Convert Out of Bounds to Lateral Water Hazard

[glfgryhwk]

We are in the planning and review stages of changing some OB markings to LWH (red stakes) markings.  We are also adding some new tees.  All of these changes are being done in anticipation of a re-rating by the USGA sometime next year.

[Asheville]

We are in the planning and review stages of changing some OB markings to LWH (red stakes) markings.  We are also adding some new tees.  All of these changes are being done in anticipation of a re-rating by the USGA sometime next year.

And, as you may well appreciate, it'll be a toss up for the general membership ... with luck 51% of them will welcome the changes. The other 49% will be up in arms and want to throw you and your colleagues off of the committee. However, you are doing the right thing!

[glfgryhwk]

You are so right!

[Fourputt]

We are in the planning and review stages of changing some OB markings to LWH (red stakes) markings.  We are also adding some new tees.  All of these changes are being done in anticipation of a re-rating by the USGA sometime next year.

Are those areas truly water hazards?  Just asking, because if not, then such changes won't affect the rating, since they would be ignored.

[wils5150]

many public golf courses mark non water hazards( such as areas between holes) as red stakes/lines. It speeds up play a lot as the golfer doesn't have to go back to the tee and reload. We did it at my course and its one of the best things we did.

[Fourputt]

many public golf courses mark non water hazards( such as areas between holes) as red stakes/lines. It speeds up play a lot as the golfer doesn't have to go back to the tee and reload. We did it at my course and its one of the best things we did.

The point if my post is that it is contrary to the rules of golf, so for rating purposes, such markings are not considered.  In that case, the course would be rated as if those red stakes didn't exist.  For any sanctioned competition, those areas would simply be rough.  Just because a course sticks a few red stakes wherever they want, that doesn't make it right.

[wils5150]

and it doesn't make it wrong. Look when you run a public course the name of the game is to get the golfers in and out in a reasonable amount of time. and this helps. 90% of public golfers don't care about slope and rating. what they care about is a fair price, a good golf course and a round under 5 hours.

[Fourputt]

and it doesn't make it wrong. Look when you run a public course the name of the game is to get the golfers in and out in a reasonable amount of time. and this helps. 90% of public golfers don't care about slope and rating. what they care about is a fair price, a good golf course and a round under 5 hours.

But this discussion was begun to talk about right and wrong marking, not what courses do the move the cattle through.

I played the same public course as my home course for 35 years, and worked there for 5 as a starter after I retired.  I know exactly what courses face to keep the pack moving.  It's a more correct policy to teach and encourage players to use provisional balls than it is to take the lazy way out and just mark the course incorrectly.  My home course was correctly marked with both stakes and lines.  The lines were refreshed several times each year, and GUR was marked and revised as needed.

This was on the busiest public facility in the Denver area, yet a typical round was 4½ hours or less.  Most players knew that when a ball headed out toward the native rough, it was time to play a provisional ball.  That or they just played their own rules and didn't worry about it.  It's the ranger's job to ensure that groups keep pace.  Wrongly marking the course was never considered.

[wils5150]

well the Denver area must have better educated golfers than up here. lol I see your point on private courses but on a public it is about herding the cattle . and yes most do play there own rules and I am fine with that

[glfgryhwk]

Are those areas truly water hazards?  Just asking, because if not, then such changes won't affect the rating, since they would be ignored.

The areas we are considering are truly lateral water hazards based on the USGA definition.  Not all areas will be designated as such because they are in blind areas from the hitting location (tee area).  So the new rule "virtually certain" can't apply.  From the USGA rules:

26-1 . Relief for Ball in Water Hazard

It is a question of fact whether a ball that has not been found after having been struck toward a water hazard is in the hazard . In the absence of knowledge or virtual certainty that a ball struck toward a water hazard , but not found, is in the hazard , the player must proceed under Rule 27-1 .

To answer another post:  water does not have to visible or even present to be considered part of a lateral water hazard.  From the USGA rules definitions:

Water Hazard

A “ water hazard ’’ is 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 . All ground and water within the margin of a water hazard are part of the water hazard .

When the margin of a water hazard is defined by stakes, the stakes are inside the water hazard , and the margin of the hazard is defined by the nearest outside points of the stakes at ground level. When both stakes and lines are used to indicate a water hazard , the stakes identify the hazard and the lines define the hazard margin. When the margin of a water hazard is defined by a line on the ground, the line itself is in the water hazard . The margin of a water hazard extends vertically upwards and downwards.

