Beyond reasonable doubt

[rulefan]

Whilst the competitor is responsible for making the decision it would be very difficult if their opponent said they were not happy with the decision. In these circumstances I think you would have to proceed as if the ball was lost rather than being in the hazard.

Regardless of any difficulty, in match play it it is for the player to make a decision and for the opponent to register a claim if he disagrees.

The player is not obliged to do anything based on his opponent's view.

 

[Slab]

Slight tangent if I may...

Would having OOB stakes directly behind a staked hazard be the connect way to define that part of the course?

it just seems a bit weird when i try to picture it in my head

Sorry for the off topic

 

[rulefan]

Slight tangent if I may...

Would having OOB stakes directly behind a staked hazard be the connect way to define that part of the course?

it just seems a bit weird when i try to picture it in my head

Sorry for the off topic

If I've understood your question correctly, there is no reason why the area beyond and immediately adjacent to a water hazard should not be OB. White stakes or a fence/hedge with appropriate local rule wording would be ok.

 

[Slab]

If I've understood your question correctly, there is no reason why the area beyond and immediately adjacent to a water hazard should not be OB. White stakes or a fence/hedge with appropriate local rule wording would be ok.

Thanks, kinda what I was getting at, it just seemed a bit weird when i tried to picture it

But also it doesn't seem to be a water hazard (although OP implies it is staked)

A bit of assumption on my part... but its a 'shallow dry' ditch that's described to us, that doesn't retain any water (even in mid-winter) and maintained enough that it would allow a ball to 'scuttle' through to immediately be OOB, so wondering what makes it worthy of being staked in the first place

I know a drainage ditch doesn't have to have water in it but its the end of Jan with a typically wet winter for you guys & its still not wet (and its shallow anyway) is it even a drainage ditch/water course anymore that meets the criteria to have stakes?


Again sorry for OT and i'm probably just over thinking it...

 

[rulefan]

Thanks, kinda what I was getting at, it just seemed a bit weird when i tried to picture it

But also it doesn't seem to be a water hazard (although OP implies it is staked)

A bit of assumption on my part... but its a 'shallow dry' ditch that's described to us, that doesn't retain any water (even in mid-winter) and maintained enough that it would allow a ball to 'scuttle' through to immediately be OOB, so wondering what makes it worthy of being staked in the first place

I know a drainage ditch doesn't have to have water in it but its the end of Jan with a typically wet winter for you guys & its still not wet (and its shallow anyway) is it even a drainage ditch/water course anymore that meets the criteria to have stakes?


Again sorry for OT and i'm probably just over thinking it...

Without seeing it, I couldn't say whether it fits the definition or not.

As to 'scuttling' through, I would think that a ditch has an 'upslope' corresponding to the 'downslope'.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

There was/is a hole at Shrivenham GC [15th?].
Long par 4 with a blind second shot to the green with a pond on the left. [I know ]
It was amazing how many members insisted their lost ball was in the water hazard even though no one could truthfully say it was.

 

[jim8flog]

Slight tangent if I may...

Would having OOB stakes directly behind a staked hazard be the connect way to define that part of the course?

it just seems a bit weird when i try to picture it in my head

Sorry for the off topic

Not if the OB stakes were internal to the course. The R&A dislike internal OB.

 

[rulefan]

Not if the OB stakes were internal to the course. The R&A dislike internal OB.

Where have they said that? They have one whenever the Open is played at Royal Liverpool.