26-1, hazard markings and the committee

[Uisce Beatha]

26/2 - Ball Within Natural Margin of Water Hazard But Outside Stakes Defining Margin

Q. Stakes defining the margin of a water hazard were improperly installed. As a result, an area which clearly was part of the water hazard was outside the stakes and, thus, technically was outside the hazard. A player’s ball came to rest in water in this area. The player claimed that, in view of the alignment of the stakes, his ball was in casual water through the green. Was the claim valid?

A. No. The Committee erred in not properly defining the margin of the hazard as required by Rule 33-2a, but a player is not entitled to take advantage of such an error. Since it was clear that the place where the player’s ball lay was within the natural boundaries of the water hazard, the claim should not be upheld.

Somewhat similar situation yesterday.  Par three has a lake in front and left of the green.  Tee shot travels over the water and bounces no more than a foot outside the natural margin and then drops into the hazard.   It's about 150 yards from the teeing area and all along the edge of the lake the margin isn't marked.  There's a solitary red stake at the "corner" just before the green.  It's right on the natural margin. 

The player believes the ball last crossed the margin of the hazard at the point described above.  However, there's a stretch of about three feet along the front of the green where there's a very faint red line.  It's definitely not from this season and maybe not from last.  It is a good two feet away from the natural margin of the hazard. 

The player and his fellow competitor discuss the situation and agree either the committee has decided not to mark this hazard or they are deficient in their duty to properly do so.  As the single red stake is right on the natural margin and the red line is barely visible and then only for 1% of the margin the players (as committee) rule that the natural margin shall be used.  The player proceeds under 26-1 greenside rather than go back to just in front of the teeing area. 

Did the players do the right thing?  The quoted decision directly states a player may not take advantage of committee error in the improper marking of a hazard.  This scenario seems different though.  The committee didn't just make a mistake.  They completely bailed on their responsibilities OR they're just waiting for Father Time to completely erase the previous markings. 

[Clive]

It's possible that the solitary red stake demarcates the change from lateral water hazard to water hazard.  If your friend carried the water, was he on the hazard side or the lateral hazard side of the stake?  The answer may moot the issue.

FWIW, an old red line tells me that the committee has declined to maintain that line.  Evidence that they prefer the natural boundary over the (faded) painted margin.  It's not like they've failed to paint red lines everywhere else, is it?

[Uisce Beatha]

Image of hole below.  Sorry about the size.  I don't have any editing tools handy.



The teeing area is the middle one top left.  The red stake is on that bend near very front of the green.  The ball crossed the margin of the hazard for the last time to the left of the green (at least, that's the position we took). 

I think you'll agree that, if not the entire thing, the portion of the hole beyond that bend with the stake *should* be a lateral hazard.  The red stake is by itself.  There's no yellow stake planted next to it or anywhere else for that matter.

The natural margin is the fairly sharp line between the white (rocks) and the green of the course. 

The course is in fairly poor shape these days.  I didn't really notice the presence or lack thereof of painted lines elsewhere.  We were either in good shape or so far gone left or right that investigating wasn't worth the trouble.   

I feel good about this one.  I think we got it right.  Sometimes I second guess myself later.

[spacey]

Heh. I thought I recognized the hole by your description, but the pic makes it certain. I've lost more balls in that patch of water than I care to think about. 

[edit] Never mind, I was thinking that was 8 but now that I inspect it more thoroughly it appears to be 4. Also lost many a ball on that one too, but 8 is my nemesis.

[Uisce Beatha]

Heh. I thought I recognized the hole by your description, but the pic makes it certain. I've lost more balls in that patch of water than I care to think about. 

[edit] Never mind, I was thinking that was 8 but now that I inspect it more thoroughly it appears to be 4. Also lost many a ball on that one too, but 8 is my nemesis.

Spacey's post got me thinking.  I dunked on in #8 (hit what I thought was the perfect club well and it didn't clear  ) and had to drop.  There was no question about where I should drop at all so I really didn't play close attention but I'm pretty sure the hazard on that hole isn't marked with paint.  It's not a lateral (another post for another day) and there ARE yellow stakes but if there was ever paint it's either faint or gone.

P.S.  Spacey, you should have a chat with Baaab about that hole.  If you asked him which hole in Utah is HIS nemesis I bet he'd say Wingpointe #8.

[Spanky]

Just for my clarification did the ball land just past the natural line and come back into the hazzard or did it bounce left into the hazzard? I think that makes a difference.

[Uisce Beatha]

Just for my clarification did the ball land just past the natural line and come back into the hazzard or did it bounce left into the hazzard? I think that makes a difference.

AZS, the ball bounced outside the natural margin and then in to the hazard.

[Spanky]

Just for my clarification did the ball land just past the natural line and come back into the hazzard or did it bounce left into the hazzard? I think that makes a difference.

AZS, the ball bounced outside the natural margin and then in to the hazard.

Sorry I wasn't clear, was it short of the green or to the left of the green? Did it go in the hazzard in front of the green or to the left of the green?

[Uisce Beatha]

Just for my clarification did the ball land just past the natural line and come back into the hazzard or did it bounce left into the hazzard? I think that makes a difference.

AZS, the ball bounced outside the natural margin and then in to the hazard.

Sorry I wasn't clear, was it short of the green or to the left of the green? Did it go in the hazzard in front of the green or to the left of the green?

The ball first crossed the margin of the hazard right in front of the teeing area.  It landed just over the lake left of the green.  It was hooking in a hook wind and angling away from the green (say due east in the photo).  It landed about a foot in to the green area as seen next the the white patch of rocks.  It bounced further left and a probably a bit backwards for the second time across the margin of the hazard and into the rocks. 

I've modified the photo now that I'm at work and have Photoshop handy.  Hope it helps.

[Clive]

I'm not sold.  My thought is that the margin to the left of the stake (as you're standing on the tee) would be water hazard, not lateral water hazard.  I say that because that portion of the pond FRONTS the green, rather than lateral to it.

One red stake makes it pretty hard to determine the intended margin, let alone if there's some switch from lateral to non-lateral.

Ultimately, though, I'm going to resort to throwing your "I'm my own Committee" position back in your face.    Define the margin as YOU deem it, rule based on that definition, on move on.

[Uisce Beatha]

I'm not sold.  My thought is that the margin to the left of the stake (as you're standing on the tee) would be water hazard, not lateral water hazard.  I say that because that portion of the pond FRONTS the green, rather than lateral to it.

I've never understood or even been provided the criteria used to determine lateral water hazard vs. water hazard.  There's another hole on the same course (Spacey's #8) which is a water hazard throughout.  It's even pretty close to the same setup.  Why is one "yellow" and the other "red"?  No answer.

One red stake makes it pretty hard to determine the intended margin, let alone if there's some switch from lateral to non-lateral.

Lacking anything but a single red stake and ancient red paint margins I'd say it's tough alright to figure anything but there's not chance I can infer there's a regular water hazard involved.  There's just nothing at all to support it.

Ultimately, though, I'm going to resort to throwing your "I'm my own Committee" position back in your face.    Define the margin as YOU deem it, rule based on that definition, on move on.

Of course.  That's what we did.  But I don't presume to think I'm guaranteed correct.  I thought I'd throw it out for review.  At the least there doesn't seem to be a consensus we got it wrong. 

Thanks.