There's just nothing left to say

[Jerry Kluger]

I played last week at my friend's club and it has a whole bunch of huge pine trees that hang low to the ground and are about 20 feet across at the base.  My friend told me how they liked the trees as they separated the holes and made the course more challenging.  I then suggested that perhaps they should at least cut off the lower branches so if you hit one and were under the tree you could get to your ball and try and recover.  He told me that the low branches made it play more difficult and I suggested that the only thing it did was to eat golf balls and grow poison ivy.

We then saw a couple that was playing the next hole which happened to be parallel to us and one of them had hit a ball under one of those trees.  The man pushed his way through the branches and got to his ball and brought it out to where he had an unobstructed shot.  I said to my friend that is not how he should be playing an unplayable lie and his response was: "We just play them as lateral hazards."

[Kalen Braley]

I played a course last weekend that also had these christmas trees all over.  It was like having little pockets of OB everywhere on the course, because these were so dense, if you hit your ball into it, you couldn't even find your ball, hence technically one should play it as a lost ball.

However we also just played them as a lateral hazard...

And its beyond me why if they insist on having these trees on the course, they can't cut the lower branches off...

[Jerry Kluger]

I just don't understand it - what's the point of the trees?  They surely aren't attractive so the only purpose can be to harshly penalize the golfer otherwise they would at least cut away the lower branches.  But then they invoke a local rule that has no basis as the situation is surely not unique.  They might as well invoke a local rule that says that all rules do not apply unless otherwise noted.  

[Brent Hutto]

I have  theory that there's a certain class of golfer who want there to be only one kind of obstacle on the golf course. They want "lateral hazards" which are clearly visible and must be avoided at the cost of dropping a ball with a one-stroke penalty. They don't much care if it's lateral water hazards or tall grass "treated as a lateral" or woods or OB for which they'll drop a ball anyway. Anywhere else the ball ought to be easily playable.

So by extension, these trees you describe are the ideal "lateral hazards". They are obvious and they are treated as though they have exactly that penalty for failing to avoid them. Basically, they're equivalent to a big sign saying "Don't Go Here" and you're just supposed to pay one stroke for failing to heed the warning.

I think the actual game of golf is more interesting by far but judging from the behavior of some people I've been paired up with the game I just described is quite popular. Everything's either lateral hazard or it should be treated as one.

[George Pazin]

I have  theory that there's a certain class of golfer who want there to be only one kind of obstacle on the golf course. They want "lateral hazards" which are clearly visible and must be avoided at the cost of dropping a ball with a one-stroke penalty. They don't much care if it's lateral water hazards or tall grass "treated as a lateral" or woods or OB for which they'll drop a ball anyway. Anywhere else the ball ought to be easily playable.

So by extension, these trees you describe are the ideal "lateral hazards". They are obvious and they are treated as though they have exactly that penalty for failing to avoid them. Basically, they're equivalent to a big sign saying "Don't Go Here" and you're just supposed to pay one stroke for failing to heed the warning.

I think the actual game of golf is more interesting by far but judging from the behavior of some people I've been paired up with the game I just described is quite popular. Everything's either lateral hazard or it should be treated as one.

Plus, they get to be all warm and fuzzy because they like trees, and they know they will always have a friend in John Kavanaugh.

[Ken Moum]

I have  theory that there's a certain class of golfer who want there to be only one kind of obstacle on the golf course. They want "lateral hazards" which are clearly visible and must be avoided at the cost of dropping a ball with a one-stroke penalty.

You might be right.

There's a small-town country club near here that built a new nine on a piece of property that was covered in forest. They basically bulldozed it out lf the trees.

It has quite narrow corridors, and on at least 6 of the holes there are red stakes down both side of the fairway. Although there is a creek on the property, those holes are just surrounded by the jungle-like forest. Without the stakes, most golfers could never finish a round.

That nine is only 2676, par 34 from the whites and it's a hard bugger to score on.

I don't know if I could stand it on a regular basis.

Ken

[Jerry Kluger]

Brent: I know what you are saying but these people are simply morons. Plant the trees, refuse to cut the lower branches so the penalty is as severe as possible and to make it "more challenging," and then have a local rule waiving the penalty.  That could make sense to some people but to me it is simply moronic.

You have 3 choices: 1. cut down the trees; 2. cut back the lower branches so you can find the ball and play a recovery shot; or 3. keep the trees just as they are.  

BUT PLAY BY THE RULES!