[Jason Topp]

   Adopting a widespread trend,  my course added a bunch of no mow areas this year. Players are allowed to enter the areas and play from them but carts are not allowed to enter.

Such areas generally look good (depending on taste) and appear to have significant environmental benefits.  The problem with such areas is that they make for crappy golf, except when areas consist of thin and wispy grass thereby randomly allowing for possible recovery shots.

My understanding is that under the current rules, a club has the option of treating these areas in one of the following ways:  (a) play it as it lies  (b) free drop or (c) declaring the areas out of bounds.   

My course initially adopted a goofy local rule (which am not sure conforms with the rules of golf) which declared a ball lost if it could not be found in a no mow area (marked with stakes) but allowed for a free drop if the ball was found.  In the middle of the year they changed the rule so that the areas would be treated as a lateral water hazard - which I am quite certain does not conform to the rules of golf because most of these areas do not contain water.

Regardless of whether it is correct under the rules, I like the water hazard approach and would like to see the rules changed to allow for marking such areas as water hazards.  For courses with such areas that do not allow the player to enter, they could be treated as lateral water hazards where the player does not have the option of playing the ball as it lies.

Advantages:

1.  Allows option to play the ball
2.  Penalty of lateral hazard seems more in line with the mistake of the player - it seems to me that there should be a penalty but not as bad as OB.
3.  Allows for some expansion of these areas and allows them to be incorporated in the design of holes rather than put in out of the way places on the course

Disadvantages:

1.  A person who loses a ball in bounds is penalized more severely than someone that hits it in one of these areas. 

2.  I cannot think of any others.


I own Richard Tuft's book.  I understand that this concept compromises the concepts of playing the ball as it lies and playing the course as you find it.  However, water hazards already compromise this principle.  Furthermore, treating such areas as OB or ground under repair also violates those principles.  I think the advantages of a water hazard approach outweigh the disadvantages.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Jason-We use a rule that enviromental areas are treated as lateral water hazards. I think you can deem whatever you want as a lateral water hazard, it gives the player the option he can find his ball and play it, drop it and better he does not have to find it provided it has been seen to cross the hazard.
It definitely speeds up play too.
I would be interested if any rules buff has a different interpretation.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jason,

ESA's are off limits to golfers.

They cannot be entered, therefor you cannot search for your ball.

Consultation with the USGA is probably the best bet for your club.

[Jason Topp]

Jason,

ESA's are off limits to golfers.

They cannot be entered, therefor you cannot search for your ball.

Consultation with the USGA is probably the best bet for your club.

Patrick - I know that is often the case but at our club it is not.  You are allowed to enter but not allowed to drive a cart in the stuff.  My suggestion holds whether you are allowed to enter or not.

I believe the USGA would say treatment as a lateral hazard is contrary to the rules because the areas do not meet the definition of a water hazard.  I am suggestion that the definition should be changed to accomodate this evolution in the game.

[Dan Herrmann]

As far as I know, you'd mark the areas with green-tipped red stakes.  I think your exact situation is covered in a USGA publication (although I forget which one - it may actually be the rule book or How to Conduct a Competition.

[TEPaul]

Jason:

Pat's right that areas that do not at all conform to the definition in the Rules of Golf book of a Water Hazard (look up the definition) are areas that the USGA does not recommend be designated as Water Hazards or Lateral Water Hazards.

Pat is also right in that areas that are designated as "Environmental" (or environmentally sensitive) can be designated as WHs or LWHs if they conform to the Rules definition of WH but these are areas that cannot be entered by a player. Generally they are identified with red stakes with a green tip on the top!

I believe if a player even enters those areas and I know if he plays a ball from those areas or even puts his foot in one he can be subject to disqualification.

I know that because one of our good amateurs around here did that in a Philadelphia Open and he was not aware of that prohibition. When he became aware of it somehow after his round he went to the tournament committee and reported it and had himself DQed and he was in contention. A pretty cool act of conscience and the move of a real sportsman, in my opinion. His name is Mike Gregor, and he has always been not just a very fine player but what a golfer should be with and in his good conscience for the game and the spirit of it!

[Dan Herrmann]

From the USGA:

http://www.usga.org/turf/articles/video/esa.html

(PS - you do use red, yellow, or white green-tipped stakes.  And, the ESA must be designated by a governmental agency  -- the club, committee, or super may not declare an ESA unilaterally)

[Bob_Huntley]

Spanish Bay, from day one had ESA's (Environmentally Sensitive Areas) where it was verboten to even enter the space to retrieve a ball. One dropped a ball without penalty.

I remember vividly, deliberately driving into the ESA on the tenth hole to take advantage of the increased length off the tee and avoiding a sloping fairway that ordinarily might have kicked into some real trouble.

It wasn't golf.


Bob

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jason,

At the USGA Mid-Am at Bellerive the USGA declared a wooded area as a lateral hazard.

In some cases this creates more problems than it cures.

