Drop zones in ridiculously generous places

C

cliveb

Head Pro
Joined
Oct 8, 2012
Messages
3,305
Visit site
Just been playing in Gran Canaria and stunned by the placement of a drop zone.
Short par 4 hole, steeply uphill, starting with a carry of about 100 yards over a ravine.
The drop zone for balls failing to get over the ravine was easily 80 yards further up the hill, way closer to the green than it could (should?) have been. The ladies in our fourball were very happy about this!
Is this kind of thing even in accordance with the ROG? Just seems crazy.
 
cliveb said:
Just been playing in Gran Canaria and stunned by the placement of a drop zone.
Short par 4 hole, steeply uphill, starting with a carry of about 100 yards over a ravine.
The drop zone for balls failing to get over the ravine was easily 80 yards further up the hill, way closer to the green than it could (should?) have been. The ladies in our fourball were very happy about this!
Is this kind of thing even in accordance with the ROG? Just seems crazy.
Click to expand...
A lot of resort courses care far more about getting as many golfers round the course in a day rather than the rules of golf.

For that matter, they care little for the Rules of Handicapping as well, the course we were at recently in Almeria all the tee sets were at least 150-200 yards short of the measured length, again I assume to get people round the course.
 
Last edited:
The Committee should attempt to place a dropping zone so that the architectural challenge of the hole is maintained, and it is typically not closer to the hole than where the player would be dropping the ball when using one of the options under the relevant Rule. For example, when situating the dropping zone for a penalty area, it should be set in a position where the player would still need to negotiate the penalty area rather than being located on the putting green side of the penalty area.

Above is what the rules say about positioning the drop zone (In committee procedures). It may be argued that you still need to go over the ravine from the drop zone so may be ok? Also, if you have a shot with a carry of 100 yards to water, then a 30 yard carry over the water, the drop zone will be next to the water (usually) therefore only requiring a 30 yard shot not a 130 yard one.
 
The guidance provided in Committee Procedures is shown below. However, not all Committees will follow this guidance, particularly for non-competition play. The Committee may wish the players/guests to enjoy their day and the golf course.

(2) Where to Position Dropping Zones​

The Committee should attempt to place a dropping zone so that the architectural challenge of the hole is maintained, and it is typically not closer to the hole than where the player would be dropping the ball when using one of the options under the relevant Rule. For example, when situating the dropping zone for a penalty area, it should be set in a position where the player would still need to negotiate the penalty area rather than being located on the putting green side of the penalty area.
 
Neilds said:
@cliveb - Can you clarify which side of the ravine the drop zone was? Not clear from your original posting.
Click to expand...
Drop zone way past the ravine, leaving a simple 100 yard shot to the green with no hazards.

As others have said, it's a resort course so I guess they just want to make it easy for us. But there could easily be a drop zone just past the ravine, about 80 yards further back.
 
cliveb said:
Drop zone way past the ravine, leaving a simple 100 yard shot to the green with no hazards.

As others have said, it's a resort course so I guess they just want to make it easy for us. But there could easily be a drop zone just past the ravine, about 80 yards further back.
Click to expand...
in that case, take back what I said earlier :ROFLMAO:

Does sound like they want to keep things moving.
 
Such issues are entirely the Committee's prerogative, they decide the challenge of the golf course. Is this location consistent with the guidance in Committee Procedures? Clearly not, but that is not a Rules of Golf issue, Committee Procedures is guidance. It may be an issue for the Handicapping Authority, though, if such a process is extended or routinely repeated.
I also note it is not remotely on the scale of guidance abuse that many clubs consistently take with respect to water in bunkers.
 
salfordlad said:
I also note it is not remotely on the scale of guidance abuse that many clubs consistently take with respect to water in bunkers.
Click to expand...
By this do you mean that too often clubs are declaring all their bunkers GUR rather than identifying individually or by location?
 
D-S said:
By this do you mean that too often clubs are declaring all their bunkers GUR rather than identifying individually or by location?
Click to expand...
When I was responsible for checking course setup for my county I found that to be an issue. I had a set of small blue flags (as used by my own club) to indicate correctly those where relief was legitimate. My course's greens staff know exactly what to do.
 
