Jump to content
Note: This thread is 915 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Hi guys 

having an issue with a few members and drop point of a water hazard. ( pretty standard stuff I know but bare with me).

on a short par 4 there is a small pond right next to the green, the margin of the hazard is defined by a yellow paint line. Balls often run down on to the green and drop in the hazard crossing the yellow paint line just off the fringe. Simple einough you would think.

The issue is that because the rules say you must drop behind the hazard people insist everyone drops left of the hazard so they must chip over the water. This does not fit with keeping the point it last crissedbthe margin ( the yellow paint line). In some cases if the pin is very much in the left side a straight line back from the margin means you could chip or even putt out to the right and let the slope bring it back to the hole.

People are insistent this is wrong as you’re not going over water, my view is the only factor in the rule is you MUST drop on a straight line between the flag and the point it last crossed the yellow line.

Any thoughts? I did a diagram but my drawing skills are poor so apologies. Is this correct and how do I deal with those that insist everyone else is wrong??

D3857C5C-5750-4620-BBB6-3EA2D69758C5.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lateral would make the hole too easy, it would mean always dropping on the green itself. It’s a driveable par 4 so needs a risk reward element.

is a drop zone not contrary to rules of golf? Would that be allowed? Not sure there is a need if I can just get people to do it right 😁

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gazzagolf said:

Lateral would make the hole too easy, it would mean always dropping on the green itself. It’s a driveable par 4 so needs a risk reward element.

is a drop zone not contrary to rules of golf? Would that be allowed? Not sure there is a need if I can just get people to do it right 😁

You are correct in what a proper drop should be for a yellow marked water hazard.  It really shouldn't be that difficult if one knows how to read the rules.  When a pond is located close to the green like that, the proper dropping spot can vary widely depending on where the hole is cut on a given day.  There is nothing in the rules that requires one to cross water if the line for a correct drop does not go over the water.

While I agree with Erik that the design is such that in many cases that could be marked as a lateral water hazard, nothing in the rules says that it must be marked red.  As you say, it's a short par 4, so designating it as a regular water hazard may be in keeping with the intent of the designer.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

6 hours ago, Gazzagolf said:

Lateral would make the hole too easy, it would mean always dropping on the green itself. It’s a driveable par 4 so needs a risk reward element.

is a drop zone not contrary to rules of golf? Would that be allowed? Not sure there is a need if I can just get people to do it right 😁

6. Dropping Zones
The Committee may establish dropping zones on which balls may or must be dropped when the Committee considers that it is not feasible or practicable to proceed exactly in conformity with Rule 24-2b or Rule 24-3 (Immovable Obstruction), Rule 25-1b or 25-1c (Abnormal Ground Conditions), 25-3 (Wrong Putting Green), Rule 26-1 (Water Hazards and Lateral Water Hazards) or Rule 28 (Ball Unplayable).

Generally, such dropping zones should be provided as an additional relief option to those available under the Rule itself, rather than being mandatory.

http://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!rule-14322

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The description for this type of situation now given by the R&A and USGA is 'Back on a Line'.

It is exactly what it seems. Take a line from the hole, through the last point of entry into the hazard, back along that line as far as you line. 

Explain to "people" that that is what the RBs require. Back on a Line

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Gazzagolf said:

Lateral would make the hole too easy, it would mean always dropping on the green itself.

I agree this should be a lateral hazard.  Sure, it'd make the hole easier, but it would also eliminate confusion, and would eliminate cases where a foot of difference in the point of entry would have a huge impact on the play of the hole, encouraging players to "cheat" it a bit.  If the hole is too easy, that's the designer's fault. 😉

But...yes, you're completely right about the drops as it is currently marked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Thanks folks 

good to know I’m on right track, think I will write a clear explanation with a diagram relating specifically to the hole ( better drawn!) and post it on comp board and email it out to all so there is no confusion. Personally I can’t see why it’s so difficult!

Thanks for all your input 👍👍

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Administrator
3 hours ago, Rulesman said:

If madw a lareal, there could be many problems in using the option to drop within 2cl not nearer the hole

I don't think there would be that many problems. It'd only be a problem when you landed just about perpendicular to the flag and if the water hazard was concave, not convex.

