Proposal - Designating Environmental areas lateral water hazards

[Dan Herrmann]

Jason - Another idea...  We work closely with the Golf Association of Philadelphia on setting our course up in accordance with the Rules.  I'm betting your association would be happy to visit and provide advice.

[Dale Jackson]

The only real problem is that these clubs look at areas like that which are designated as "through the green" as inconvenient with play because many golfers cannot find their ball in them and they do not feel like playing under the Rule of Golf for a lost ball that requires the player to play stroke AND DISTANCE. Pretty much for that reason alone these clubs tend to want to designate these kinds of areas as WHs or LWHs so the player can take a penalty shot and play the ball from something like the last point of entry (WH and LWH relief) rather than returning to the spot from which he hit the ball (Lost Ball Rule).

Of course another relatively convenient Rule would be for the players who think their ball may've entered this area and might be lost to play a Provisional Ball from the spot where he hit the first ball. 

I was trying to make a point that did not come through very well upon reflection.  Stated another way, golf courses are first and foremost just that, golf courses.  I appreciate the move to more naturalness on golf courses today, indeed my own club has made strides towards that goal, and anything that takes us away from the perfectly manicured look almost everyone in North America strived for through the 1970s and 1980s is to be applauded, in my mind.  But that should not be at the expense of playability, if a club finds itself having to circumvent the rules because of issues with ball searches and pace of play issues, then perhaps the question should be asked, do their naturalized areas make sense?

Realistic playing corridors on a golf course, in general, would seem to take precedence over naturalized grassy areas.  Could the naturalized areas be pushed back in the problem areas?

Also, not knowing the geographic area where Jason's course is located, I wonder if the irrigation can be adjusted to bring about the tall wispy areas that are more playable.

Finally, from many trips playing the links courses in the UK, I have come to appreciate the almost supernatural ability of golfers across the pond to mark where a ball has entered the fescue and almost invariably walk to the almost precise spot it has come to rest.  Maybe we need to import some of that DNA into ourselves!   

[JohnV]

Dale,
That was very well said. 

If your club is having to push the Rules of Golf to places where they are not intended to go, they are subverting the game.  There are many areas on golf courses that I see that are marked Lateral Water Hazards that have no water in them.  There was a course we used on the Futures Tour in Vermont that was in the woods.  They had red stakes running down the sides of every hole.  We had to go out and pull them before the tournament and they went out and put them back afterwards.

You can't be DQ'ed for entering an ESA.  But, you could be arrested or subject to future sanctions such as prohibiting you from entering tournaments.  If we had a player do that repetitively at an NCGA event, I'm sure our tournament committee would act on it.

Spanish Bay is the one course I haven't played in the forest, but from what I know, they violate the rule on how to mark ESAs.  I'm sure this is because they don't want people to bitch about all the penalty shots they would get if the areas were marked OB.

As Adam pointed out, if the club gives the player a break by marking something as a LWH, WH or GUR when it shouldn't be, they are helping him to a lower handicap than he deserves.

Here is the decision on how to mark ESA's:

33-8/41  Marking Environmentally-Sensitive Areas

If an appropriate authority prohibits entry into and/or play from an area for environmental reasons, it is the Committee's responsibility to decide whether an environmentally-sensitive area should be defined as ground under repair, a water hazard or out of bounds.

However, the Committee may not define the area as a water hazard or a lateral water hazard unless it is, by Definition, a water hazard. The Committee should attempt to preserve the character of the hole.

As examples:

(a) A small area of rare plants close to a putting green has been declared an environmentally-sensitive area. The Committee may define the area to be ground under repair or out of bounds, but it may not be defined as a water hazard or lateral water hazard. In view of the area's proximity to a putting green, it should not be defined as out of bounds because a stroke-and-distance penalty would be unduly harsh. It would be more appropriate to define the area as ground under repair.

(b) A large area of sand dunes along the side of a hole has been declared an environmentally-sensitive area. In contrast to (a) above, it should not be defined as ground under repair because the absence of a penalty would be unduly generous. It would be more appropriate to define the area as out of bounds.

