Forest Area Marked as Lateral Hazard

[boogielicious]

I agree it is weird @rogolf .  When the water table is up, the area becomes wet.  Decision 25/1 describes how the area is in general, soft mushy.  When water is visible as you walk on it, it is played under casual water relief, I believe 25-1b.  Let's just say this is not a marquee course in MA.  Perhaps they should mark the marshy area a lateral hazard, but it is not that way now.

[Valleygolfer]

We have these holes here and since there is the possibility of standing water and for the sake of speedy play they red stake areas save returning to the tee box. It does help cushion the score a little, not having to re-hit and possibly hit another into the junk or score a 15...

[Rulesman]

My concern was really the forest area being designated a lateral hazard improperly.  There may be a small creek that runs just inside the tree line, but it is dry most of the time.  There was discussion in the Divot GUR thread about improperly marked lateral hazards.

Certainly marking the whole forest would be wrong but I see no reason why the creek shouldn't be marked as a lateral water hazard. It does seem to fit the bill.

If there are likely to be problems in knowing if the ball is actually in the lwh and if the area is only likely to receive badly off line shots, I would mark it as OOB. Saves any arguments.

If it is marked as a lwh and it is not too far into the tree line, the stakes should be outside the tree line. The player should not be penalised with both a relief penalty and a difficult shot for the same bad shot.

[turtleback]

Maybe.  But cannot the  course management simply proclaim a certain area as 'Entry Forbidden' without ESA classification?

Sure, but to stay within the rules I think they would have to mark the area as OB, not a hazard.

[Rulesman]

Sure, but to stay within the rules I think they would have to mark the area as OB, not a hazard.

They could mark it GUR play prohibited. I'm not sure why they would want to forbid entry though.

[flopster]

They could mark it GUR play prohibited. I'm not sure why they would want to forbid entry though.

It could be environmentally sensitive area, usually the course allows a free drop

[Rulesman]

It could be environmentally sensitive area, usually the course allows a free drop

Only an appropriate authority (ie a Government Agency or the like) may declare area to be an ESA.

The Committee may not declare an area to be environmentally-sensitive.

The Committee has some discretion in terms of whether the area is defined as ground under repair , a water hazard or out of bounds .

[Ignorant]

It isn't required that they show a clear slope near the water as Ignorant suggested in his post,

I did not suggest that but rogolf did. I emphasized that swamps and marshy areas normally do not have those slopes.

[Ignorant]

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback

Sure, but to stay within the rules I think they would have to mark the area as OB, not a hazard.

They could mark it GUR play prohibited. I'm not sure why they would want to forbid entry though.

In order to save time, I guess. Many people want to search for their balls even they get a free relief.

However, marking that area as GUR creates a (minor) problem. A GUR is an area that will be improved (by the course staff) over time, not a piece of land that only nature and evolution will eventually fix. Thus there should be a plan to do something about that area, just marking it GUR without any plan does not really fit to the concept. Also a Droppping Zone would be a necessity.

[boogielicious]

The following hole has the woods marked OB, so I assume they have thought this through.  Next season I will check more closely to see if the creek ever fills.  The red stakes are just outside the tree line.

[Asheville]

Scott, you might take a look at the USGA publication, How to Conduct a Competition . Chapter 4, Marking the Course, has some guidance as to where stakes should be placed around water hazards.

[Rulesman]

. A GUR is an area that will be improved (by the course staff) over time, not a piece of land that only nature and evolution will eventually fix. Thus there should be a plan to do something about that area, just marking it GUR without any plan does not really fit to the concept. Also a Droppping Zone would be a necessity.

The rules have no such requirement. It is entirely up to the Committee to decide what is GUR.

Because of the length of the margin it would be better to have multiple dropping zones. But it is not necessary to have any.

[tqcishark]

in my area coastal mid-atlantic we play similar conditions on courses surrounded by tidal and forested wetland.  theres probably a good legit reason the superintendent  keeps this hole marked like this, even if the marking is debatable.

my inability to score is rivaled by my inability to learn the "34" rules of golf, by my simple thinking...if you flub your tee stroke into the unmarked schmutz, you are well advised to take a provisional tee stroke in anticipation of a lost ball.  Or maybe you are better off the miss so far left that you can take a penalty drop in questionably playable swampland, where you may legally ground your club as swamp water saturates every speck of toe lint.

As a golfer wannabee who sprays balls like a pirate cannon in twenty foot seas, these remedial rule interpretations are critical to bogey golf survival.

[Ignorant]

Originally Posted by Ignorant

In order to save time, I guess. Many people want to search for their balls even they get a free relief.

However, marking that area as GUR creates a (minor) problem. A GUR is an area that will be improved (by the course staff) over time, not a piece of land that only nature and evolution will eventually fix. Thus there should be a plan to do something about that area, just marking it GUR without any plan does not really fit to the concept. Also a Droppping Zone would be a necessity.

The rules have no such requirement. It is entirely up to the Committee to decide what is GUR.

Because of the length of the margin it would be better to have multiple dropping zones. But it is not necessary to have any.

Correct, there is no such requirement in the Rules, but as I wrote it does not really fit to the phrase if an area is marked GUR and is not under repair and is never going to be.

Reg DZ's I think it would need those. Take a situation where the Nearest Point of Relief would be in the adjacent forest. Wouldn't be in anybody's interest to make the player continue from there.

[boogielicious]

Scott, you might take a look at the USGA publication, How to Conduct a Competition. Chapter 4, Marking the Course, has some guidance as to where stakes should be placed around water hazards.

Thanks @Asheville .  I just read it.  There must be a creek or run-off at the boundary of the marshy area and forest.  I have never see it contain water, but if it did, the marshy area would be very wet.  It is winter here now, so my examination will have to wait until spring.  It is a lateral by the definition in Chapter 4.