River in a Golf Course - Water Hazard or Out of Bounds??

[Duncan Cheslett]

At Reddish Vale we are blessed with a spectacular river flowing through the course, which is in play on several holes, notably the 6th and the 16th



The river has always been marked with OOB posts on these holes, but I repeatedly been asked by visitors such as Ran Morrisett and Ward Peyronnin why it is not a water hazard.  I have no answer other than that's how it has always been.

The only issue I can think of is safety; the banks are treacherous and the river deep. It might not be a good idea for golfers to be tempted to play shots from precarious positions. On the other hand, a drop and one shot penalty would seem a fairer punishment than two shots and distance.

What are the arguments either way?


PS The trees bordering the river on the par 3 6th have all been removed since this Google Earth image.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Duncan - As soon as I saw your post I was thinking safety as the reason. You pretty much confirmed it. In this day and age Safety is the big over-rider. The Club almost certainly have made the right call.

[Jim Nugent]

Duncan - As soon as I saw your post I was thinking safety as the reason. You pretty much confirmed it. In this day and age Safety is the big over-rider. The Club almost certainly have made the right call.

I take it the dangerous part is climbing down the bank.  So declare everything from the bank down as a lateral water hazard.  Keeps the golfers safe, and penalizes them less. 

[Thomas Dai]

Duncan - As soon as I saw your post I was thinking safety as the reason. You pretty much confirmed it. In this day and age Safety is the big over-rider. The Club almost certainly have made the right call.

I take it the dangerous part is climbing down the bank.  So declare everything from the bank down as a lateral water hazard.  Keeps the golfers safe, and penalizes them less.

[/size][size=78%]What about in the case of say a huge bending hook/slice where the ball initially crosses the river on the near side but flies in such a big curve that the ball finally enters the river from the far side? [/size]


Atb

[Adrian_Stiff]

Duncan - As soon as I saw your post I was thinking safety as the reason. You pretty much confirmed it. In this day and age Safety is the big over-rider. The Club almost certainly have made the right call.

I take it the dangerous part is climbing down the bank.  So declare everything from the bank down as a lateral water hazard.  Keeps the golfers safe, and penalizes them less.

That is exactly what the OOB is trying to avoid. For Safety reasons the principle is too keep golfers away from the river. The OOB would be the highest possible way to mitigate danger (next step fencing)of golfers going near the bank. If you redstake, you can play out of LWH. Golfers will go there and possibly risk their lives with saving a shot. This type of situation can come up in an insurance audit. One of those not nice answer situations. For golfing reasons red stakes are better.

[Josh Stevens]

Interesting how this argument gels with the thread last week about internal OOB?

Internal OOB for safety reasons to prevent people being hit by oncoming balls is the devils work, but this one is ok?

[Sean_A]

These incidents aren't even the main offender.  The 4th has OOB down the left which is a bit loopy.  My call, river is a hazard. Any golfer with half a brain isn't going down in the river to play a shot.  They may go down to retrieve a ball in which case OOB doesn't help.


Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

These incidents aren't even the main offender.  The 4th has OOB down the left which is a bit loopy.  My call, river is a hazard. Any golfer with half a brain isn't going down in the river to play a shot.  They may go down to retrieve a ball in which case OOB doesn't help.


Ciao

If they still go to retrieve their ball then the next stop is to fence. Very ugly. No doubt that best for golf is redstakes but we don't live in a world where everything is about what's best for golf and whilst most people have half of a brain many have less than 50% of that required grey stuff. Hence 'silly' rules to protect getting sued, massive insurance premiums.


This is the horrible side of being a golf course architect and one of the jobs is safety mitigation where you look for the best routes to create a situation where the club did all that could be done to protect the user. As soon as an architect or safety officer issues a way forward should the club not take that advice and an incident occur they are absolutely ****ed. Highly unlikely a golf committee would ever go against a recommendation.

[Thomas Dai]

Just to clarify here, is the suggestion yellow stakes or red stakes instead of OB?


If it's red staked then does not the player have the option after penalty to play the ball from the other (far) side? Could become interesting in the case of a river!


Maybe not just a safety issue but a rules simplicity and pace of play issue as well.


And, if the land on the opposite side of the river is not owned by the course, there's presumably a trespass implication too.


Atb

[Duncan Cheslett]

Yellow stakes wouldn't work because the hazard is clearly lateral. As it happens the club does own the land on the opposite banks but for players to use that option would be a logistical nightmare involving a fifteen minute hike over the distant bridge to play the shot and walk back again.

A good option might be red stakes with compulsory drop on the same side of the river or from where the original shot was played. This would in effect reduce the penalty to one shot rather than two, but is it possible under the rules of golf not to allow play from within a lateral water hazard in the interests of safety?

[Tags:]

Tags: