Modernized Rules Discussion: Areas of the Course

[mvmac]

11 hours ago, Braivo said:

I just don't see how any of those putts don't go in without the flagstick there. None of those were hit hard enough to "skip" over the hole. How did the flagstick aid you? Honest question. Perhaps you should recreate this exact video without the flagstick to show the difference? 

Like this? 

 

[SG11118]

Haven't read all 15 pages, so apologies if this has already been discussed:

A few years ago I was playing in our State MId-Am Championship and got to the 17th hole which was a long par 3 over a pond.  I hit the ball right towards the pin but ended up being 2 clubs short, hitting the bank and rolling back down into the hazard.  I got up to the spot and saw it was staked as a lateral allowing me to drop on the green side of the pond.  However, the geometry of the hazard was such that there was no place to drop within two club lengths where the ball wouldn't be closer to the hole.  I ended up picking the nearest spot that wasn't closer to the hole and dropping there.  My drop was probably 5 or 6 club lengths from where it entered the hazard.  I was playing with a reinstated professional, and one of the top players from the club where we were playing at, and they both agreed this was the correct play, so I liked that answer as opposed to going 150 yards back on the tee side of the pond - so I went with it.  I was in a little bit of grey rules territory, but I assume I was technically playing the opposite side of the hazard provision, even though I was on the same side of the pond, just on the opposite side of the small anomaly that was preventing me from dropping within two club lengths.

1.  Does anyone disagree that I did not properly play this situation?

2.  If the USGA / R&A do get rid of the opposite side provision, there will likely be more occurances where the ball cannot be put into play within 2 club lengths of where the ball entered the hazard.  Would the play then be to allow the golfer to exceed two club lengths, or would the play then be to force the golfer to use one of the other options (replay from previous spot, drop back on the line of where the ball entered the hazard)? 

[Rulesman]

42 minutes ago, SG11118 said:

 

1.  Does anyone disagree that I did not properly play this situation?

 

I'm afraid your description was a littele confusing.

Did your drop satisfy this condition?

As additional options available only if the ball last crossed the margin of a lateral water hazard, drop a ball outside the water hazard within two club-lengths of and not nearer the hole than (i) the point where the original ball last crossed the margin of the water hazard or (ii) a point on the opposite margin of the water hazard equidistant from the hole.

[iacas]

It sounds like you dropped in a wrong place.

A lateral doesn't mean you have to be able to drop within two club lengths. Just that it's an option.

[SG11118]

I did feel like I might have broken the rules after it happened, but after looking at the diagram associated with decision 26-1/14, I figured I could easily argue the X3-Y3 situation was applicable to my situation - even though the other margin of the hazard was only 5 to 6 club lengths away. 

[iacas]

6 hours ago, SG11118 said:

I did feel like I might have broken the rules after it happened, but after looking at the diagram associated with decision 26-1/14, I figured I could easily argue the X3-Y3 situation was applicable to my situation - even though the other margin of the hazard was only 5 to 6 club lengths away. 

Okay. I took it to mean that the hazard was curved in such a way that you couldn't drop because the curve was following the radius from the hole or something.

[SG11118]

This was about a 200 yard par 3 and it probably wasn't a 150 yard pond.  It was probably about 125 yards in diameter, and the path from the tee to the green going through the center of the pond.  It just happened to be that there was a "finger" of land jutting into the pond where my ball happened to roll back into the hazard at, and the line they had painted for the hazard kind of followed the contour of the ground.

If the modified rules do come into effect, and I hit the same tee shot, and seeing that it was marked as a lateral, I still would have walked to the green side of the pond, saw where my ball rolled in to the hazard, tried to figure out if there was a way to make a legal drop, and then I would've eventually come to the conclusion that I couldn't make a legal drop on the green side, and I'd of had to walk all the way back to the tee for my third, slowing down play.  You could possibly argue that the proposed rule might not be entirely equitable, as one of the guys I was playing with could've hit a similar shot except had the ball roll 6 feet to the right or left and not hit the "finger" allowing him to drop on the pond side.  I'm not trying to say that I don't approve of the new rule changes related to hazards - I think I probably do.  It has never made sense to me that you should be able to hit the ball into one side of the creek or pond and take a drop on the other side, just because it gave you a better opportunity to make a decent score.  I just wanted to bring this scenario up as a possible topic for consideration to see if anyone thinks the rules should try and give an "out" to golfers who can't find a spot to legally make the two club length drop.

[iacas]

3 hours ago, SG11118 said:

You could possibly argue that the proposed rule might not be entirely equitable, as one of the guys I was playing with could've hit a similar shot except had the ball roll 6 feet to the right or left and not hit the "finger" allowing him to drop on the pond side.

There are always subtle things like this. For example when a yellow hazard turns into a red hazard and one ball crosses yellow while another crosses a yard away but over the red. (Under the current rules, that is.)

We're about three days away from the end of the feedback period.

[SG11118]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

We're about three days away from the end of the feedback period.

Good.  I'm on the greens committee at my course and want to upgrade the hazard stakes on my course as they currently look pretty shabby, old, and inconsistent.  It would be good if it happens by next spring so I only have to buy red ones.

Have you turned over the petition signatures on the flagstick rule, and provided any other evidence on it to the USGA/R&A?  Did you end up getting a decent amount of signatures?  I signed it right away, but haven't been back to the petition website since then. 

[iacas]

23 minutes ago, SG11118 said:

Good.  I'm on the greens committee at my course and want to upgrade the hazard stakes on my course as they currently look pretty shabby, old, and inconsistent.  It would be good if it happens by next spring so I only have to buy red ones.

2019. 

Though I think a lot of courses might just start adopting the marking strategies as early as later this year when the rules are made firmer.

24 minutes ago, SG11118 said:

Have you turned over the petition signatures on the flagstick rule, and provided any other evidence on it to the USGA/R&A?  Did you end up getting a decent amount of signatures?  I signed it right away, but haven't been back to the petition website since then. 

We did. I don't know if it will make much of a difference… they seem to have their heads up their behinds on this one, and always have. They are acting as if everyone will still want to remove the flagstick if they're given the choice, and that leaving it in will only speed up play when someone begrudgingly putts to a hole far away while nobody has the chance to pull the flagstick for them.

I fear it may make it into the 2019 rules.

Kinda OT for this discussion though.