[Tom Huckaby]

shivas:

I absolutely concur with the bunker assessment - there's no way it is such, because that has to be prepared.  I do think there's an area right up close to the green - where they do place rakes - that is prepared though.  So that part is bunker, the rest is what is in question here.  And there's no way the rest is bunker, in real world or any theoretical version thereof.

It does remain powerful to me that the area is unmarked.  But perhaps I am more ready to trust the SCGA than you are.  

Let's just say this:  that area would make a GREAT testing ground, or recalibration site, for course raters.  I'd bet if you asked a group of 20 to define that area, it would split 10/10.  So yes, I suppose the theoretical debate here is worth having.

It's just really hard to have looking at pictures or relying on memory!  If we were standing right next to it we would be more effective.

Thus I retreat to going with the SCGA.  Man I would love to know one way or the other what they decided on this - because as I say, it really could go either way.

TH

[John_Cullum]

You guys are looking at this the wrong way.

Under the Rules of Golf, it is a water hazard if it is an open water course. It becomes a lateral water hazard if it is impractical to drop in accordance with the water hazard rule.

It is only a bunker if it is a prepared area (it seems not).

If the folks at Rustic Canyon want it to be treated as through the green, they can draft a local rule. Absent that it is clearly a water hazard.  under the rules.

[Tom Huckaby]

JC - I can buy all of that except the last part.  Why is it "clearly a water hazard under the rules"?

I see no clarity at all.   This is surely not an "open water course" - or at least it's not absolutely clear that it is. Look at the pics - and remember it is damn near always dry, filled with sand, grassed on the sides.  In many other instances like this, my fellow course raters and I have accepted dry washes as "through the green."  I really think it is far more murky than it is clear.

TH

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Sean,
Exactly! Play it as it lies, don't touch the ground until the actual swing. Some of you would be shocked if you knew just how many bunkers were actually evolutions of natural creeks and drainage paths. The front bunker at Riv #1 for example.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tommy - hell yes, absent any other direction, that's how to handle it without a doubt.  But that goes for any rules confusion, really - unless you want to go to the trouble of that 3-3 play two balls stuff.

So this is more just interesting conjecture than giving advice on how to handle it in play - hell, if it's a tournament, I'd have no doubt it would be clarified anyway.  And outside of that, jeez just play it as it lies and move along.

 

BTW, I have no doubt many current bunkers were evolutions of creeks and drainage paths - it's just that if they are, one no longer calls them water hazards nor plays them as such under the rules.

TH

[John_Cullum]

In looking at Dave's picture, I cannot see that it is anything other than a water course. Now, I live in the Southeastern US, maybe there are cracks and fissures in the earth surface in California that I have never experienced, and a geologically minded person would be able to say with certainty that it is not a water course. Even in that circumstance I have to believe the rules would treat this as "similar in NATURE", and nature may be a very important word here.

The point to this exercise is to realize that the rules of golf will resolve a doubtful issue if you'll let them. You can navigate an entirely unmarked golf course just by observing the rules, with one exception-the course must define its own boundaries.

I can assure you that if any competition is conducted by a properly organized committee, there will be a local rule clarifying this area, or it will be marked red or yellow.

[Tom Huckaby]

JC:  I've made that point all along - that this is indeed nothing more than fun conjecture, that if one is playing in a competition the issue will surely be settled one way or another - so heck, this may be just another instance of mental masturbation on this site.

 

But methinks you need to get to California more.  We have plenty of cracks in the earth that we sure as hell wouldn't call water courses, nor would we call similar in nature.  I face this in course rating more often than you'd guess.

So that is why I am not prepared to say it's clearly a water course nor similar in nature.

However, I sure wouldn't argue with anyone who wanted to determine it does meet that definition.  As I say, it's very close.

My only issue with you is you want to say it's CLEARLY a water course.  That I don't agree with.  

[John_Cullum]

Another observation, you and Tommy approach this wrong by saying play it without grounding your club. If it is a hazard, you cannot ground your club. If you say play it as it lies, you don't have any restriction. Use the rules and make a decision, one way or the other.

Keep in mind that if you are playing in a match play format, you can resolve these issues by agreement with your opponent. The rules will allow that.

In stroke play, just make up your mind one way or the other. The world will keep right on spinning. Even the best rules officials in the most important competitions make mistakes on drops and such, but they keep the game moving, that's really the most important thing on their mind.

[Tom Huckaby]

JC:

Well, I just think it's a hell of a lot easier to err on the side of caution and not ground your club than it is to seek out a rules official, or do the whole 3-3 thing.  To me grounding one's club gives so little advantage that it's just not worth it.  So absent competition - which of course is what we're talking about given we both assuming in a tournament the issue would be settled - why not just take the safe road and get on with it?

On the other hand, outside competition, who the hell cares what you do?  So ground away if it makes you feel better.

Let's just say this:  I've played the course 5 times.  I believe once I was in that crevice.  It was on the grassy side part of it - I sure as hell grounded my club and didn't give it a second thought.

Only here in the world of theory do such things get considered.  And my advice to not ground one's club was geared to those who care about the rules outside of competion a whole hell of a lot more than I do.  So this is a case most definitely of do as I say, not as I do.

 

[John_Cullum]

After you gain experience working with the rules, you start to realize that most of these questions are not going to affect the outcome of a round. If I say you must treat it as a water hazard, then you are going to do one of two things, play it without grounding your club, or take a penalty drop using the point of entry for reference. If I say through the green, you are going to play it, maybe grounding your club or maybe not, depending on the lie, or you are going to declare it unplayable and take a penalty drop within 10 feet of where you would drop if it were a water hazard.