(c) A large area of wetlands along the side of a hole has been declared an environmentally-sensitive area. As in (b) above, it could be defined as out of bounds, but it would be more appropriate to define it as a lateral water hazard.

An environmentally-sensitive area should be physically protected to deter players from entering the area (e.g., by a fence, warning signs and the like) and it should be marked in accordance with the recommendations in the Rules of Golf (i.e., by yellow, red or white stakes, depending on the status of the area). It is recommended that stakes with green tops be used to designate an environmentally-sensitive area.

[TEPaul]

"But that should not be at the expense of playability, if a club finds itself having to circumvent the rules because of issues with ball searches and pace of play issues, then perhaps the question should be asked, do their naturalized areas make sense?"


Dale:

That, I think, is precisely the question or one of them. I personally believe that the other question to be considered is do these clubs really understand some of the potential ramifications of circumventing the Rules of Golf in this particular way?

Many might think the USGA will get furious at a club who does this and perhaps criticize them or whatever. That is not the way the USGA reacts to these kinds of situations in my experience.

However, there are certain reactions that are quite formalized and explained in various parts of the Rules of Golf and including the USGA Handicap System by the USGA to these kinds of things under certain circumstances and my only point here is that I think these clubs who are deciding to do these kinds of things should be aware of all of it before they make their ultimate decision on what to do.

There are plenty of interesting examples from the past that would be instructive to know for these clubs.

[Adrian_Stiff]

“I have no doubt that the USGA is the best source of information for what the rules are.  I would suggest, however, that the USGA is not necessarily the last word on what the rules should be.  On that front, I think we are all entitled to our opinion.”


Jason:

Of course we are all entitled to our opinion on the Rules of Golf but the point is if the actual Rules of Golf as written and defined by the USGA and R&A (basically the only two real golf rules entities that are followed) tried to follow everyone’s different opinions the Rules of Golf would turn into an unworkable mess.

It is interesting how the USGA (and R&A) actually deal with situations like the one your club has adopted (essentially they only say that if your club asked for a ruling involving the situation you’ve explained they would decline to offer their opinion on the situation for the simple reason the club was not following the USGA/R&A Rules of Golf in the first place) and you are also right that your club is not the only one to consider something very similar to what you explained in your first post. It is a basic situation that comes up all the time. Scranton GC did the same thing you are and even my own club considered it but decided to follow the USGA’s suggestions in the end.



“This rule and definition seem different outside the USGA.”

Adrian:

That’s possible but I would very much doubt it. The USGA and the R&A have worked very hard together in the last half century (there is such a thing as the USGA/R&A Joint Rules Committee which meets every so often to discuss and agree on Rules and Decisions changes) to pretty much unify most all their essential Rules of golf and even most all their so-called local and special Rules in the Rule book’s appendix. There are a few minor differences I think such as some of the smaller details of what constitutes amateur status rules and regulations.

Tep- We checked today to see if we were infringing the rules and the R&A do allow you to designate enviromental areas as water hazards. We have 3 on our course and there is no water, but it speeds up play, as the areas grow up we may remove them. The definition is entirely different by the R & A, if the ones posted on here are USGA Law. A water hazard does not need to contain water this side of the pond and our rule and definition is what Jason thinks should be changed.

[Will Haskett]

I really appreciate this discussion thread. At my club (state owned park), there are a ton of environmental areas that were once lined with flags. Now, it is just known that the high-grass areas are ESAs. For the sake of speeding up play, the course ruled that any ball hit into those areas was not to be retrieved, and the player gets a free drop at the point of entry.

In my mind, this has created way too easy of a test of golf. People are winning matches because they get multiple free drops. You have holes with OB down the left side and an ESA down the right. It is very easy to swing hard but favor the ride side, knowing that a free drop awaits if you hit it bad and right.

There are some good points on here about switching the local rule to making it a hazard, most likely laterally. But, if speed of play was the major concern, would changing the area to play like a hazard slow play to a halt? Would players spend excessive amounts of time looking for a ball in an ESA knowing they might have a play?

[Dale Jackson]

Tep- We checked today to see if we were infringing the rules and the R&A do allow you to designate enviromental areas as water hazards. We have 3 on our course and there is no water, but it speeds up play, as the areas grow up we may remove them. The definition is entirely different by the R & A, if the ones posted on here are USGA Law. A water hazard does not need to contain water this side of the pond and our rule and definition is what Jason thinks should be changed.