A ball is in a water hazard when it lies in or any part of it touches the water hazard .

Stakes used to define the margin of or identify a water hazard are obstructions .

[MEfree]

But this discussion was begun to talk about right and wrong marking, not what courses do the move the cattle through.

I played the same public course as my home course for 35 years, and worked there for 5 as a starter after I retired.  I know exactly what courses face to keep the pack moving.  It's a more correct policy to teach and encourage players to use provisional balls than it is to take the lazy way out and just mark the course incorrectly.  My home course was correctly marked with both stakes and lines.  The lines were refreshed several times each year, and GUR was marked and revised as needed.

This was on the busiest public facility in the Denver area, yet a typical round was 4½ hours or less.  Most players knew that when a ball headed out toward the native rough, it was time to play a provisional ball.  That or they just played their own rules and didn't worry about it.  It's the ranger's job to ensure that groups keep pace.  Wrongly marking the course was never considered.

well the Denver area must have better educated golfers than up here. lol I see your point on private courses but on a public it is about herding the cattle . and yes most do play there own rules and I am fine with that

I doubt that the Denver area golfers are better educated- we get many front rangers up here and lots of players do not hit nearly as many provisional as they should...very common to see guys just drop one when they can't find their original.

I understand that the current rules do not allow a course to just create a water hazard where no water exists, but what would be the harm in the USGA defining a new (non water) lateral hazard that is played identical to a lateral water hazard?  Course wouldn't have to have these if they didn't want to, but could have the option to have them if they thought it advantageous to do so.  Seems like some courses already do this contrary to the rules, so more might want to do the same but are concerned about breaking the rules.

[Rulesman]

USGA Handicap Manual

15-5. Marking the Course

It is extremely important for the committee in charge of the competition or in charge of the course to ensure that the course has been properly and completely marked. It is difficult to play under the Rules of Golf on an unmarked golf course, and the USGA Course Rating and Slope Rating is based on the course being properly marked. If all boundaries, water hazards, and ground under repair have been properly marked, the committee will have few problems during the golf season.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

But this discussion was begun to talk about right and wrong marking, not what courses do the move the cattle through.

I played the same public course as my home course for 35 years, and worked there for 5 as a starter after I retired.  I know exactly what courses face to keep the pack moving.  It's a more correct policy to teach and encourage players to use provisional balls than it is to take the lazy way out and just mark the course incorrectly.  My home course was correctly marked with both stakes and lines.  The lines were refreshed several times each year, and GUR was marked and revised as needed.

This was on the busiest public facility in the Denver area, yet a typical round was 4½ hours or less.  Most players knew that when a ball headed out toward the native rough, it was time to play a provisional ball.  That or they just played their own rules and didn't worry about it.  It's the ranger's job to ensure that groups keep pace.  Wrongly marking the course was never considered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wils5150

well the Denver area must have better educated golfers than up here. lol I see your point on private courses but on a public it is about herding the cattle . and yes most do play there own rules and I am fine with that

I doubt that the Denver area golfers are better educated- we get many front rangers up here and lots of players do not hit nearly as many provisional as they should...very common to see guys just drop one when they can't find their original.

I understand that the current rules do not allow a course to just create a water hazard where no water exists, but what would be the harm in the USGA defining a new (non water) lateral hazard that is played identical to a lateral water hazard?  Course wouldn't have to have these if they didn't want to, but could have the option to have them if they thought it advantageous to do so.  Seems like some courses already do this contrary to the rules, so more might want to do the same but are concerned about breaking the rules.

In my opinion, it would significantly change the game of golf.  Too many courses would then be tempted to take the easy way out, and the lost ball would become an endangered species.  If every copse of trees, every patch of deep rough becomes a lateral (non water) hazard, you eliminate a significant part of the strategy of playing many courses.  There are already plenty of procedures in place for addressing this.  Much easier to just teach players about how to play a provisional ball than it is to rewrite the rules, then remark courses around the world and re-rate them.

Your solution for every problem which you perceive to exist in the game is to just change the rules.  How about we just play the game as it's currently defined instead?  Use Rule 27-2.  There is no need to add a new rule.

