GUR around a Penalty Area

[Swango1980]

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)?

I'll try to show a picture below (using the old pond, and the new pond not on Google Earth. The new pond is bigger, but same idea.

1) Maybe only a few feet between GUR and penalty area margins
2) We need to find out the green staffs intentions, but they will never have heard of a No Play Zone. So, it is likely we will need to clarify this with golfers with words
3) Could do, you can see from the photo the angle of attack from the tee, and the pond.

 

[Colin L]

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?

See the post above yours.

 

[rulefan]

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.

I'm not convinced the areas are incorrectly marked. However, my concern, having now seen the photo, is that the relief from the pond itself would be significantly different from the way it was played before. If the ball drifts in from the left the npr could be on the fairway with a clear chip to the green. Previously the shot could well mean taking on the water.

 

[rulefan]

I'll try to show a picture below (using the old pond, and the new pond not on Google Earth. The new pond is bigger, but same idea.

1) Maybe only a few feet between GUR and penalty area margins
2) We need to find out the green staffs intentions, but they will never have heard of a No Play Zone. So, it is likely we will need to clarify this with golfers with words
3) Could do, you can see from the photo the angle of attack from the tee, and the pond.

View attachment 36057

I would certainly check with the greenstaff that they are happy with players playing from the renovated area.
As indicated above I don't like the idea of the pond being a NPZ.
I would suggest your note simply says the yellow staked area is a PA (normal penalty relief) and the area from the stakes to the white line is GUR (free relief with or without NPZ status) depending on the greenstaff's response.

 

[backwoodsman]

Interesting. The expert view was not what i was expecting.

I can understand the arguments about the yellow posts defining the water as a penalty area regardless of the white line. But, I dont see how basic topology can be ignored? The whole area inside the single white line has to be GUR. Surely the inner area, surrounded as it is, by yellow posts and also by the larger white line must be be both Gur and penalty area? With the confusion that ensues? . In the absence of a second white line, or a written LR I dont see how the water can be excluded from the GUR?