News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Double Penalty
« on: March 03, 2006, 06:28:35 PM »
I heard a new (to me) definition of double penalty recently, when someone suggested taking out tree between the tee and some sand hazards.  

I agreed, as I tend to believe that once you put sand in, and have paid for it, you may as well see it.  No need to protect sand with trees.  However, the reason they wanted it out was to avoid double penalty - figuring a top hook (in this case) that found the trees a hundred yards off the tee would have to be played under tree branches, and over a bunker, which would constitute an unfair penalty.

I had only considered that in terms of trees blocking a shot from a bunker until then....... Really, wouldn't you mostly expect to chip out if you were in the woods?
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

wsmorrison

Re:Double Penalty
« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2006, 06:49:17 PM »
Jeff,

In general, I would hope the design would allow a player with more skill to attempt a recovery shot rather than have to play the same shot as a player with less skill; namely a punch out to the fairway. There are, of course, times where a really bad shot by both a skilled and less-skilled player needs to be penalized with an unlikely recovery.

How's that for playing both sides of the fence, er tree?

Jim Thompson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Double Penalty
« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2006, 06:52:16 PM »
Sounds like someone still thinks every shot can only be played towards the hole to me.  Maybe they need an education in course management.  To tempt the bunker is a double risk not a double penalty in my book.

Cheers!

JT
Jim Thompson

Doug Braunsdorf

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Double Penalty
« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2006, 08:07:02 PM »
Jim-

  I'm not certain I understand your point.  Every shot doesn't necessarily need to be played at the hole, including recoveries, but well-executed recoveries should put the player in a position where they have a chance to rectify their not executing on the previous shot, no?  
"Never approach a bull from the front, a horse from the rear, or a fool from any direction."

Jeremy_Glenn.

Re:Double Penalty
« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2006, 09:05:32 PM »
The reason I am against double hazards, though not stronly against, is not because I think they are "unfair".  They aren't.

Rather, they are redundant.

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Double Penalty
« Reply #5 on: March 03, 2006, 09:48:51 PM »
Jeff,
If you just sniped one and all you have is a pinball or low shot you might not like the fact that a bunker might jump up and ruin your recovery but too bad on you, you shouldn't be over there in the first place. Sounds like a gripe from someone who doesn't like taking his medicine.

Make a big hole when you take out the tree and drop a few tons of sand in it.  ;D
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Double Penalty
« Reply #6 on: March 04, 2006, 08:05:13 AM »
Jeff,

Years ago, at a wonderful Donald Ross golf course, a green chairman planted trees between the fairway bunkers and the green.

The trees were immediately in front of the bunker, such that it was impossible to advance the ball toward the hole.
Instead, the golfer was forced to come out sideways.

These were spruces and pines, not deciduous trees, so there was little or no hope of getting through them.

This effectively transitioned the bunkers from bunkers to water hazards, or worse, because the golfer had to play sideways, he couldn't drop the ball outside the margin of the hazard.  Hence, it wasn't just a one stroke penalty, but, could be more.   Ross had positioned the bunkers at their location for a reason, and the topography, for slicers and faders fed the balls into the bunker.

In this case Jeremy, I think you could accurately describe them as unfair.

Why the club permited them for many, many years remains a mystery to me, but, fortunately, Ron Prichard was retained and he removed all of the trees planted by a well intentioned, but misquided green chairman.

In the great majority of cases where I've noticed the double penalty situation, invariably it was created by a green committee or chairman, and not the original architect.

Jim Thompson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Double Penalty
« Reply #7 on: March 04, 2006, 05:02:20 PM »
...well-executed recoveries should put the player in a position where they have a chance to rectify their not executing on the previous shot, no?  

No.  There should be only miraculous oportunities for undoing all of the prior sin.  The well-executed recovery should allow the player to get back into the playing field of the hole for its completion but should not be a free pass.  The half shot or full shot penalty for the prior bad shot should not be easy to expunge from one's scorecard during the play of the hole on which it was incurred.

