GUR around a Penalty Area

[Swango1980]

So, we've recently done renovation work around the pond on the 18th. As such, it has a GUR line marked around it. This is to protect the banks and will obviously be temporary. Of course, I realised that most people that hit their ball in the pond took penalty drops to continue, thinking GUR was just the grassy area around it.

However, I am pretty sure the GUR line means the entire area within that is GUR, doesn't matter whether it is grass, water or sand. So, I just want to double double check I am right on this, in case there is some obscure interpretation somewhere saying GUR does not apply to a penalty area, but only the surrounding area. PS, there were still yellow stakes around the pond, inside the GUR line. Not sure if that threw a spanner in the works

 

[rulefan]

So, we've recently done renovation work around the pond on the 18th. As such, it has a GUR line marked around it. This is to protect the banks and will obviously be temporary. Of course, I realised that most people that hit their ball in the pond took penalty drops to continue, thinking GUR was just the grassy area around it.

However, I am pretty sure the GUR line means the entire area within that is GUR, doesn't matter whether it is grass, water or sand. So, I just want to double double check I am right on this, in case there is some obscure interpretation somewhere saying GUR does not apply to a penalty area, but only the surrounding area. PS, there were still yellow stakes around the pond, inside the GUR line. Not sure if that threw a spanner in the works

It depends on how the committee chose to define the area(s). The presence of yellow stakes does imply the pond has been identified as a separate area.

They could define and mark the penalty area as just the pond and the GUR as the area surrounding the pond. Or simply include the pond together with the renovated ground as GUR. The rules do not prohibit GUR in a penalty area.

The advantage of the former is that the player would justifiably get free relief from the renovated ground. Whereas it might be thought the latter is arguably simpler to specify in a local rule.

 

[Swango1980]

It depends on how the committee chose to define the area(s). The yellow stakes does imply the pond has been identified as a separate area.

They could define and mark the penalty area as just the pond and the GUR as the area surrounding the pond. Or simply include the pond together with the renovated ground as GUR. The rules do not prohibit GUR in a penalty area.

The advantage of the former is that the player would justifiably get free relief from the renovated ground. Whereas it might be thought the latter is arguably simpler to specify in a local rule.

Cheers

The issue, there was no wording as to properly define GUR. The Committee (made up by golfers) do not make on course decisions by the Owner or the green staff, and the communication is non-existent between green staff and Committee more often than not.

So, the pond has recently been finished, but the green staff had decided to mark GUR all around the pond. The pond itself still has yellow stakes around it. Personally, I didn't even know it was GUR until I was next to the pond and saw the signs, and I am on Committee.

So, if you were a regular golfer, and you had no other information at hand (perhaps you are even playing at an away course), then how would you interpret the situation in front of you? Would the automatic stance be that everything within the GUR marked area must be GUR, regardless of Yellow Stakes around pond? Or, given there were yellow stakes around pond, do they trump the GUR line, and therefore GUR is only applicable between the GUR line and the yellow stake margin?

The reason I am asking is that I'm about to clarify this with Committee so we can understand how this must be interpreted at present, and whether we need to do anything else if we want the actual water to still be a penalty area punishable by a penalty drop.

 

[rulefan]

Cheers

The issue, there was no wording as to properly define GUR. The Committee (made up by golfers) do not make on course decisions by the Owner or the green staff, and the communication is non-existent between green staff and Committee more often than not.

So, the pond has recently been finished, but the green staff had decided to mark GUR all around the pond. The pond itself still has yellow stakes around it. Personally, I didn't even know it was GUR until I was next to the pond and saw the signs, and I am on Committee.

So, if you were a regular golfer, and you had no other information at hand (perhaps you are even playing at an away course), then how would you interpret the situation in front of you? Would the automatic stance be that everything within the GUR marked area must be GUR, regardless of Yellow Stakes around pond? Or, given there were yellow stakes around pond, do they trump the GUR line, and therefore GUR is only applicable between the GUR line and the yellow stake margin?

The reason I am asking is that I'm about to clarify this with Committee so we can understand how this must be interpreted at present, and whether we need to do anything else if we want the actual water to still be a penalty area punishable by a penalty drop.

I take your comment in bold to mean that there is a line surrounding the whole area. But the presence of the yellow stakes confirms there is a penalty area inside them.
The bounds of the GUR can only extend to the PA margin.

The definition of a PA precludes the pond from not being a PA even if the stakes were removed.
A penalty area is:

• Any body of water on the course (whether or not marked by the Committee), including a sea, lake, pond, river, ditch, surface drainage ditch or other open watercourse (even if not containing water),

 

[Swango1980]

I take your comment in bold to mean that there is a line surrounding the whole area. But the presence of the yellow stakes confirms there is a penalty area inside them.
The bounds of the GUR can only extend to the PA margin.

The definition of a PA precludes the pond from not being a PA even if the stakes were removed.
A penalty area is:

• Any body of water on the course (whether or not marked by the Committee), including a sea, lake, pond, river, ditch, surface drainage ditch or other open watercourse (even if not containing water),

This is what confuses me a little. Because, this suggests that the yellow markings trump the GUR line, thus the penalty area is not GUR, only the land between the stakes and the GUR line.

However, the definition of GUR states:

"All ground inside the edge of the defined area"

So, surely that means that all land, whether it is a penalty area or not, is GUR if it is inside the GUR line? For example, I have seen GUR lines on the grass all around the circumference of a bunker, with the intention of making the bunker GUR. The definition of bunker does not trump the definition of GUR in that case. So, should the definition of penalty area trump the definition of GUR?

