ESA (Environmentally Sensitive Areas) as GUR

[Golfingdad]

What I was talking about was what I would do if I was managing a course.  I would find a better way, more in keeping with the spirit of the game of golf.

But it's been explained here that this option is perfectly within the rules.  What makes it outside the "spirit" of the rules of golf?  And you never answered Erik's question regarding that:

The situation posed presents a case where everything within their power was done. The ESA was added by a government, and with a not unlimited budget for redesign, and with the lack of knowledge and resources to "relocate" the animals or whatever, it is what it is. So how would you rule in such a case? You'd have interior OB?

We know it's not an obstruction, a water hazard, etc. It's your opinion that a player should not "get out of jail free" for a poor shot. We'd agree, but in this situation it's not a very poor shot - certainly not one that could reasonably or "fairly" justify stroke and distance. Were it not for the ESA, the player could have otherwise played from the area - as they had for maybe 50 years prior to the government agency declaring it an ESA. Even a chip out sideways is one stroke compared to the two of S&D.;

Perhaps the USGA simply doesn't want to create yet another area - "ESA - Free Drop". So they're using "GUR" as a means to an end: you can't go in the area to retrieve your ball, but it's too severe to punish as OB and doesn't meet the criteria of a water hazard.

Can you accept that as a true or likely statement? Can you accept that there are times and situations where using GUR is the "best" way to handle something, given the reality of the world in which we live (and play golf)?

What's the best way to handle it?

---

Furthermore, statements like these are peculiar to me, considering I know you to be one of the most rigidly rules oriented guys on here:

...My only real contention is that this usage is wrong.  I don't really care that the rules allow it.

How could it be wrong AND allowed by the rules at the same time?

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

What I was talking about was what I would do if I was managing a course.  I would find a better way, more in keeping with the spirit of the game of golf.

But it's been explained here that this option is perfectly within the rules.  What makes it outside the "spirit" of the rules of golf?  And you never answered Erik's question regarding that:

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

The situation posed presents a case where everything within their power was done. The ESA was added by a government, and with a not unlimited budget for redesign, and with the lack of knowledge and resources to "relocate" the animals or whatever, it is what it is. So how would you rule in such a case? You'd have interior OB?

We know it's not an obstruction, a water hazard, etc. It's your opinion that a player should not "get out of jail free" for a poor shot. We'd agree, but in this situation it's not a very poor shot - certainly not one that could reasonably or "fairly" justify stroke and distance. Were it not for the ESA, the player could have otherwise played from the area - as they had for maybe 50 years prior to the government agency declaring it an ESA. Even a chip out sideways is one stroke compared to the two of S&D.;

Perhaps the USGA simply doesn't want to create yet another area - "ESA - Free Drop". So they're using "GUR" as a means to an end: you can't go in the area to retrieve your ball, but it's too severe to punish as OB and doesn't meet the criteria of a water hazard.

Can you accept that as a true or likely statement? Can you accept that there are times and situations where using GUR is the "best" way to handle something, given the reality of the world in which we live (and play golf)?

What's the best way to handle it?

I repeat, I'm not talking about general usage of GUR.  I'm ranting about one specific abuse of it.  Get that clear, please, and stop nit picking bits and pieces of my attempt at an explanation.

Quote:

Furthermore, statements like these are peculiar to me, considering I know you to be one of the most rigidly rules oriented guys on here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

...My only real contention is that this usage is wrong.  I don't really care that the rules allow it.

How could it be wrong AND allowed by the rules at the same time?

Once again, I'm referring to one specific situation, not to the world of golf in general.  Please read and take my entire reply in context.

[iacas]

I repeat, I'm not talking about general usage of GUR.  I'm ranting about one specific abuse of it.  Get that clear, please, and stop nit picking bits and pieces of my attempt at an explanation.

Once again, I'm referring to one specific situation, not to the world of golf in general.  Please read and take my entire reply in context.

We're not doing the things you suggest in this post.

I am talking about it in the specific case. I disagree that it is always abuse to designate an ESA as ESA/GUR. You feel otherwise, and now you're being a bit of a jerk about it.

You rail on people who disagree with the Rules of Golf "because they don't agree with" (whatever particular rule they're discussing) and now you're doing the same thing.

[Meisce]

@Fourputt, I disagree with you.

But if you have a dry ESA - say a field that houses a protected species of mouse, or salamander or lizard or bird or whatever, but you do not wish to penalize players when the area is within the boundary of the course (perhaps even between holes) AND from which they could otherwise play a shot, marking it as OB when they could at least pitch out sideways and lay two is harsh, so the GUR designation lets players drop in a more "fair" situation that acknowledges the situation.