Adrian, the Rules of Golf are exactly identical throughout the world.  The USGA has authority over the USA and Mexico, the R&A over the rest of the world, except for Canada, which is independent but closely aligned with the R&A.  

The definition of a Water Hazard is part of the Rules and is the same everywhere.  Notice the definition states, in part "A “water hazard” is any sea, lake, pond, river, ditch, surface drainage ditch or other open water course (whether or not containing water).  It does not allow any area to be defined as a water hazard, a WH must fit the description quoted.  So, for example, a grove of trees may not be marked as a WH but a drainage ditch that contains water only during the winter may be.  In practice there is some leeway on marking the boundaries of WH/LWH but they still need to fall within the basic definition.

To repeat what has been mentioned already, a club has no authority to declare an area of the course an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA), that status only comes from a local authority.  Once marked as such, however, (whether correctly or incorrectly) one of the options is to have them play as a water hazard or later water hazard (yellow or red stakes with a green top).

[Adrian_Stiff]

Tep- We checked today to see if we were infringing the rules and the R&A do allow you to designate enviromental areas as water hazards. We have 3 on our course and there is no water, but it speeds up play, as the areas grow up we may remove them. The definition is entirely different by the R & A, if the ones posted on here are USGA Law. A water hazard does not need to contain water this side of the pond and our rule and definition is what Jason thinks should be changed.

Adrian, the Rules of Golf are exactly identical throughout the world.  The USGA has authority over the USA and Mexico, the R&A over the rest of the world, except for Canada, which is independent but closely aligned with the R&A.  

The definition of a Water Hazard is part of the Rules and is the same everywhere.  Notice the definition states, in part "A “water hazard” is any sea, lake, pond, river, ditch, surface drainage ditch or other open water course (whether or not containing water).  It does not allow any area to be defined as a water hazard, a WH must fit the description quoted.  So, for example, a grove of trees may not be marked as a WH but a drainage ditch that contains water only during the winter may be.  In practice there is some leeway on marking the boundaries of WH/LWH but they still need to fall within the basic definition.

To repeat what has been mentioned already, a club has no authority to declare an area of the course an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA), that status only comes from a local authority.  Once marked as such, however, (whether correctly or incorrectly) one of the options is to have them play as a water hazard or later water hazard (yellow or red stakes with a green top).

Completely opposite in our book....says we can

[Adrian_Stiff]

I really appreciate this discussion thread. At my club (state owned park), there are a ton of environmental areas that were once lined with flags. Now, it is just known that the high-grass areas are ESAs. For the sake of speeding up play, the course ruled that any ball hit into those areas was not to be retrieved, and the player gets a free drop at the point of entry.

In my mind, this has created way too easy of a test of golf. People are winning matches because they get multiple free drops. You have holes with OB down the left side and an ESA down the right. It is very easy to swing hard but favor the ride side, knowing that a free drop awaits if you hit it bad and right.

There are some good points on here about switching the local rule to making it a hazard, most likely laterally. But, if speed of play was the major concern, would changing the area to play like a hazard slow play to a halt? Would players spend excessive amounts of time looking for a ball in an ESA knowing they might have a play?

Will, that was why we did it, better to have the penalty than the ground under repair and free drop scenario, which kinda ruins how the course plays.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"For example, a player looking for his ball moved a dead tree limb that had fallen on a path in the woods.
He was 50 yards from his ball, yet, he had inadvertantly committed an infraction of the rules."


Patrick:

Why do you think that was a rules infraction?

It's not a question of me thinking an infraction occured, it's a matter of fact.

The entire left flank of the hole was marked as a lateral hazard.

You couldn't move objects in a hazard when you're looking for your ball, irrespective of whether they're 5 millimeters, 5 inches, 5 yards or 50 yards from your ball.

I felt the ruling was excessively harsh, given the nature and reasons that the wooded area was marked as a lateral hazard.

The unfortunate part was it was the competitor's caddy who moved the limb.