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.

I don't think that declaring the area as a water hazard is a good idea as a golfer or his caddy, while searching for his ball could touch and/or move tall grass and other objects fixed or not fixed during their search, thus incurring a penalty.

If the area is that much in play, it SHOULD BE MOWED.

If it's not that much in play, just let it be an unkept area where carts are prohibited from entry.

[Jason Topp]

Jason,

At the USGA Mid-Am at Bellerive the USGA declared a wooded area as a lateral hazard.

In some cases this creates more problems than it cures.

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.

I don't think that declaring the area as a water hazard is a good idea as a golfer or his caddy, while searching for his ball could touch and/or move tall grass and other objects fixed or not fixed during their search, thus incurring a penalty.

If the area is that much in play, it SHOULD BE MOWED.

If it's not that much in play, just let it be an unkept area where carts are prohibited from entry.

Patrick:
Thanks for the rules infraction perspective.  That certainly is a downside I did not think about.

From a golf perspective - I agree it should be mowed - but in the real world, these areas are becoming more and more popular. 

What is the downside if it is a true Environmentally Sensitive Area that cannot be entered?

[mike_beene]

At Jeff B's Cowboys some of the wooded areas are so thick you can not walk in without cutting yourself.Also a snake infested area.We treat these as laterals(the course doesn't stake anything).

[TEPaul]

"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?

[TEPaul]

"What is the downside if it is a true Environmentally Sensitive Area that cannot be entered?"

Jason:

Because like a WH (which are generally designated as a red stake area) the player cannot go in there and look for his golf ball and he sure can't hit a golf ball in there as he can in a WH.

[Chris Cupit]

"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?

I assume that since the area in which he was looking had been defined as a water hazard of some type, the infraction was removal of a loose impediment in a hazard.

For guidance on the matter in general The Appendix in the Decisions book (around page 500) gives the info re:  ESAs.  In the Decisions book they make the point that a Committee should not declare an ESA a water hazard if it does not share the characterisitcs of a water hazard.

Good Luck. 

[Adam Clayman]

What is the downside if it is a true Environmentally Sensitive Area that cannot be entered?

Declaring areas lateral to speed up play, or, in this instance, ESA's cheats the golfer from recording accurate scores. Since handicaps are based on accurate scoring (and ESC) the downside I see is that the glfer would then have a handicap they are not entitled to. A lower one.

My advice, gamble with anyone who belongs to a club that uses these BS lateral drop areas.

[Jason Topp]

"What is the downside if it is a true Environmentally Sensitive Area that cannot be entered?"

Jason:

Because like a WH (which are generally designated as a red stake area) the player cannot go in there and look for his golf ball and he sure can't hit a golf ball in there as he can in a WH.

Tom:

You misunderstand my question which is - what is the downside of treating such areas as water hazards (meaning ESAs that do not meet the definition of a water hazard independent of the designation).  I do not think there is much downside and find it preferable to Mr. Huntley's example of intentionally aiming for ESA's or the alternative of playing golf effectively down tunnels of ob stakes (such as at Wolf Creek).

[Jason Topp]

What is the downside if it is a true Environmentally Sensitive Area that cannot be entered?

Declaring areas lateral to speed up play, or, in this instance, ESA's cheats the golfer from recording accurate scores. Since handicaps are based on accurate scoring (and ESC) the downside I see is that the glfer would then have a handicap they are not entitled to. A lower one.

My advice, gamble with anyone who belongs to a club that uses these BS lateral drop areas.

Adam - as compared to those that mark the areas as ground under repair? 

[Dale Jackson]

Gentlemen, some information about the details of the rules being discussed on this thread.

Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) - can only be deemed as such by a local authority - town, county, etc.  Usually setting aside these areas to protect wildlife areas, fish streams and so on, is mandated as part of the golf course development permitting.  ESA can not be arbitrarily implemented by the golf club itself.  ESA can be played as a Water Hazard, Ground Under Repair or OB.  IN each case stakes with green tops are used to identify the area.  While there is a 2 shot penalty for playing a shot from an area of ESA, there is no penalty under the Rules of Golf for entering ESA.  There may, however, be local ordinances which prohibit entry, that is up to the local authority that mandated the ESA.

In the case cited above where a player was disqualified from a tournament for entering ESA, it is more likely that he played a stroke from the area, signed his scorecard without including the penalty and then was disqualified for signing an incorrect scorecard.  If the Committee disqualified him for entering the ESA only, they errored.

Water Hazards/Lateral Water Hazards - an area of a golf course can not be marked as a WH/LWH unless it fits the definition listed in the Rules of Golf.  If, as mentioned above, the USGA marked a wooded area as a LWH, then there would have been a stream or marsh or similar in the woods.

If a club decides to let certain areas of its course grow wild, then what is wrong with having those areas "through the green", the same as a wooded area or any other part of the course that is not a putting green, water hazard, bunker or teeing ground?