Since the course I mentioned was the initial example, I'll just say it's exactly as Iacas describes above. It's a dry ESA that protects species ( I recall salamanders and actually some insects listed ).

It's permanent. There are additional water, OB, and sand hazards as well as this ESA. I'm attaching two pics where I've outlined the ESA, although the picture does not really do it justice. These are two of the more extreme cases.The first is a 150 yard par 3 with bunkers in front. If the ESA was a hazard here, this would essentially be 17 at Sawgrass. The next is a dogleg par 4, same thing. These holes would be fantastic looking if these were water hazards, but they're not.

In both these pics the entire right side of the hole ( as you are looking at them ) is ESA.

in most cases the ESA runs through the fairway. In others it's just off to the side of the rough, far closer than where you'd have OB. They do surround it with thick rough so you don't just drop back on the fairway. If treated like a water hazard I could drop back along the line to the fairway if I wanted. In most cases the ESA is offline but where you would expect to be able to recover from. IMO I do not think a golf course architect would have designed these most of these areas as hazards, since the course would look extremely 'tricked up' and uninviting.

I personally think their local rule of free drop is a good one - otherwise pace of play would be destroyed. I do wish that they would have clarified how it differs from the USGA ruling more though. Next time I am there I will ask for more detail on the history of this ESA and why they made these choices.

[Lihu]

Since the course I mentioned was the initial example, I'll just say it's exactly as Iacas describes above. It's a dry ESA that protects species ( I recall salamanders and actually some insects listed ).

It's permanent. There are additional water, OB, and sand hazards as well as this ESA. I'm attaching two pics where I've outlined the ESA, although the picture does not really do it justice. These are two of the more extreme cases.The first is a 150 yard par 3 with bunkers in front. If the ESA was a hazard here, this would essentially be 17 at Sawgrass. The next is a dogleg par 4, same thing. These holes would be fantastic looking if these were water hazards, but they're not.

In both these pics the entire right side of the hole ( as you are looking at them ) is ESA.

in most cases the ESA runs through the fairway. In others it's just off to the side of the rough, far closer than where you'd have OB. They do surround it with thick rough so you don't just drop back on the fairway. If treated like a water hazard I could drop back along the line to the fairway if I wanted. In most cases the ESA is offline but where you would expect to be able to recover from. IMO I do not think a golf course architect would have designed these most of these areas as hazards, since the course would look extremely 'tricked up' and uninviting.

I personally think their local rule of free drop is a good one - otherwise pace of play would be destroyed. I do wish that they would have clarified how it differs from the USGA ruling more though. Next time I am there I will ask for more detail on the history of this ESA and why they made these choices.

Are these photos current, if so, I can't wait to go next month.

[Meisce]

I just pulled them from the website, but yes, they look current ( played there 2 weeks ago ).

[Meisce]

So I bugged them again. Some further info that may ( probably will ) inflame this conversation. The ESA was in place as the course was designed, but they have expanded the areas. It was government designated. The pro shop says that you should state prior to the round which rules you want to play: local, or tournament. Then you submit your handicap as such. In tournaments, the ESA plays as a water hazard. Now I enter my HCAP as 'home' for this course. The pro shop claims that is fine. This, to me, does not seem correct as I've hit into that ESA a lot ( no, never on purpose, but it DOES influence the decision to go for it or not ). Is there that much of a difference when you submit a handicap as tournament vs home/away? Btw someone mentioned that I was insulted. I am not. This is just a local course to me ( an excellent one ) and I have learned a great deal from the conflicting sides of this argument.

[Fourputt]

So I bugged them again. Some further info that may ( probably will ) inflame this conversation.

The ESA was in place as the course was designed, but they have expanded the areas. It was government designated.

The pro shop says that you should state prior to the round which rules you want to play: local, or tournament. Then you submit your handicap as such. In tournaments, the ESA plays as a water hazard.

Now I enter my HCAP as 'home' for this course. The pro shop claims that is fine. This, to me, does not seem correct as I've hit into that ESA a lot ( no, never on purpose, but it DOES influence the decision to go for it or not ).

Is there that much of a difference when you submit a handicap as tournament vs home/away?

Btw someone mentioned that I was insulted. I am not. This is just a local course to me ( an excellent one ) and I have learned a great deal from the conflicting sides of this argument.

This sounds like the designation is a bit different from what it did in your original post.  Had it been described this way, I'd never have started this brouhaha.

[Meisce]

The original post was discussing pace of play. The resulting discussion led me to question their rules further. I'm quite glad I did since it's a course I like to play frequently and I had never been led to believe the rule was any other. That is probably entirely on me, due to my ignorance of the rules and, if I'm being honest, I was happy to take it at face value. Starter probably told us in a that it was a free drop unless we were in a tournament, and given the prevalence of the ESA we were happy to believe it. Now that is still the rule, and according to them you can still post your HCAP under the local rule. So under this ruling I have done nothing wrong, and you are both technically correct. I will say that Iacas is more correct and discussion of removing ESA to play a game of golf is quite ludicrous.

