ESA (Environmentally Sensitive Areas) as GUR

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

If a critter is that threatened, perhaps the course never should have been built there.

Your entire post is an off-topic cop-out that doesn't answer the spirit of the question.

And as for "poor design" and "maybe they shouldn't have built there," maybe the critters weren't threatened before the course was built - a lot can change in several decades.

@Fourputt you know as well as anyone that we play golf in the real world, not some idealized world where such situations never exist. So, you have a situation where it's unfair (common sense of the word) to mark an area as OB, it's not a water hazard at all, and yet it's an ESA. What do you do? Because "go back 50 years and not build the course there" isn't gonna work.

Fine, do as you please.  You know my feeling on the topic, so I'm done here.

[Golfingdad]

The area could be fenced and restricted to foot traffic only, minimizing any human impact.  In such a small area as we are talking about, maybe such a critter could be captured and relocated?  Or perhaps we're going a bit too far in our concern for trying to curtail the course of natural selection?

You do remember that we're talking about a GAME here right?  I feel like your perspective has gotten a tad out of whack.  Perhaps you're going a bit too far in your concern for trying to adhere to your (incorrect, in this case) interpretation of the rules of golf?

[iacas]

Fine, do as you please.  You know my feeling on the topic, so I'm done here.

If we knew your feelings we wouldn't have asked the question. The only "do as I please" will be to take your last post as an admission that you got this one wrong.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Fine, do as you please.  You know my feeling on the topic, so I'm done here.

If we knew your feelings we wouldn't have asked the question. The only "do as I please" will be to take your last post as an admission that you got this one wrong.

I tried to make the point that I would do everything in my power NOT to allow free relief from a generalized area of the course on a permanent basis.  It's not an obstruction, it's not under repair, it's not casual water, so the player should not get out of jail free for a poor shot just because some rare lizard or the like lives there.  Or worse, because the course management doesn't understand, or is too lazy to implement,  proper ways to keep a good pace of play.  THAT is my feeling on the subject.

[iacas]

I tried to make the point that I would do everything in my power NOT to allow free relief from a generalized area of the course on a permanent basis.  It's not an obstruction, it's not under repair, it's not casual water, so the player should not get out of jail free for a poor shot just because some rare lizard or the like lives there.  Or worse, because the course management doesn't understand, or is too lazy to implement,  proper ways to keep a good pace of play.  THAT is my feeling on the subject.

Rick, man, you went well beyond that, and said things that were incorrect or straw men in the process.

- You said it was forbidden. It's not.

- You said the Rules said that GUR was required to be (or should be) temporary. It's not.

- You said it was an inappropriate local rule. It's not.

- You said that it was "poor design" and that they should re-locate the animals. :P Please.

Now you're calling course management "lazy." Straw man. It takes the same amount of effort to mark it differently.

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)?

[Rulesman]

I tried to make the point that I would do everything in my power NOT to allow free relief from a generalized area of the course on a permanent basis.

Are you actually a Referee?

Remember, the Rules put no constraint on a Committee's power to declare any area GUR.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by David in FL

You mean, outside of calling in an exterminator to get rid of the damn mice?!

These ain't Canadian geese were talking about here, they're AMERICAN mice! Come on!!!

Scott

Titleist, Edel, Scotty Cameron Putter, Snell - AimPoint - Evolvr - MirrorVision

My Swing Thread

boogielicious - Adjective describing the perfect surf wave

[iacas]

Remember, the Rules put no constraint on a Committee's power to declare any area GUR.

Right. They can mark a perfectly good patch of fairway grass as GUR if they want. There are no requirements that they be temporary, intended to be repaired, etc.

[Golfingdad]

Canada Geese.  They may or may not be Canadian.  We would have to check their passports.

But seeing as how they are native to arctic areas in North America, we know a fair number of them ARE Canadian so ...

[turtleback]

Fine, do as you please.  You know my feeling on the topic, so I'm done here.

C'mon, don't pout.  It is OK to be wrong and it is OK to admit you were wrong.  You do not have to be "purer" than the actual rules to be virtuous.

Are you actually a Referee?

Remember, the Rules put no constraint on a Committee's power to declare any area GUR.

Interesting contrast between the R&A; competition guidelines quoted by Fourputt and the USGA's guidelines.  The USGA guidelines give several examples of when a committee should mark an area GUR when it clearly is NOT temporary.  Examples of such are:  french drains, fire ants, and flowerbeds.  These are all permanent parts of the course (although you hope the fire-ants will go away at some point) yet the Competition publication says they should be marked as GUR.

It is also interesting that in the word temporary does not even appear, in conjunction with GUR, in the USGA competition guidelines, neither in the section about marking GUR nor in the section about GUR local rules.