HAZARDS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE FAIR!  They shoulb be hazardous and scary as hell.  The player who blames finding the hazard because of a misplayed line, slice or hook, forgets that he or she also found it because they chose to play a club which brought it into play.  If you are don't like a part of the course, don't hit it there!  Granted half stroke hazards can be more enjoyable but the golfer's diet should have a healthy mix of full, half and two stroke hazards in its composition so that the player must stay alert and not be allowed to presuppose the test every hazard on the course will require.

Cheers!

JT
Jim Thompson

Jim Thompson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Double Penalty
« Reply #8 on: March 06, 2006, 09:41:58 AM »
...well-executed recoveries should put the player in a position where they have a chance to rectify their not executing on the previous shot, no?  
Granted half stroke hazards can be more enjoyable but the golfer's diet should have a healthy mix of full, half and two stroke hazards in its composition so that the player must stay alert and not be allowed to presuppose the test every hazard on the course will require.


Sean,

That's what I was trying to say in the second part of my reply.  The severity of the penalty should vary within the course even within the same hole.

Cheers!

JT
« Last Edit: March 06, 2006, 09:42:14 AM by Jim Thompson »
Jim Thompson

Doug Braunsdorf

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Double Penalty
« Reply #9 on: March 06, 2006, 09:51:48 AM »
...well-executed recoveries should put the player in a position where they have a chance to rectify their not executing on the previous shot, no?  

No.  There should be only miraculous oportunities for undoing all of the prior sin.  The well-executed recovery should allow the player to get back into the playing field of the hole for its completion but should not be a free pass.  The half shot or full shot penalty for the prior bad shot should not be easy to expunge from one's scorecard during the play of the hole on which it was incurred.

HAZARDS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE FAIR!  They shoulb be hazardous and scary as hell.  The player who blames finding the hazard because of a misplayed line, slice or hook, forgets that he or she also found it because they chose to play a club which brought it into play.  If you are don't like a part of the course, don't hit it there!  Granted half stroke hazards can be more enjoyable but the golfer's diet should have a healthy mix of full, half and two stroke hazards in its composition so that the player must stay alert and not be allowed to presuppose the test every hazard on the course will require.

Cheers!

JT

Jim-

I see your response as oversimplifying mine; I agree with you that hazards shouldn't be 'fair'.  Golf isn't necessarily 'fair'.  That's fine.  

In my first response to you, I disagreed with your point that "Someone...every shot...played towards the hole".  I partially disagree.  I feel hazards can offer an option of recovery--I feel chipping/pitching out every time one lands in one is a bit redundant and takes the 'fun' away from golf.  

I feel, and we may be in concert with each other, that a recovery from a bunker may not always necessarily offer the ability to, say, hit the green in regulation, but taking a lesser club out, and then a well-placed third or fourth may offer the chance to save par.  

Here's a few examples;

Playing Bethpage Black 10th hole, I pushed my drive right into the large bunker up the right side.  Seeing as the lie was iffy and I had about 210 to the center of the green, I decided to take 9-iron, to ensure getting out in one, and playing short of the end of the fairway-leaving a wedge approach in.  

I'm not saying I should necessarily always be given the opportunity to hit the green from the bunker, 210 yards away.  But it could be an option, but could not as well.  

Another example-playing Rolling Green, 18th hole, the line of play is generally thought to be left of the fairway bunker.  (Right, Wayne and Mike?) With my length, I tried to carry it--and failed.  I landed in the bunker.  Because of the trees on the right side, outside the line of the bunker but with branches extending past, my only play was to punch a wedge out into the fairway, where I had maybe 180 uphill to the green.  

I'm not totally opposed to the trees up the right side; I feel, with a smart recovery and well-played third, I have an opportunity in either case to make par or even birdie (if playing the hole as a par 5) The proper line of play, I believe, is to the left side of the fairway.  