[ColinL]

I'd be very interested to know in what way these areas in the photos meet the Definition of a water hazard.

[iacas]

@Meisce , the conversation used your example as a jumping off point, but hasn't really been about that one specific course for a few pages now.

The added information is helpful, but the conversation is more about the general use of ESAs as GUR than the specific.

[Meisce]

@Meisce , the conversation used your example as a jumping off point, but hasn't really been about that one specific course for a few pages now. The added information is helpful, but the conversation is more about the general use of ESAs as GUR than the specific.

Understood, but since my post led to this discussion I felt it important to a) add more detail and b) get feedback on this specific example. I also think this discussion would probably be more fruitful ( and more easily 'accessible' to some ) with a variety of examples rather than just talking about the language used in the ruling. I have only one example to offer but I thought it pertinent. Others may have run across this ruling also?

[iacas]

I also think this discussion would probably be more fruitful ( and more easily 'accessible' to some ) with a variety of examples rather than just talking

about the language used in the ruling. I have only one example to offer but I thought it pertinent. Others may have run across this ruling also?

A few examples were given. They may not all exist as stated in the real world, but they were given.

Thanks.

[turtleback]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meisce

So I bugged them again. Some further info that may ( probably will ) inflame this conversation.

The ESA was in place as the course was designed, but they have expanded the areas. It was government designated.

The pro shop says that you should state prior to the round which rules you want to play: local, or tournament. Then you submit your handicap as such. In tournaments, the ESA plays as a water hazard.

Now I enter my HCAP as 'home' for this course. The pro shop claims that is fine. This, to me, does not seem correct as I've hit into that ESA a lot ( no, never on purpose, but it DOES influence the decision to go for it or not ).

Is there that much of a difference when you submit a handicap as tournament vs home/away?

Btw someone mentioned that I was insulted. I am not. This is just a local course to me ( an excellent one ) and I have learned a great deal from the conflicting sides of this argument.

This does NOT sound right to me.  Are the course ratings different depending on which set of rules are in play**?  And on what basis are people entering rounds as Tournament rounds that were not played in a tournament?   While I am not an expert I have always understood that the distinguishing factor of a tournament round is the competition, not the rules under which a round  was played.  The Handicap Manual says:

Quote:

A " tournament score" is a score made in a competition organized and conducted by the Committee in charge of the competition. The competition must identify a winner(s) based on a stipulated round(s) , and must be played under the principles of the Rules of Golf.

Using the above definition as a guideline, the Committee (preferably the Handicap Committee in consultation with the Committee in charge of the competition) must determine in advance if these conditions are met and announce in advance whether the score must be identified by the letter "T" when posted.

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying?  Because it sounds like they are trying to get it right, but I do not get this part.

As far as the effect of entering rounds as tournament scores, if a player's tournament scores are out of line with their non-tournament scores and his index there could be an adjustment to their index.  It is an anti-sandbagging measure and that is why it makes no sense to enter a score as a tournament score based on what rules you are playing.

** and if not, I wonder how the rating team interpreted the marking of the course - GUR or Water hazard.  If there are not 2 ratings then a lot of scores seem to be entered into the handicap system in error.

OT Question to those who have actually done course rating :  Would the difference between an ESA area being marked GUR, OB or water hazard change a course rating?  If so, would the difference be significant?

[Golfingdad]

OT Question to those who have actually done course rating:  Would the difference between an ESA area being marked GUR, OB or water hazard change a course rating?  If so, would the difference be significant?

My guess would be that it's fairly insignificant.  Mind you, I say this as only a layperson with a hunch.  But I play a lot of courses that have all holes bordered by other holes that have higher or very similar ratings to similar length courses that are through the canyons with hazards on all sides.

To me, the ratings system seems to rely heavily on length.

[Rulesman]

To me, the ratings system seems to rely heavily on length.

That is so.

[Lihu]

That is so.

What about the slope ratings? Do they also factor in obstacles and such?

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rulesman

That is so.

What about the slope ratings? Do they also factor in obstacles and such?

Slope might be affected depending on how extensive and how much in play the area is.  If it's something where a bogey golfer is likely to be entangled with it somewhere on the course every round then It could easily make an average difference of a stroke per round - maybe even a stroke and a half.  Seems to me that this would have to make the slope somewhat higher for rounds where this is played as a water hazard.  However, since I have no experience with course rating, I could be wrong.