Interesting Ruling(s) Re: Water Hazards at Conference Championship

[iacas]

I agree the 'breaks down' definition / rule is pretty vague & murkily worded. But, wasn't the likely intent behind that to mean 'top of the bank' bordering the exposed water versus 'top of the hill / slope'? Water hazard banks are usually low & close to the water, but may in some spots (along streams) be higher and further from the water's edge. It could have been implemented a bit like the bunker rule at Pinehurst where some of the borders were vague and might require a ruling, but most would be pretty clear.

I'm sure that's probably what the intent was, but they applied it to any hill next to a water hazard, some of which as I've illustrated were 20+ feet away and only up a gentle hill.

The water levels were pretty obviously normal and the "edge" of the hazard would have sufficed.

[wadesworld]

Late to this conversation, but certainly the AMCC has a competition committee to which you could complain.  I certainly would.

[iacas]

Late to this conversation, but certainly the AMCC has a competition committee to which you could complain.  I certainly would.

They don't. They had a pair of rules officials on hand, both quite well experienced, who saw no problem with the idea that the margin of the hazard was almost randomly placed depending on who hit what kind of shot.

[turtleback]

They don't. They had a pair of rules officials on hand, both quite well experienced, who saw no problem with the idea that the margin of the hazard was almost randomly placed depending on who hit what kind of shot.

Demonstrating that experienced and competent are not the same thing.

We wonder why so many people are so casual or ignorant about rules and then we see this kind of thing, perpetrated amongst the best of the upcoming generation, and it all makes (non)sense.