Last edited:
D-S said:
By this do you mean that too often clubs are declaring all their bunkers GUR rather than identifying individually or by location?
Click to expand...
Yes, and worse. Sometimes we just see "bunkers out of play". What does that mean? Everyone gets to make up their own meaning, because it sure isn't covered in the Rules.
 
D-S said:
By this do you mean that too often clubs are declaring all their bunkers GUR rather than identifying individually or by location?
Click to expand...

salfordlad said:
Yes, and worse. Sometimes we just see "bunkers out of play". What does that mean? Everyone gets to make up their own meaning, because it sure isn't covered in the Rules.
Click to expand...

I know of clubs declaring all bunkers GUR and still accepting scores for handicap purposes.
The guidance from EG is that, ideally, bunkers should be individually marked as GUR.
Where multiple bunkers are affected it is acceptable to say “all bunkers on hole 4”, for example.
The guidance also states that there is no limit to the number of bunkers that can be treated as GUR for scores to be acceptable for handicap purposes.
If it’s not acceptable to say “all bunkers are GUR”, what’s the alternative, for example at my course would we say “all bunkers on holes 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,12,13,14,15,16,17 and 18 are GUR” and that would be acceptable?
 
woofers said:
I know of clubs declaring all bunkers GUR and still accepting scores for handicap purposes.
The guidance from EG is that, ideally, bunkers should be individually marked as GUR.
Where multiple bunkers are affected it is acceptable to say “all bunkers on hole 4”, for example.
The guidance also states that there is no limit to the number of bunkers that can be treated as GUR for scores to be acceptable for handicap purposes.
If it’s not acceptable to say “all bunkers are GUR”, what’s the alternative, for example at my course would we say “all bunkers on holes 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,12,13,14,15,16,17 and 18 are GUR” and that would be acceptable?
Click to expand...
That's the only way of doing it as far as I can see. Seems a bit strange.

Also on the morning of a comp it is not necessarily practical for someone on the competitions committee or who reports to the committee to individually check every single bunker just in case there is one rogue bunker that may just about be acceptable to have in play when all the rest are flooded. Then they have to communicate to all players that bunkers on holes 1-11 and 13-18 are GUR but the third one on the left on 12 is in play and they have to do this prior to the first group out. Fine in a well run County comp when there are enough officials present, trickier on a dull Sunday morning in Feb with no one around.
 
Steven Rules said:
"GUR" is a term used and defined in the Rules of Golf. Salfordlad was lamenting the use of the undefined words "out of play".
Click to expand...
Agreed, but before that I read it that he was agreeing with D-S that “too often clubs are declaring all their bunkers GUR rather than identifying individually or by location?” by starting his reply with “Yes”.
I was attempting to clarify the wording or statement that a club should use when all bunkers are deemed GUR.
 
D-S said:
That's the only way of doing it as far as I can see. Seems a bit strange.

Also on the morning of a comp it is not necessarily practical for someone on the competitions committee or who reports to the committee to individually check every single bunker just in case there is one rogue bunker that may just about be acceptable to have in play when all the rest are flooded. Then they have to communicate to all players that bunkers on holes 1-11 and 13-18 are GUR but the third one on the left on 12 is in play and they have to do this prior to the first group out. Fine in a well run County comp when there are enough officials present, trickier on a dull Sunday morning in Feb with no one around.
Click to expand...
Are there no greenstaff with sufficient knowledge, training or nouse
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

davidy233
The best fun courses in Britain and Ireland?
2 3 4
Replies
68
Views
17K
Trapdraw
T
williamalex1
GUR and Drop zones
Replies
9
Views
2K
williamalex1
williamalex1
delc
Can GUR Drop Zones be mandatory?
Replies
10
Views
9K
Colin L
Colin L
B
Camberley Heath GC
2
Replies
35
Views
8K
Smiffy
Smiffy
Rooter
Lingfield Park GC And hotel
Replies
0
Views
655
Rooter
Rooter
Top