It'll be a big issue, as the 18th is a par 3, with the pond just in front. It is very much in play. I've no issue whether the entire pond it GUR, or just the grass around it. However, we'll need to either mark it better, of send out a clear message (before comps at least) as to what the GUR line means, so we don't have some taking penalty drops and others taking free relief.

 

[rulefan]

IMO the GUR can't trump the PA if the yellow stakes are there.
What is the committees intention?

 

[rulie]

You could move the yellow stakes to just outside the painted GUR line and make the entire (larger) penalty area a no play zone.

 

[Swango1980]

I think we may need some official wording to clarify what players do, because it seems confusing in terms of which definition trumps what. Without that official wording, I can see there being 2 types of players:

1. A player who hits it in the pond, and simply assumes they are wet and must play on under penalty
2. A player that sees the GUR boundary, and quotes "All ground inside the edge of the defined area" as GUR, and takes free relief

Player 1 is going to be pretty annoyed with Player 2. It will go to Committee. Player 2 will justify their actions based on the GUR definition. I'm not comfortable that the Committee can counter that by quoting the Penalty Area definition? I think that could end up being a bit of a stalemate.

 

[Swango1980]

You could move the yellow stakes to just outside the painted GUR line and make the entire (larger) penalty area a no play zone.

Yeah, that would certainly clear up any confusion under the definitions I think. I think the yellow posts are fairly well fixed in place though, so I'm not sure how keen the green staff will be on taking them out. And, as I said in opening question, the link between golfing Committee and green staff at our place is weak. The green staff know very little about golf and are under instruction from the owner, who knows less about golf. The golfing Committee can request certain things be done, and not done, but it is pot luck on what action is taken, and how long these things stay in place. We have been battling for years simply to have proper OB boundaries, are penalty areas in general properly marked, and still there is a lot to be left desired.

 

[rulefan]

If you are going to have to issue a note to players, simply say the GUR extends to the lines between the yellow stakes and the penalty area is beyond them as before.
In your circumstances I wouldn't move the stakes, you may never get them replaced correctly.

 

[wjemather]

How about defining the GUR as a no play zone and then Rule 17.1e applies.
Essentially, you could have two adjoined no play zones - one inside and one outside the penalty area.

 

[DickInShorts]

Presumably in this instance if theGUR was next to OB there would not be the same discussion? or would the same question arise from your players?

 

[Swango1980]

Presumably in this instance if theGUR was next to OB there would not be the same discussion? or would the same question arise from your players?

Out of bounds is not part of the course. Good luck to the member that finds GUR next to the boundary of the course and then tries to say they get free relief because they hit it over the road and into someone's garden.

However, the penalty area in this instance is entirely within the course, and the GUR line is entirely around the pond. It is our responsibility to ensure players know what the marking means, and what each part of the course is to be considered.

 

[rulie]

Out of bounds is not part of the course. Good luck to the member that finds GUR next to the boundary of the course and then tries to say they get free relief because they hit it over the road and into someone's garden.

However, the penalty area in this instance is entirely within the course, and the GUR line is entirely around the pond. It is our responsibility to ensure players know what the marking means, and what each part of the course is to be considered.

Imo, the way you have it marked - white line for GUR and yellow stakes for penalty area - the two areas are separate. A ball in the pond (penalty area) is not in the GUR, ie the penalty area is not part of the GUR. Just announce that as the ruling and the way to proceed.

 

[Colin L]

R

Imo, the way you have it marked - white line for GUR and yellow stakes for penalty area - the two areas are separate. A ball in the pond (penalty area) is not in the GUR, ie the penalty area is not part of the GUR. Just announce that as the ruling and the way to proceed.

And that can readily be expressed in a definition of this particular GUR along these lines:
Ground under repair: The area on the nth hole between the white line surrounding the penalty area and the stakes marking the edge of the penalty area.

 

[Swango1980]

Imo, the way you have it marked - white line for GUR and yellow stakes for penalty area - the two areas are separate. A ball in the pond (penalty area) is not in the GUR, ie the penalty area is not part of the GUR. Just announce that as the ruling and the way to proceed.

Thanks, but hopefully you see the dilemma if a player quotes the definition of GUR, and insists the water is also GUR. So, it is probably a good idea to have some wording to back the lining up?

Also, if the lining as it stands means the pond is not GUR, if the green staff wanted the pond to be GUR, is the only way for this to be done is to remove the yellow markers, or at least move them to be outside the GUR line?

 

[D-S]

Surely if you have an outer white line denoting the GUR and an inner white line, along the penalty area line, then it is clear that the GUR stops at the penalty area line?

 

[Swango1980]

Surely if you have an outer white line denoting the GUR and an inner white line, along the penalty area line, then it is clear that the GUR stops at the penalty area line?

But we do not have an inner white line. The general opinion seems to be the yellow markers effectively do that job

 

[rulefan]

But we do not have an inner white line. The general opinion seems to be the yellow markers effectively do that job

1) What is the distance from the GUR white line and the nominal margin of the PA?
2) Is the GUR designated a No Play Zone? If not why not?
3) Would making the whole area GUR give the players an advantage (nearest point of relief) over the original yellow PA (back on line)?

 

[Old Skier]

GUR needs to be designated No Play Zone, everything inside the GUR markings is in the NPZ which includes the pond unless correctly marked - simple.