[BrrrrMan78]

I think the core to this thread is the perception of intent from whoever made the decision to classify it as ESA. If it was an arbitrary choice to speed up play, that's ridiculous. Anything else, as discussed on this thread, is plausible and has been proven many times here to be within the rules of golf. It does bring up a thought: I have an issue with a few courses where internal OB exists. There is a course near me that tries to discourage players from driving over a set of trees to cut the dogleg on a Par-5 by placing OB stakes down the left side of the hole. On the other side of the trees is the 16th green and fairway. Is this something that can be done legally? Is it within the rules of golf to setup a course like this? It infuriates me anytime I come across this.

[iacas]

I think the core to this thread is the perception of intent from whoever made the decision to classify it as ESA. If it was an arbitrary choice to speed up play, that's ridiculous.

ESAs are designated by government agencies, so I don't think that's really in play here at all.

[BrrrrMan78]

In a perfect world I would agree with you! But I've played way to many places that define areas based on all kinds of arbitrary ideas. If all courses were designed by The Rules Of Golf, many would be marked quite differently

[iacas]

In a perfect world I would agree with you! But I've played way to many places that define areas based on all kinds of arbitrary ideas. If all courses were designed by The Rules Of Golf, many would be marked quite differently

We're not discussing mis-application of ESAs in this thread. A few other threads discuss interior out of bounds.

[Rulesman]

There is a course near me that tries to discourage players from driving over a set of trees to cut the dogleg on a Par-5 by placing OB stakes down the left side of the hole. On the other side of the trees is the 16th green and fairway. Is this something that can be done legally? Is it within the rules of golf to setup a course like this? It infuriates me anytime I come across this.

This is normally done for safety in order to prevent players driving into other players on the next fairway

33-2a/12

Internal Boundary Between Holes

Q. It is proposed to install boundary stakes between two holes as a safety measure. It would prevent players playing a dog-leg hole from driving onto the fairway of another hole in order to cut the "dog-leg." Is it permissible to establish such a boundary?

A. Yes.

[Rulesman]

Right. They can mark a perfectly good patch of fairway grass as GUR if they want. There are no requirements that they be temporary, intended to be repaired, etc.

Examples from 33-8/41

(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.

[iacas]

(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.

There you go @Fourputt . Doubtful you'll rationally be able to disagree with that.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I tried to make the point that I would do everything in my power NOT to allow free relief from a generalized area of the course on a permanent basis.  It's not an obstruction, it's not under repair, it's not casual water, so the player should not get out of jail free for a poor shot just because some rare lizard or the like lives there.  Or worse, because the course management doesn't understand, or is too lazy to implement,  proper ways to keep a good pace of play.  THAT is my feeling on the subject.

Rick, man, you went well beyond that, and said things that were incorrect or straw men in the process.

- You said it was forbidden. It's not.

Read above.  I already backed off of that.  I'm not arguing about that any more

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I tried to make the point that I would do everything in my power NOT to allow free relief from a generalized area of the course on a permanent basis.

Are you actually a Referee?

Remember, the Rules put no constraint on a Committee's power to declare any area GUR.

I never, ever referred to what I would do as a rules official.  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.

I think the core to this thread is the perception of intent from whoever made the decision to classify it as ESA. If it was an arbitrary choice to speed up play, that's ridiculous. Anything else, as discussed on this thread, is plausible and has been proven many times here to be within the rules of golf. It does bring up a thought: I have an issue with a few courses where internal OB exists.

There is a course near me that tries to discourage players from driving over a set of trees to cut the dogleg on a Par-5 by placing OB stakes down the left side of the hole. On the other side of the trees is the 16th green and fairway. Is this something that can be done legally? Is it within the rules of golf to setup a course like this? It infuriates me anytime I come across this.

Exactly.  This whole foo-foo-raw came from the post by Meisce about a course that uses Rule 25 as a catch-all for pace of play.  I took exception to that usage, then it got sidetracked.  My only real contention is that this usage is wrong.  I don't really care that the rules allow it.  If I was working a competition and the committee chose to use this, I would support that decision during the competition, but I would still disagree with their choice.

From a purely management viewpoint, I think it's a poor way to run a golf course.  I've played any number of courses which could make the same arbitrary designation and probably speed up play, but that wouldn't make it any more justifiable from a rules standpoint.  It goes in direct opposition to the basic principle of playing the ball from the lie that your stroke gave you, and gives relief without penalty in a situation where it isn't otherwise warranted.

When I worked rules for tournaments, we set up the course as we felt was right for the competition, and that included properly designating GUR and water hazards, designations which didn't necessarily jive with what the course did on a day to day basis.  In the case of a true ESA or other area needing protection from play, it was of course played that way.