[MEfree]

In my opinion, it would significantly change the game of golf.  Too many courses would then be tempted to take the easy way out, and the lost ball would become an endangered species.  If every copse of trees, every patch of deep rough becomes a lateral (non water) hazard, you eliminate a significant part of the strategy of playing many courses.  There are already plenty of procedures in place for addressing this.  Much easier to just teach players about how to play a provisional ball than it is to rewrite the rules, then remark courses around the world and re-rate them.

Your solution for every problem which you perceive to exist in the game is to just change the rules.  How about we just play the game as it's currently defined instead?  Use Rule 27-2.  There is no need to add a new rule.

I agree that lots of players are far more ignorant of the rules than they should be- much of this is their own fault and/or lack of education but I do believe the situation would be helped if the rules were simplified.  My guess is that a much higher % of golfers knew and followed the rules in 1744 when there were 13 rules on a single page of paper than today.

http://www.scottishgolfhistory.net/rules_of_golf.htm I agree that some of the additions to the rules add clarity, but lots of complexity has also been added.

[wils5150]

I somewhat agree that it changes the game. but its still a loss of stroke just not distance. Still 90% of golfers don't care about the rules or are ever going to play in any kind of sanctioned event. They just want to hit the ball and have fun.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

In my opinion, it would significantly change the game of golf.  Too many courses would then be tempted to take the easy way out, and the lost ball would become an endangered species.  If every copse of trees, every patch of deep rough becomes a lateral (non water) hazard, you eliminate a significant part of the strategy of playing many courses.  There are already plenty of procedures in place for addressing this.  Much easier to just teach players about how to play a provisional ball than it is to rewrite the rules, then remark courses around the world and re-rate them.

Your solution for every problem which you perceive to exist in the game is to just change the rules.  How about we just play the game as it's currently defined instead?  Use Rule 27-2.  There is no need to add a new rule.

I agree that lots of players are far more ignorant of the rules than they should be- much of this is their own fault and/or lack of education but I do believe the situation would be helped if the rules were simplified.  My guess is that a much higher % of golfers knew and followed the rules in 1744 when there were 13 rules on a single page of paper than today.

http://www.scottishgolfhistory.net/rules_of_golf.htm  I agree that some of the additions to the rules add clarity, but lots of complexity has also been added.

Do you really know why that was?  Because there were very few golfers in the world, most of them lived in Scotland, and there was no comprehensive set of rules.  Those 13 "original" rules only applied to the club (The Honorable Company of Edinburgh Golfers) which documented them.  The next club down the road used a different set, based on the same overriding principles, but tailored their own needs.  Each club did the same, so that interclub play was nearly impossible unless the visiting golfers were educated on the "local" version of the rules.  See THIS LINK for the 1786 rules at the Crail Golf Club to see how confusing that could become.  Ultimately, the Royal and Ancient Club became the leader in rules management, although there were still many divergences from time to time.  The R&A; maintained a sort of standard code, to which individual clubs could add necessary local rules.  Now The R&A; and USGA must approve all local rules, but that wasn't the case in 18th and 19th century.

You can't codify a set of rules which can address all of the myriad issues and variables encountered around the world without making some rules less specific.  All you can do is write a generalized set of rules with their foundation built on a few traditional and basic principles, then apply those generalities to the specific needs of the course or competition involved, while still keeping to the underlying principles .

[iacas]

I do believe the situation would be helped if the rules were simplified.

With all due respect, dude, enough is enough. C'mon.

My guess is that a much higher % of golfers knew and followed the rules in 1744 when there were 13 rules on a single page of paper than today. I agree that some of the additions to the rules add clarity, but lots of complexity has also been added.

And a lot of that complexity is important, and necessary. You seem to overlook the fact that every day, thousands of golfers play under the Rules of Golf, whether they're college players, professionals in tens or even hundreds of events, or amateurs playing a competition or friendly match, or even just for handicap.

You can't codify a set of rules which can address all of the myriad issues and variables encountered around the world without making some rules less specific.  All you can do is write a generalized set of rules with their foundation built on a few traditional and basic principles, then apply those generalities to the specific needs of the course or competition involved, while still keeping to the underlying principles.

Uh huh.

[turtleback]

I somewhat agree that it changes the game. but its still a loss of stroke just not distance. Still 90% of golfers don't care about the rules or are ever going to play in any kind of sanctioned event. They just want to hit the ball and have fun.

And that is fine.  But it is no reason to change the rules for those of us who know them and have been playing by them for years.  Why would we change the rules to accommodate people who wouldn't play by the old rules and wouldn't,in all likelihood, play by the new rules?