[Tom Huckaby]

JC - I have zero issue with any of that.

I also have zero doubt that this situation at Rustic is settled one way or the other in truly competitive play, which does occur there.

So yes, this is just mental masturbation.

It also would be a great place to train course raters and rules officials, no?

TH

[John_Cullum]

But it is more than mental masturbating, it's playing golf according to the rules. Just knowing the rules is the mental masturbation part. I enjoy knowing the rules and studying them, that's definitely masturbating. Playing the game by the rules, now that's the real deal, its the equivalent of having sex with the game of golf.

[Tom Huckaby]

JC - wow - that was well-said and I am cracking up!

Ok, how's this:  my recollection is that one of my rounds there with my family group, my Dad did hit it into that crevice.  He plays by the rules as much as I turn away hamburgers and beer, but we do have a fairly serious, bragging-rights match amongst us, so he did ask all of us what he could do.  Me being the only one in the group with even any rudimentary knowledge of the true rules of golf, the question went to me.

My answer?

Well, just to be safe, don't ground your club.  It might be a water hazard, might be a bunker, so what the hell.  I'm not really sure.  But let's not give them any excuses to penalize us (Dad was my partner - all sorts of concurrent matches going on, match play, stroke play, total strokes and better ball - we're weird).

That's all I meant by how to treat this.

So my Dad didn't get to consummate his relationship with golf that day.  But we sure as hell moved along and no advantage was gained either way.  If we cared more about the rules as you do, well we would have discussed it later.  As it was it was water under the bridge by the time his shot was hit.

TH

[Joe Hancock]

But it is more than mental masturbating, it's playing golf according to the rules. Just knowing the rules is the mental masturbation part. I enjoy knowing the rules and studying them, that's definitely masturbating. Playing the game by the rules, now that's the real deal, its the equivalent of having sex with the game of golf.

I'm coming to some very profound conclusions regarding my life here. I just need to explain myself differently to my wife......" honey, I'm just learnin' the rules..."

Joe

[John_Cullum]

- all sorts of concurrent matches going on, match play, stroke play, total strokes and better ball - we're weird).

Now see, that's why the ruling bodies of the game say you don't mix match play and stroke play in the same round.

That is the equivalent of golf incest. Or bisexual golf. Very frowned upon.

[Tom Huckaby]

Hmmmm - golf incest doesn't sound right to me, because we have so much fun in these matches and well, I'm not prepared to put incest in the fun category....

So how about we call it golf group-sex?

That is, morally and ethically wrong but likely quite fun if one is so inclined.

 

Anyway, the point is, obsessing over the rules is all well and good, and interest in such is great for those so inclined.  But in casual play if I'm playing behind a group that delays things obssessing over what to do on #1 Rustic in an effort to get it exactly right, I'm lauching missles into them.

[John_Cullum]

Well be comforted that the rules do allow some degree of bisexual golf. Thus the rules for Threesomes and foursomes. Of course, only one male is to be considered in the golf/sex paralell. there is no gay golf.

[David Druzisky]

Wow.  Since it is sandy bottomed and if you let the Army Corp define it then it would be a "waters of the US" and you wouldn't be able to use it!  Looks like a dry creek thus water hazzard since it has a sandy bottom and water can run through it.  Does the golf hole drain into it?

DbD

[peter_p]

   I'm going to make a supposition that the area in question has always been in this condition, not marked as a (lateral) water hazard. It isn't a case where the marking crew has let lines fade out or stakes be removed during the winter, etc.
Also making a supposition that other like areas are marked as hazards.
    If both of these suppositions are correct, then I would surmise the Committee deliberately chose not to mark this area as a hazard. If it doesn't meet the definition of a bunker it would be "through the green". The club could be grounded and loose impediments could be moved.

[David Kelly]

If both of these suppositions are correct, then I would surmise the Committee deliberately chose not to mark this area as a hazard.

Believe me there was no Committee to convene.

[DMoriarty]

I have been informed by a few of the assistant pros that this ditch is neither a water hazard nor a sand bunker, and is therefor is played as "through the green."  This includes the sandy area in front of the green which is maintained as a bunker but apparently isnt one.

[JohnV]

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.

In a competition, the Rules Committee for the competition.  In everyday play, the Committee in charge of the course.  That could a Golf Committee, a Green Committee, the pro, the super, or anyone else who is charged with that duty.

As for the area in question, if I were running an event there, I'd want to know if water ever collects in the bottom of it.  If so, I'd probably mark it as a hazard so that a person couldn't get casual water relief and get out of it.  If not, I'd probably leave it alone and make sure I noted on the local rules sheet that it was considered  "through the green."   If the other area that David mentions is maintained as a bunker (it is raked and/or there are rakes there), it should be considered a bunker.

[David Kelly]

I've never seen water collect on the bottom of any part of that ditch since it opened and that includes right after the floods.

[Dan Moore]

All I know is it took me 3 shots to get out with a borrowed set of clubs which lacked sand and lob wedges when I played there for the first time Wednesday.  42 degrees when we teed off at 7 shortly after sunrise and probably 62 when we finished 3 hours and 25 minutes later.  To me it looked like a waste area farther down the fairway and a maintained raked sand bunker close to the green.  It clearly looks like it was  formed by running water.  In any event a really a super opening hole to a very fun and challenging course.  Great green areas.  I will back there in April this time with my own clubs and a less rusty swing assuming March weather in  Chicago cooperates just a little.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()