I appealed the ruling on the competitor's behalf because I felt the situation was so unusual, but, those in charge indicated that they had specifically warned the field of this potential problem at the Player's dinner the night before the competition began, and, at the starter's table.  

[Will Haskett]

I really appreciate this discussion thread. At my club (state owned park), there are a ton of environmental areas that were once lined with flags. Now, it is just known that the high-grass areas are ESAs. For the sake of speeding up play, the course ruled that any ball hit into those areas was not to be retrieved, and the player gets a free drop at the point of entry.

In my mind, this has created way too easy of a test of golf. People are winning matches because they get multiple free drops. You have holes with OB down the left side and an ESA down the right. It is very easy to swing hard but favor the ride side, knowing that a free drop awaits if you hit it bad and right.

There are some good points on here about switching the local rule to making it a hazard, most likely laterally. But, if speed of play was the major concern, would changing the area to play like a hazard slow play to a halt? Would players spend excessive amounts of time looking for a ball in an ESA knowing they might have a play?

Will, that was why we did it, better to have the penalty than the ground under repair and free drop scenario, which kinda ruins how the course plays.

Can you enforce it in such a way that people can not play their ball from the ESA if they find it? My fear would be people spending as much time as possible to find the ball and play it, just like when you are in a dry creek bed marked red, or something similar.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Will- I think you could play your ball if you walked straight to it and it was in an opening and there are a couple of openings. In our case mainly the area is so thick that really to drop under LWH rules would be more benificial that a trying to hack it out back into play, which would be almost impossible anyway. We dont stipulate that you cant play out of these areas, we merely desiginate them as Lateral water hazards.

[Steve Burrows]

The point has been brought up earlier on the thread, but seems to have been marginalized: a "No-Mow" area and an ESA are two vastly different scenarios.  Whereas an ESA is determined by outside agencies, a "No-Mow" area is a naturalized area of turf determined, usually with the superintendent consulting with the club pro, or vice versa, by finding areas that are most typically out of play.  More often than not, the areas are in no way environmentally significant, but rather it becomes clear that not mowing certain areas will positively effect the maintenance budget (less fuel used for mowing and/or less labor).  The fact that these naturalized areas often help contribute to environmental health, via habitat patches, filtration of water, etc., is simply a bonus.  

They can (and perhaps should) be played through the green, and a lost ball is certainly a possibility.  But, moreover, with varying skill levels of the millions of golfers worlwide, or even the hundreds who typically play your home club, we should all be able to admit that there is no such thing as an "Out-of-Play" part of a given golf course.  Every inch of a property is in play.  Surely people leave the wide fairways of Sand Hills, or Prairie Dunes every day?  But, in that instance, the club cannot possibly mow down every area of the property where people might hit a ball, nor should they; it's too vast. The surrounding grasses are left there for budgetary and aesthetic reasons.  A club in an urban context is simply trying to solve the same problem.  

[Jason Topp]

One clarification I would like to add regarding the areas at my club -

They have been marked with white stakes with green tips. 

I believe the original ruling (find it - free drop/ lose it - lost ball) was an attempt to treat the areas as ground under repair.  I do not think it was applied correctly because the rules allow for a free drop even if a ball is lost in ground under repair provided that you are reasonably certain it is there.  (Rule 25-1C).

[Mike Lacey]

The so called "Desert Rule" is an attempt to deal with a similar issue.  From the web site of the TPC Las Vegas: 

What is the “Desert Rule?”
The Desert Rule is a local rule adapted for playing golf in the desert.  The rule was designed to provide for an easier and quicker round.  If a player hits their ball into the desert, they can take a stroke and drop a ball on the grass where the ball last crossed into the desert.

Basically, it results in the desert being played as a lateral water hazard.  Unlike the treatment at Will's club, there is a penalty assessed.  It does serve to speed up play.  It also, in my opinion, is not consistent with the Rule of Golf and serves to result in lower scores and handicaps for those that play accordingly. 

[mike_beene]

It still seems to me the USGA marking the cliffs lateral at Torrey Pines is a stretch of their own rules.

[TEPaul]

Jason:

I've been thinking about your post #38----basically that they're using white stakes with green tops. I'll get to it later. For now I have to go mow the labyrinth!