I think it should be a lateral. From the drawing the water hazard doesn't need to be "negotiated" or "overcome" to play the hole.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

On 7/19/2018 at 6:30 AM, iacas said:

I don't think there would be that many problems. It'd only be a problem when you landed just about perpendicular to the flag and if the water hazard was concave, not convex.

I think it should be a lateral. From the drawing the water hazard doesn't need to be "negotiated" or "overcome" to play the hole.

The criterion for marking red rather than is not really whether the hazard needs to be negotiated. The USGA philosophy is that the default is yellow; red only if "there is a good reason not to mark yellow" i.e. impractical to drop on a line back from the hole. I see the argument for red but I think the USGA would go with yellow for the reasons stated.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be R&A here but same applies and red would spoil the hole and make it too easy, the key to the hole is deciding whether to risk the water and go for the green. If it were red you’d always have a go at it and if you hit it you’d still be guaranteed a par pretty much. Just have to keep trying to explain 😁

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Administrator
6 minutes ago, Gazzagolf said:

Would be R&A here but same applies and red would spoil the hole and make it too easy, the key to the hole is deciding whether to risk the water and go for the green. If it were red you’d always have a go at it and if you hit it you’d still be guaranteed a par pretty much. Just have to keep trying to explain 😁

I don’t agree with that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
4 hours ago, Gazzagolf said:

Which bit? That it would spoil the hole?

hard to explain you’d gave to play it or see it to appreciate what I mean I guess

If your picture is accurate, I don't think that:

  • It's "almost a guaranteed par" if you hit it in the hazard.
  • That the "design of the hole" means that the designer intended for it to be a yellow hazard. You can play to the right. Or short of it.

I'd mark it red. It's still risk-reward, and in the cases where you can't drop within two clublengths no closer, you go behind.

6 hours ago, Martyn W said:

The criterion for marking red rather than is not really whether the hazard needs to be negotiated. The USGA philosophy is that the default is yellow; red only if "there is a good reason not to mark yellow" i.e. impractical to drop on a line back from the hole. I see the argument for red but I think the USGA would go with yellow for the reasons stated.

I know this, @Martyn W, but the point of a yellow hazard is traditionally that you must cross over it (or pay a substantial penalty to try to hit around the outside of it), while a lateral hazard is laterally located. Just like this one is. It's to the side.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

1 hour ago, iacas said:

I know this, @Martyn W, but the point of a yellow hazard is traditionally that you must cross over it (or pay a substantial penalty to try to hit around the outside of it), while a lateral hazard is laterally located. Just like this one is. It's to the side.

How about the WH on the left of the green at Augusta #11? Almost identical to the OP post and is marked yellow (with a DZ)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Administrator
Just now, Martyn W said:

How about the WH on the left of the green at Augusta #11? Almost identical to the OP post and is marked yellow (with a DZ)

It's a good point. My memory is that players have to play across that a little bit if they're in the left side of the fairway and/or left "first cut." But it's not much… and players generally only find the water if they draw or pull it from the left-center.

If the course was going to take the time to mark a drop zone, I'd be fine with it being yellow, too. But a lot of the time at courses like this, they paint a circle now and then… but it fades, gets mown out, etc. quite often. Plus people seem to think all the time that the two clublengths thing applies when they go in the water, and will drop there anyway. Plus, next year, it may be converted to red anyway, as yellow hazards will drop in frequency quite a bit as many hazards are converted to red penalty areas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 915 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • Support TST Affiliates

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    Whoop
    SuperSpeed
    FlightScope Mevo
    Use the code "iacas" for 10% off Mevo and the code "iacasjan21" for 10% off SuperSpeed.
  • Posts

