[David Ober]

On number 1, is the ditch that bisects the fairway up by the green a hazard or not a hazard? A buddy hit his ball in there, and there were no yellow or red stakes. Also, it seemed kind of weird to have to play it as a bunker, since it was so unkempt. Is the area "through the green," or is it a lateral, a water hazard, or a bunker?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

David,
It is in fact a natural creek bed that is considered sand hazard in the same spirit and vein as Wilshire CC's 16th & 18th holes. Play it as it lies!

I think its a great hazard by the way.

[TEPaul]

"David,
It is in fact a natural creek bed that is considered sand hazard in the same spirit and vein as Wilshire CC's 16th & 18th holes. Play it as it lies!
I think its a great hazard by the way."

TommyN:

Can you ground your club in it? And if you think not, are you sure about that?

[Michael Robin]

Thomas, the 16th & 18th at Wilshire are staked, or is that just during The Macbeth? Or are you referring to their wonderful original conception?

[David Ober]

David,
It is in fact a natural creek bed that is considered sand hazard in the same spirit and vein as Wilshire CC's 16th & 18th holes. Play it as it lies!

I think its a great hazard by the way.

I agree. I absolutely love the hazard -- especially the way that it's forgiving along the left side, but quite penal the farther you stray to the right!

Regarding the area, though: Can you, or can you not ground your club in there?

[Tom Huckaby]

David -that is one great hazard on one damn good golf hole.  As for the rules, if it's not marked as hazard then its hard for me to believe they call it a bunker either... man this is a tough call but I'd have to say you can ground your club.

We need the rules mavens for this.

TH

[Dan King]

A natural creek bed is a water hazard regardless if it is marked or not.


26/3 Unmarked Water Hazard

Q. An unmarked ditch on the left of a hole is in bounds, but the left-hand margin is out of bounds. Accordingly, it is impossible to drop behind the water hazard under Rule 26-1b. A player’s ball comes to rest in the ditch. Is the player restricted to playing the ball as it lies or proceeding under Rule 26-1a?

A. It is the responsibility of the Committee to define accurately the margins of water hazards and lateral water hazards — see Rule 33-2a. However, if the Committee has not done so, the ditch is, by definition, a lateral water hazard and the player should be permitted to proceed under Rule 26-1c(i).

Dan  King

Golf is the only game in which a precise knowledge of the rules can earn one a reputation for bad sportsmanship.
  --Patrick Campbell

[Tom Huckaby]

Dan - that's not exactly right.  That decision assumes that the ditch in question actually is a water hazard by defintion.  Here's the definition of water hazard;

Water Hazard

A “water hazard’’ is any sea, lake, pond, river, ditch, surface drainage ditch or other open water course (whether or not containing water) and anything of a similar nature on the course.

Is that really what the "ditch" crossing #1 Rustic is?  Maybe so... but to me it seems if if were, they'd just go ahead and mark it as such 0 they do have plenty of other hazards marked there.

It is a tough call.  I'd have to see it again as my recollection is that it's been a LONG time since there was water in that "ditch."

In any case, it if is a water hazard by definition, then yes, it's correct to play it as such, marked or not.

I just don't think it is... and if that's the case, then I believe the
rule here is gonna be play it as it lies... no grounding club... unplayable lie being only option if one gets an awful lie in there, as is very possible.



TH

[Dan King]

According ot the definition of water hazard, water need not be present for it too be a water hazard.

Water Hazard

A "water hazard" is any sea, lake, pond, river, ditch, surface drainage ditch or other open water course (whether or not containing water) and anything of a similar nature on the course.
All ground or water within the margin of a water hazard is part of the water hazard. The margin of a water hazard extends vertically upwards and downwards. Stakes and lines defining the margins of water hazards are in the hazards. Such stakes are obstructions. A ball is in a water hazard when it lies in or any part of it touches the water hazard.

A good idea with all the Rustic Cantonites here, someone should bring it up that life would be easier if they just went out and marked it.

Dan King

I don't know the traffic regulations of every city I get to either, but I manage to drive through without being arrested.
 --Lloyd Mangrum (on being assessed many violations as a result of not knowing the rules)

[Tom Huckaby]

Dan - boredome overcame laziness, so as you see, I changed my post.

Do you really think that's a water hazard by definition?