At my college course, Rutgers GC, there are several places where larger trees are within the outside lines of bunkers (drawing a line parallel to the line of play), and landing in a bunker also subjects the golfer to tree trouble.  In this case, the only shot is a pitchout, and here I feel it's a bit gimmicky
"Never approach a bull from the front, a horse from the rear, or a fool from any direction."

Jim Thompson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Double Penalty
« Reply #10 on: March 06, 2006, 10:02:26 AM »
1. I feel, and we may be in concert with each other, that a recovery from a bunker may not always necessarily offer the ability to, say, hit the green in regulation, but taking a lesser club out, and then a well-placed third or fourth may offer the chance to save par.  

2. In this case, the only shot is a pitchout, and here I feel it's a bit gimmicky

Doug,

I can pretty much agree with your first item, but I read it with emphasis on "may not necessarily" and "may offer" as I want to make sure I don't find those becoming or approaching the level of "absolute musts".

As to the second item, I haven't been to Rutgers and the course may very well be in need of a chainsaw.  However, I have no problem with a sprinkling of hazards that only allow a player to get out sideways, especially on short par fours and fives.  Ideally those hazards would be mean little steep faced pots, but a shallow bunker with a tree serves the same function all be it in very bad form.

Cheers!

JT
Jim Thompson

redanman

Re:Double Penalty
« Reply #11 on: March 06, 2006, 10:08:09 AM »
My first thought is redundancy as well.  However if the bunker is totally toothless (No lips/no penalty - I'd rather be in a flat fairway bunker than 3-4" rough) maybe it's just a design/maintenance issue.

A good bunker extracts a penalty in my book. "Get in the bunker!!!" is all you really need to know... ... ...

Doug Braunsdorf

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Double Penalty
« Reply #12 on: March 06, 2006, 10:57:40 AM »
1. I feel, and we may be in concert with each other, that a recovery from a bunker may not always necessarily offer the ability to, say, hit the green in regulation, but taking a lesser club out, and then a well-placed third or fourth may offer the chance to save par.  

2. In this case, the only shot is a pitchout, and here I feel it's a bit gimmicky

Doug,

I can pretty much agree with your first item, but I read it with emphasis on "may not necessarily" and "may offer" as I want to make sure I don't find those becoming or approaching the level of "absolute musts".

As to the second item, I haven't been to Rutgers and the course may very well be in need of a chainsaw.  However, I have no problem with a sprinkling of hazards that only allow a player to get out sideways, especially on short par fours and fives.  Ideally those hazards would be mean little steep faced pots, but a shallow bunker with a tree serves the same function all be it in very bad form.

Cheers!

JT

Jim-

  Agreed.  Recovery shouldn't be an absolute, although I'd rather see bunkers and rough rather than water hazards.

Rutgers very much needs a chainsaw, if not wholesale redesign.  It's a small property, and a member of the AD admitted to me they did trick it up a little bit in order to keep scores up.  It's pretty short.   I want to bring Redanman there when he's having a bad day sometime, he'd enjoy the multitudes of trees blocking angles of approach.  ;)
"Never approach a bull from the front, a horse from the rear, or a fool from any direction."

Doug Braunsdorf

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Double Penalty
« Reply #13 on: March 06, 2006, 11:01:54 AM »
But, to those who have been to Pine Valley recently (I haven't been there in 5 yrs); over the course as a whole, if a player is in a waste area relatively close to the fairway, are there many times when a player is penalized by both waste area and trees?  

"Never approach a bull from the front, a horse from the rear, or a fool from any direction."

archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Double Penalty
« Reply #14 on: March 06, 2006, 11:42:44 AM »
 :D ;) 8)


We had a real double/triple?? jeopardy issue at one of the  non Willie Park holes done by Ron Garl (Garl 1983-4) to Greate Bay,my home club.  

Riddle me this one guys!

