Drop zone

[backwoodsman]

Have now spoken with chairman of H&Ç and it seems the matter actually naff all to do with the area of cabbage! It is to do with the lateral water hazard! (Darn those Chinese whispers ...) The real story is ...

For certain pin positions, there are certain points on the edge of the hazard where it is difficult to drop a ball within 2 club lengths, outside the hazard & not nearer the hole. At times the 2CL area is so narrow, that it is practically impossible to drop a ball in it. The size & shape of the pond means there is no point "equidistant" on the far side of the pond that can be used. But in my view, there will always be an "on a line of point last crossed the margin" option somewhere on far side. All this means that there will alway be options 26/1a and 26/1b available but sometimes 26/1c may not be. And it will mostly ocur for shots played from in or near the greenside bunker.

So in the circumstance - still reasonable to provide a optional drop zone??

In this c

 

[rulefan]

So in the circumstance - still reasonable to provide a optional drop zone??

Yes.

 

[rulie]

Yes.

But the drop zone must be an additional option for any ball that enters the lateral water hazard, not just balls played from the bunker. Only using it for balls played from the bunker would not be permitted.

 

[rulefan]

Only using it for balls played from the bunker would not be permitted.

See post #2

 

[cliveb]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that a water hazard should only be a lateral if relief under 26-1/b is not feasible. Therefore in this case if 26-1/b is always possible then surely it shouldn't be a lateral in the first place?

 

[rulefan]

I depends on the practicality of getting to the other side from all positions where the ball crossed the margin.

 

[rulie]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that a water hazard should only be a lateral if relief under 26-1/b is not feasible. Therefore in this case if 26-1/b is always possible then surely it shouldn't be a lateral in the first place?

It's more than that - the Committee has discretion to mark any water hazard as a lateral water hazard (not that they should do that).

A "lateral water hazard" is a water hazard or that part of a water hazard so situated that it is not possible, or is deemed by the Committee to be impracticable, to drop a ball behind the water hazard in accordance with Rule 26-Ib. All ground and water within the margin of a lateral water hazard are part of the lateral water hazard.

 

[backwoodsman]

But the drop zone must be an additional option for any ball that enters the lateral water hazard, not just balls played from the bunker. Only using it for balls played from the bunker would not be permitted.

See post #2

Turns out that the "only for shots from the bunker" was a red herring. The dz would be for "normal use" - ie any ball within the hazard.

T'was just that most "entry points" into the hazard would have a decent enough place to drop within 2CL. The most likely situation to give rise for the need of the dz would be a thinned shot out of the bunker (as that would be directly towards the margin where a 2CL drop is barely feasible).

 

[rulefan]

What about dropping on the other side of the LWH?

 

[backwoodsman]

What about dropping on the other side of the LWH?

Not especially convenient but feasible. Could cause pace of play issues at busy times.

Have attached image of green & LWH. Actual edge of hazard not clear in image but if green were a clockface, it's 10 or 11 o clock where a 2CL drop is barely possible. You can see how a bad shot out of the bunker would likely enter hazard at this difficult point.

 

[rulefan]

IMO the bunker should not be a consideration, the major issue is getting to the far side.

I suggest you tackle the R&A. I have found they are very helpful in sorting out course problems

 

[backwoodsman]

IMO the bunker should not be a consideration, the major issue is getting to the far side.

I suggest you tackle the R&A. I have found they are very helpful in sorting out course problems

Quite! - bunker not a consideration as to whether a dz is appropriate. Only mentioned as illustration as to why people might think a dz was "only for shots from bunker". (Because a ball in hazard, having crossed margin at "the difficult spot", more than likely came from there or thereabouts).

 

[backwoodsman]

Below is a modified Local Rule I have introduced at my club. We have two dropping zones, one to each side. You may wish to indicate the limits of the area by marking the fence.

In order to reduce the wear and tear on any DZs we use blue stakes which are moved (with some effort) by the greenstaff as and when required.

One for rulefan...

In your situation of using a marker post to indicate the DZ, what is the status of the post itself? (I'm thinking in term of general play when a ball just happens to lie close to it). Movable or immovable obstruction? If movable, I'm thinking the DZ could "wander about" if you see what i mean?

You say it is moved about with some effort by the greenstaff - so without specific definition, presumably it would naturally be a movable obstruction? Or is it too difficult to move really (but if so, how achieved?)

Advice appreciated.

 

[rulefan]

It is either a movable or immovable obstruction depending on either the ease of movement or the wording of a the local rule.

In the case I mentioned above, we have chosen not to deem it immovable by local rule as the greenstaff ensure that it is firmly planted by using a sledgehammer. Players are not inclined to try and move it out of the way because a) they would get relief from it, b) they drop near the limit because the ball doesn't have to finish in the area and c) it really is too difficult.
On reflection, although we don't have a problem with players trying to move it, it might be better to deem it immovable by local rule. I may suggest it to the committee for the new season.

We have another case where the DZ is next to a fence and the reference is to a painted fence post that never changes.

 

[backwoodsman]

It is either a movable or immovable obstruction depending on either the ease of movement or the wording of a the local rule.

In the case I mentioned above, we have chosen not to deem it immovable by local rule as the greenstaff ensure that it is firmly planted by using a sledgehammer. Players are not inclined to try and move it out of the way because a) they would get relief from it, b) they drop near the limit because the ball doesn't have to finish in the area and c) it really is too difficult.
On reflection, although we don't have a problem with players trying to move it, it might be better to deem it immovable by local rule. I may suggest it to the committee for the new season.

We have another case where the DZ is next to a fence and the reference is to a painted fence post that never changes.

Ta.

Pretty much goes with with what i was thinking.