I don't.  I really don't think it meets any of the parts of the definition.  We face this issue all the time in course rating, as we have to do such by the real rules - 99% of the time for us, it's correctly defining an area as NOT a water hazard that IS marked as such.  You know, tall grass areas and the like?  They're seemingly everywhere.

If that "ditch" on 1 Rustic it were a water hazard, I really believe they'd mark it as such.  The presence of other correctly marked hazards there is powerful to me.

TH

[David Ober]

IMHO, it is not a water hazard.

[Tom Huckaby]

David - let's assume we - and those who marked the course - are right and Dan is wrong.  Then the next question is does that qualify as a bunker, under that definition?

I don't think it meets that either.  I'll look that up in a second.

[Tom Huckaby]

It seems clear to me that it's not definitely not a bunker.  Here's that definition:

Bunker
A “bunker’’ is a hazard consisting of a prepared area of ground, often a hollow, from which turf or soil has been removed and replaced with sand or the like.

Grass-covered ground bordering or within a bunker, including a stacked turf face (whether grass-covered or earthen), is not part of the bunker. A wall or lip of the bunker not covered with grass is part of the bunker.

The margin of a bunker extends vertically downwards, but not upwards. A ball is in a bunker when it lies in or any part of it touches the bunker.

Play it as it lies.  No grounding of one's club.

[Kevin_Reilly]

It seems clear to me that it's not definitely not a bunker.  Here's that definition:
Play it as it lies.  No grounding of one's club.

Tom, you say it isn't a water hazard and isn't a bunker -- so why no grounding?  

[Tom Huckaby]

Whoops!  Call that a case of trying to do too many things at once.

Play it as it lies, feel free to ground your club.

 

[Dan King]

I'm confused. When is a ditch not a ditch?

Dan King

He said true things, but called them by wrong names.
 --Robert Browning

[Tom Huckaby]

Easy Dan - when it's not a ditch.

 

Seriously - read the definition of water hazard again.  Think about what that thing is that crosses the fairway.  Does it really meet any of the parts of the definition?

Clearly at one point water flowed through there - but that has to be a long time ago.  

I will admit it's a quite unique situation, and others could see it differently.  But I think this long-dry wash - which is more what I'd call it than I'd call it a ditch - I was just using that term before because that's what it was called initially here - is not a water hazard under the rules of golf.

In any case, does it not sway you that every other hazard is correctly marked at Rustic?  Why would they so blatantly miss #1?

TH

[Dan King]

Tom Huckaby writes:
Seriously - read the definition of water hazard again.  Think about what that thing is that crosses the fairway.  Does it really meet any of the parts of the definition?

A "water hazard" is any ditch (whether or not containing water) and anything of a similar nature on the course.

Clearly at one point water flowed through there - but that has to be a long time ago.

Bet it wasn't all that long ago. I'm betting it flowed through there like crazy during the flooding.

But I think this long-dry wash - which is more what I'd call it than I'd call it a ditch - I was just using that term before because that's what it was called initially here - is not a water hazard under the rules of golf.

If it walks like a ditch, quacks like ditch...

Seems everyone was calling it a ditch. I certainly wouldn't ground my club in there and if I had an unplayable lie in a tournament I'd look for a ruling or proceed using Rule 3-3 and ask after my round.

I'd play it as a water hazard.

Dan King

Be not the slave of Words.
 --Thomas Carlyle

[Bryan Izatt]

I'm confused. When is a ditch not a ditch?

Dan King

When it's a "fault line".  See the write-up in the Courses by Country section.  I wonder how to treat a fault line under the rules.  

When it rains there (however rarely), I assume it flows.  If it's not a water hazard, would it be played as casual water when there is water in it?  Is it a small dry wash?  Which imples water sometimes.  

At any rate, if it's dry and the ball is playable then playing it out withput grounding the club seems most prudent.  Is there any advantage to treating it as a water hazard if the ball is unplayable?

[DMoriarty]

Unfortunately, not all the hazards at Rustic are properly marked so I am not sure what it was supposed to be.  

The area in front of the green is regularly maintained as a bunker and contains rakes so I think that part at least is a bunker.  As one moves away from the green the ditch gets pretty rough.  I've always thought of it as a waste area after the maintained portion, but maybe Dan King has a point.

Water does drain through the ditch on occassion, which is one reason it is so rough-- from erosion.  . . . I'll ask at the course, someone might make something up . . .