#12 is a dogleg left par four approximately 400yards from the daily tees, 450 from tips. Our irrigation lake fronts the green at the turn of the dogleg approximately 130 yards out. The fairway extends along the periphery of the lake. I swear I'll learn to draw on line in the next month.

The hole was tree lined all the way down the left to the corner of the dogleg..many of our players didn't  hit it far enough to reach the corner of the dogleg, and of course they couldn't hit it over the trees either. Thus they were forced to hit a fifty yard pitch to lay up short of the lake.

Even worse, a salt water marsh runs from the  tee to the irrigation lake, so------if one hit it into the trees on the left and couldn't find the ball, you didn't know where it entered the adjoining hazard.  This caused issues as to lost ball or lateral hazard. Lots of phone calls to the golf shop.

If you saw it go in, after dropping and taking proper relief (hitting three) you had a wall of trees with the lake behind them and protecting the green. Thus a chip to the fairway was generally the only play. A real double penalty!

What seemed a rational solution was to cut the trees down along the left side, which opened the possibility of the longer hitters/better players getting cute and driving it in the pond. Good work, right? More options for everyone? Takes away the already huge advantage of length over accuracy. I was sure to be canonized! LOL!

No way. This only further convinced many members that I was the sworn enemy of all things arboreal.

 Note: Twisted Dune has no trees.

The good news is we haven't had any  more fistfights on the twelth hole since the chainsaws were put in action,and slowly, begrudgingly some old members are starting to believe we didn't "ruin the hole".

But even amongst those who see the light the question remains; hey Mr. wanna be architect, did you have to take down all the trees?  LOL!



Patrick_Mucci

Re:Double Penalty
« Reply #15 on: March 06, 2006, 01:00:03 PM »
Archie,

You should have taken all of the trees down during the winter, taken a leave of absence for the upcoming season and played all of your golf at Hidden Creek the next summer, insulating you from criticism. ;D

Mike_Cirba

Re:Double Penalty
« Reply #16 on: March 06, 2006, 01:42:19 PM »
Archie,

Next you have to figure out what to do with that crazy green on that hole!  ;D

If ever a hole smacked of lack of architectural restraint, this one is a poster child.  


archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Double Penalty
« Reply #17 on: March 06, 2006, 02:48:32 PM »
Mike

Our new plans call for demolition of both holes 11 & 12 and particularly the malodorous greens that exist there. Funny that they don't bear any resemblance to the rest of greens on the course. We already blew up the old #2 green that was similarly distasteful.

Keep the faith, lad!

Jeremy_Glenn.

Re:Double Penalty
« Reply #18 on: March 07, 2006, 12:52:09 PM »
Patrick,

Unfair?

The penalty for hitting into the bunker might be severe.  Very severe, even.  And the decision to put trees in front of them should be questionned.  Indeed, another solution that would allow for a more aggressive recovery shot would make the hazard more interesting.

But a severe, unrecoverable penalty is not unfair.

Just don't hit it there.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Double Penalty
« Reply #19 on: March 08, 2006, 08:04:43 AM »
Jeremy,

Your response is conditioned upon the location, the juxtaposition of the bunker relative to the lines of play and the contouring of the surrounding area.

A bunker, clearly in play, fed by the surrounding terrain can become unfair and excessively severe when a non-architect or his wife decide to plant a dense line of trees in front of the bunker, impeding, if not preventing forward play.

If the bunker was 30 yards short and directly in front of the green, would planting a double row of spruces between the bunker and the green constitute a severe and unfair situation ?


Jeremy_Glenn.

Re:Double Penalty
« Reply #20 on: March 08, 2006, 08:37:17 AM »
Patrick,

You're confusing the terms "unfair" with "severe".  

I'll totally agree with your claim that the bunker/tree combo might be "excessively severe", "dumb", "poor design", or any other negative description.

But it is not "unfair".

___

On another note, are you trying to say that if forward play is prevented, a situation is "unfair"?