    • The Original is a very good shoe. Not the best in hot weather, as it can get a little sweaty (that's just logical - if you want a waterproof leather shoe). And of the Knits, the original is a very good shoe, too. I see what you mean about the higher back, but it's pretty soft IMO. Do you wear a sock that goes up that high, or is it rubbing skin? I don't like a high back, either, but if I'm being specific I don't like a high back that's more solid or firmer. These are like socks, very "huggy" without digging in or rubbing much. The Knits are some of my favorite shoes. I wear them everywhere. Teaching. Playing, when it's at least half dry. Errands. Going out to do anything. They're the first shoe I grab, and the only shoes that I generally have inside the house. The old Knit "I" models will likely be relegated strictly to errand shoes, though, or teaching maybe, as I've worn the tread away. These are the replacements, in spirit, for the original Sensei shoes, which I also loved. Perhaps even more than the Tours. For golf, the Originals win. For everything, the Knits and the Knit Its win, for me, hands down. The TRUE Knit II TRUE Knit II Our most popular model of all time, the TRUE Knit is back and better than ever. Knit II's lightweight nature, all-day comfort, sock-fit feel and breathable nature make these your go to sneakers for the warmer days... → TRUEknit Fully Breathable One-Piece Upper (90% Polyester, 10% Spandex) → Full Sock Fit Flexible Opening for Slide-In Comfort → One-Piece TRUEknit Upper Flexibly Conforms to Most Foot Shapes (D-EEE) → New Open Cell Footbed for Increased Breathability and Comfort on Warmer Days → Water and Oil Repellent Upper → NEW Wanderlux Midsole for Increased Comfort and Rebound → Extremely Lightweight - 9.1 oz. (Size 9 M) → Cross-Life Tread for Maximum Versatility → Transitional (Minimal) Drop (~4mm Dependant on Size) Some Photos   The TRUE LUX Knit TRUE LUX Knit A 2-Year waterproof guarantee has never looked or felt this good. The alchemy of modern performance and heritage design make the LUX Knit is the best of all worlds. The breathable, form fitting upper is bonded to... → Waterproof, yet breathable knit upper with added DWR shell (durable water repellent) → New WANDERLUX midsole technology for superior rebound, energy return, and age defying durability → New WANDERLUX interior featuring a snug, padded heel cup and all new super foam insert → Reusable LUX shoe/shag bag in lieu of the traditional box → Premium leather accents and welting → Transitional (minimal) drop - (~6mm) → Light-weight (11.5 oz) with a premium/rugged durability → Tour-tested spikeless rubber tread for aggressive grip → Generous natural fit comfortably conforms up to 2E width Some Photos
    • Try leaving it as is and putting on a practice green. After 10 putts try adding some sticky lead weight, and from the same distance try 10 more putts. I think you can see where I'm going with this. Whatever weight gives you the most confidence making putts is right for you.
    • Do you play golf with people who say "fa****" when they miss a putt? I hope not. And I get that no-one wants to be a "teacher" out of the classroom, but saying you live in a place where homophobia and acceptance of "hate speech" is the norm is a little concerning. I know exactly what the situation is  - kids swear all of the time and it's normalised to the point where they don't even think they're swearing. They don't care and wonder why anyone, let alone a teacher would have an issue with it. But that's not what this is about, and I'm curious as to why you're putting swearing into the same conversation.  Most schools accept that swearing is wrong and have policies about it. Hard to police and rarely anything beyond poor and immature use of language. Different issue. They also have policies about discrimination, vilification, homophobia and violence. This is what this is about. Any student who utters the word "f+++++" is hopelessly out of touch and would not fit in with the majority of students these days are totally cool with homosexuality and don't see it as a huge deal. And I understand that some states are not as progressive as others. I know you aren't defending JT or saying he did nothing wrong, but if those at the top of the totem pole at your school think that "fa***" is a swear word, they need to be shifted down several places.  
    • @Vinsk that would be interesting I suppose. Hell he has enough of them. I can’t imagine they could do anything about that. He is free to wear what he wants. 
    • I’m sure there are contract issues with it...but it seems a little much to be able to tell someone they can’t wear a shirt. They may not pay him to wear it...but what if he wore RL anyway?
  • Today's Birthdays

    1. 1puttit
      1puttit
      (56 years old)
    2. Al Vorster
      Al Vorster
      (42 years old)
    3. alczervik4
      alczervik4
      (32 years old)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...