As for having the ruling bodies change the rules - good luck with that one!

[Jason Topp]

What is the downside if it is a true Environmentally Sensitive Area that cannot be entered?

Declaring areas lateral to speed up play, or, in this instance, ESA's cheats the golfer from recording accurate scores. Since handicaps are based on accurate scoring (and ESC) the downside I see is that the glfer would then have a handicap they are not entitled to. A lower one.

My advice, gamble with anyone who belongs to a club that uses these BS lateral drop areas.

Adam - as compared to those that mark the areas as ground under repair? 

Adam -

I am suggesting that the rule be changed which would eliminate the problem you raise.

If the course were rated consistent with the water hazard designation theoretically the handicap would be accurate.

[TEPaul]

"Tom:

You misunderstand my question which is - what is the downside of treating such areas as water hazards (meaning ESAs that do not meet the definition of a water hazard independent of the designation).  I do not think there is much downside and find it preferable to Mr. Huntley's example of intentionally aiming for ESA's or the alternative of playing golf effectively down tunnels of ob stakes (such as at Wolf Creek)."


Jason:

In response I would say I think you misunderstand what I said earlier about the designation of some area on a golf course that does not fit the definition of what the USGA defines as a WH.

The question becomes does your club really want to designate some area a WH that the USGA's definition of a WH does not really encompass?

The best way to get an answer to a question like yours is not to ask it on here but to simply call the USGA Rules Committee and explain the entire situation and just ask for their opinion on it. Basically THAT is what they are there for Jason!  

Some on here may think they are a better source of information or opinon on these kinds of things than the USGA but I hope both you and I know that is not really the case!

[Jason Topp]

Gentlemen, some information about the details of the rules being discussed on this thread.


If a club decides to let certain areas of its course grow wild, then what is wrong with having those areas "through the green", the same as a wooded area or any other part of the course that is not a putting green, water hazard, bunker or teeing ground?

Dale - thanks for the rule review that comports with my understanding.  I have no problem with through the green designation if the areas are significantly out of play or wispy enough to allow recovery shots.  The problem arises if you spend a bunch of time looking for balls in the areas and then it is impossible to play a shot from them.  From a golf perspective, I think such areas should be mowed unless they are well out of play.

Nonetheless, the areas are popular.  The purported benefits are (1)the areas benefit the environment; (2) people like the look and (3) the areas reduce maintainence costs.

Unless they are wispy, such areas make for miserable golf if designated "through the green. " It is nearly impossible to either find or play the ball from them.  The people who hit the balls there are inevitably beginners or people having a bad day.  It also limits the ability of a course to use such areas as strategic hazards, which conceivably could be desireable.  

[Jason Topp]

"Tom:

You misunderstand my question which is - what is the downside of treating such areas as water hazards (meaning ESAs that do not meet the definition of a water hazard independent of the designation).  I do not think there is much downside and find it preferable to Mr. Huntley's example of intentionally aiming for ESA's or the alternative of playing golf effectively down tunnels of ob stakes (such as at Wolf Creek)."


Jason:

In response I would say I think you misunderstand what I said earlier about the designation of some area on a golf course that does not fit the definition of what the USGA defines as a WH.

The question becomes does your club really want to designate some area a WH that the USGA's definition of a WH does not really encompass?

The best way to get an answer to a question like yours is not to ask it on here but to simply call the USGA Rules Committee and explain the entire situation and just ask for their opinion on it. Basically THAT is what they are there for Jason!  

Some on here may think they are a better source of information or opinon on these kinds of things than the USGA but I hope both you and I know that is not really the case!

Tom:

Yes, apparently my club does want to designate something a water hazard contrary to the rules.  I know that because I precisely spelled out the fact that this designation violates the definition in the rules and we went ahead with it anyway.  I know we are not alone.  I have seen similar designations on other courses applied to the desert, to wooded areas and to long grass areas.

After bristling about it for awhile, I have come to think that it could be that my club has it right and the USGA should re-evaluate.  If these areas really provide the benefits claimed for them  - a water hazard designation would make such areas more palatable while still ensuring that the player does not benefit by hitting into them.

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.

[Adrian_Stiff]

This rule and definition seem different outside the USGA.

[TEPaul]

“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.

[TEPaul]

"In the case cited above where a player was disqualified from a tournament for entering ESA, it is more likely that he played a stroke from the area, signed his scorecard without including the penalty and then was disqualified for signing an incorrect scorecard.  If the Committee disqualified him for entering the ESA only, they errored."


Dale:

That is exactly what the situation involved. That player was not DQed for entering an ESA but for failing to include a penalty which he was not aware of on the course for playing a ball from it and therefore signing for a score on that hole that was lower than what it should have been.


"If a club decides to let certain areas of its course grow wild, then what is wrong with having those areas "through the green", the same as a wooded area or any other part of the course that is not a putting green, water hazard, bunker or teeing ground?"

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. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()