to move the ball in the general direction of the hole after taking his drop.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Not necessarily.  What if you hit your drive into the woods (not a hazard).  You find your ball, attempt to play it through a gap in the trees, but hit a tree and it bounces into a lateral water hazard.  Now your stroke and distance spot is unreasonable, and if the other options under Rule 26-1 are bad too, you may be punished unreasonably harshly when taking relief from the hazard.

This why the USGA recommends for course marking that heavy native rough or brush be included within the hazard boundary so that any penalty drop will at least leave a chance for the player to make a decent stroke.  That doesn't mean that the drop area can't be in primary rough, or that the line of play can't be obstructed by trees or the like - it only means that the player should have a fair opportunity to make a stroke and to move the ball in the general direction of the hole after taking his drop.

I disagree with this assertion.  If it was reasonable to try the shot through the gap then it is reasonable to try it again.  If it was poor judgement to try the shot then I have no problem with it being more heavily penalized.  Maybe the real answer was to not try the hero shot in the first place and accept stroke and distance at THAT point.  The rules should not shield players from their own bad decisions, IMO.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by turtleback

I disagree with this assertion.  If it was reasonable to try the shot through the gap then it is reasonable to try it again.  If it was poor judgement to try the shot then I have no problem with it being more heavily penalized.  Maybe the real answer was to not try the hero shot in the first place and accept stroke and distance at THAT point.  The rules should not shield players from their own bad decisions, IMO.

I agree with that. If you have to drop your ball in the middle of a forest, maybe you shouldn't have hit it there to begin with, or maybe you should have taken an unplayable and re-played from the tee or rough or fairway or whatever.

[Rulesman]

Originally Posted by turtleback

I disagree with this assertion. .

That's what the RBs suggest.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by turtleback

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Not necessarily.  What if you hit your drive into the woods (not a hazard).  You find your ball, attempt to play it through a gap in the trees, but hit a tree and it bounces into a lateral water hazard.  Now your stroke and distance spot is unreasonable, and if the other options under Rule 26-1 are bad too, you may be punished unreasonably harshly when taking relief from the hazard.

This why the USGA recommends for course marking that heavy native rough or brush be included within the hazard boundary so that any penalty drop will at least leave a chance for the player to make a decent stroke.  That doesn't mean that the drop area can't be in primary rough, or that the line of play can't be obstructed by trees or the like - it only means that the player should have a fair opportunity to make a stroke and to move the ball in the general direction of the hole after taking his drop.

I disagree with this assertion.  If it was reasonable to try the shot through the gap then it is reasonable to try it again.  If it was poor judgement to try the shot then I have no problem with it being more heavily penalized.  Maybe the real answer was to not try the hero shot in the first place and accept stroke and distance at THAT point.  The rules should not shield players from their own bad decisions, IMO.

All I was doing was disagreeing with your assertion that there is always a reasonable place to drop when you choose stroke and distance.  You still think that way?

[onesome]

So native grasses are only recomended to courses to be declared lateral hazards,my course declares these grasses under local rules to be treated as lateral however our weekly mens club round doesn't and we get hit with stroke and distance. I wonder if the USGA will take a firmer stance on native grasses being considered lateral hazards.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

All I was doing was disagreeing with your assertion that there is always a reasonable place to drop when you choose stroke and distance.  You still think that way?

Yes.  Because obviously the person who tried the hero shot thought that was a reasonable place to play from even if you and I think he is crazy.  He thought the shot was playable, hence he did not take an unplayable.

Who am I to disagree with him?  And why should the rules shield him from his bad judgement?

[zeg]

Originally Posted by onesome

So native grasses are only recomended to courses to be declared lateral hazards,my course declares these grasses under local rules to be treated as lateral however our weekly mens club round doesn't and we get hit with stroke and distance. I wonder if the USGA will take a firmer stance on native grasses being considered lateral hazards.

Fourputt's comment only applies to native grasses / woods that are adjacent to and can reasonably be treated as part of a water hazard. There has to be water inside the hazard, you can't just declare a dry native area to be a lateral hazard.