Whatever it is, it is probably my favorite hazard on the course.  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Thomas, the 16th & 18th at Wilshire are staked, or is that just during The Macbeth? Or are you referring to their wonderful original conception?

Michael,
The wonderful original conception which features a less shallow, wider creek bed that had been altered greatly after the same 1938 winter floods that got Riviera, LACC, Oakmont, The Valley Club, Lakeside and many, many more.

[Sean_A]

Looking at the last photo and knowing that there are rakes further up in this crevice, I would be hard pressed to treat this as a water hazard.  It looks like a messy bunker.  Play it as it lies, don't ground the club.  Raking is optional after hitting!  

Seems to me that it would be more sensible to pull the rakes and then people could be sure to play this as any other rough area.

Ciao

Sean

[Tom Huckaby]

Dan:

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this.  I really don't think you can call it a water hazard; or to put it another way, I don't think it's so CLEARLY a water hazard as to warrant the assumption that it is such absent any marking.  It is very close; your arguments do have merit (well, except the one about people here calling it a "ditch" - that is meaningless).  

If it was marked as water hazard, I wouldn't argue against it.  It would seem somewhat odd given the characteristic of it, the look, the grass and sand in it, the fact it doesn't normally carry water (heck, the whole course carried water during the flood - is the entire course a water hazard?).  But still, if they marked it as water hazard, it would have more merit than MANY MANY other things I've seen marked as such, that's for sure.  If I were doing the course rating there, I'd likely let it stand as water hazard if it were marked.

I just don't think absent the markings I'm ready to over-rule the course management and call it a water hazard.  But I will admit it is close.

Dave's clarification about the rakes makes sense to me - the area closer to the green does seem like a bunker, is a prepared surface, thus ought to be treated like such.  What's in question here is the crevice extending farther back.  And that really doesn't work as a water hazard or bunker, as I see it.  But again, it is a tough call.

These pics are great - and I agree with David, this is one of the great hazards I've ever played over (and into)   whatever it is called.

One thing's for sure though Dan - if I were playing a tournament there, I too would want clarification.  Since some SCGA and other events have been and continue to be played there, I'd bet anything this IS clarified in the pre-tourney instructions.

Question for David M. or any other Rustic regular - what other areas are incorrectly marked, or left unmarked where you think they should have markings?  It's been quite a long time since I've been there but my recollection was that they did have correct markings elsewhere on the course - which of course swayed me to believe their take on things leaving this crevice on #1 unmarked.  If they are screwing up all over the course, well then we can't trust their take on #1.  It's just very hard for me to believe they wouldn't have asked the SCGA about this - that is, what was it determined to be when they did the course rating (because they did have to treat it as a water hazard, bunker, or nothing - it makes a difference in the rating for that hole).  All it takes is one phone call, or a few words as the guys were doing the rating.

VERY interesting topic.  To me anyway.  

[ed_getka]

Who makes the determination of what is a hazard and what is not, when a course is first built/opened for play? The archie, super, greens commitee, or some ruling body? Curious to know.

[Tom Huckaby]

Ed:  when a course is rated (ie gets its rating and slope for handicapping purposes) all issues like this are settled one way or the other - they necessarily must be, as the course rating must be done under the rules of golf.  So the SCGA did make some ruling as to what that thing is on #1.   But unless a course is hosting an official tournament - that is one governed by the local association or USGA - then marking is up to the course to handle.  I'd say any responsible course would ask for guidance and mark correctly, but you do never know.

Shivas:  although you are mixing the water hazard and bunker issues here, your points do have merit.  Just understand that I HAVE been in the position of donning the black robes on situations like this, in course rating.  To me, this crevice looks more like a lot of dry washes we have determined NOT to be water hazards than it looks like a temporarily dry "ditch" which we could determine to be such.  But more importantly, it does remain powerful evidence - given Rustic HAS hosted officially-sanctioned events and I believe continues to do so - that the area is not marked.  Oh, I'll grant you that the "and anything of a similar nature" language could certainly cover this crevice.  But to me it speaks loudly that the area is not marked.  That is, it's either a pretty massive screwup on the part of Rustic's management - which I am not prepared to accept; or the SCGA determined this not to be water hazard.  Those are really the only two possiblities here.  And if the SCGA boys did determine it not to be a water hazard, I am certainly not going to be so bold as to tell them they are wrong.

TH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()