SammmeBee
Journeyman Pro
So it was outside the water but 'inside' the stakes.....but taking the direct line from the left hand stake (in pic) to the middle one it was outside the stakes and therefore outside the hazard?
Line of hazard stakes?
- Thread starter chrisd
- Start date
chrisd
Major Champion
It wasn't in the water, he ended up playing it. I didn't check the line of the left hand stake as I assumed the hazard line ran round the same distance but not necessarily in a straight line where the hazard was curved.
SammmeBee
Journeyman Pro
Definition of Water Hazard in the Rule Book.......
G
guest100718
Guest
chrisd
Major Champion
So he could be in the water, right on the bend but not be in e hazard?
G
guest100718
Guest
was he in the water? I though you said he wasnt.
SammmeBee
Journeyman Pro
No.....see what Fixhiler said.....
chrisd
Major Champion
No he wasn't, the point I made was, in my drawing the ball could be in the water on the bend but still be outside the left and centre stake
G
guest100718
Guest
yes and he would be in the hazard . But in your pic he isnt.
maybe it looks different in real life...
Last edited:
rulefan
Tour Winner
Draw a straight line between the LH and central stakes. The ball is above the line and in the water it is in the WH. If it is not in the water it is not in the WH.
26/2
26/2
chrisd
Major Champion
Thanks
rulie
Head Pro
A couple of Decisions to assist:
[FONT="]26/2[/FONT]
[FONT="]Ball Within Natural Margin of Water Hazard But Outside Stakes Defining Margin[/FONT]
[FONT="]Q.Stakes defining the margin of a water hazard were improperly installed. As a result, an area which clearly was part of the water hazard was outside the stakes and, thus, technically was outside the hazard. A player's ball came to rest in water in this area. The player claimed that, in view of the alignment of the stakes, his ball was in casual water through the green. Was the claim valid?[/FONT]
[FONT="]A.No. The Committee erred in not properly defining the margin of the hazard as required by Rule 33-2a, but a player is not entitled to take advantage of such an error. Since it was clear that the place where the player's ball lay was within the natural boundaries of the water hazard, the claim should not be upheld.[/FONT]
[FONT="]33-2a/4[/FONT]
[FONT="]Where to Place Lines or Stakes Defining Margin of Water Hazard[/FONT]
[FONT="]Lines and stakes defining the margins of a water hazard should be placed as nearly as possible along the natural limits of the hazard, i.e., where the ground breaks down to form the depression containing the water. See also Decision 26-1/19.[/FONT]
[FONT="]26/2[/FONT]
[FONT="]Ball Within Natural Margin of Water Hazard But Outside Stakes Defining Margin[/FONT]
[FONT="]Q.Stakes defining the margin of a water hazard were improperly installed. As a result, an area which clearly was part of the water hazard was outside the stakes and, thus, technically was outside the hazard. A player's ball came to rest in water in this area. The player claimed that, in view of the alignment of the stakes, his ball was in casual water through the green. Was the claim valid?[/FONT]
[FONT="]A.No. The Committee erred in not properly defining the margin of the hazard as required by Rule 33-2a, but a player is not entitled to take advantage of such an error. Since it was clear that the place where the player's ball lay was within the natural boundaries of the water hazard, the claim should not be upheld.[/FONT]
[FONT="]33-2a/4[/FONT]
[FONT="]Where to Place Lines or Stakes Defining Margin of Water Hazard[/FONT]
[FONT="]Lines and stakes defining the margins of a water hazard should be placed as nearly as possible along the natural limits of the hazard, i.e., where the ground breaks down to form the depression containing the water. See also Decision 26-1/19.[/FONT]
Post #32 nails it. The club is at fault for not putting a stake on the outside curve of the bend. Nothing wrong with playing it from there providing he didn't ground his club.
rulefan
Tour Winner
Not quite. The natural margin would not be on the ground outside the point where the profile changes. It would either be the water edge or the ditch edge. ie "where the ground breaks down to form the depression containing the water" (as the R&A put it).
Last edited:
chrisd
Major Champion
Thanks - I would say that 26/2 was most appropriate given that all the stakes that were in situ, both sides of the hazard were pretty much the same distance from the water for the entire length of the hazard (almost all of the normal driving distance). Had a stake been placed on the bend, (or maybe there had been one and it was removed) then there would have been no issues - it was clear in my opinion that they wouldn't have wanted a situation where a ball could have been in the hazard, a few feet from the water, for 90% of the hazard but maybe only a few inches away in just that one spot, and only, not in the hazard, due to a fortuitous bend in the stream
rulefan
Tour Winner
Chris
See my post above yours
See my post above yours
chrisd
Major Champion
We have trees and vegetation all along the point where the ditch edge starts, so I guess they have to leave a margin
rulefan
Tour Winner
chrisd
Major Champion
Thanks for that.
Doesn't it just get too complicated, I think if anyone asks me "what do we do here" in future I shall just say "as far as I understand ....." and if they disagree I'll just say "do whatever you decide"
FionaMc
Newbie
Decision 26/2 answers this I think, check it out at randa.org
http://www.randa.org/Rules-of-Golf/...-Including-Lateral-Water-Hazards#alldecisions
Stakes defining the margin of a water hazard were improperly installed. As a result, an area which clearly was part of the water hazard was outside the stakes and, thus, technically was outside the hazard. A player's ball came to rest in water in this area. The player claimed that, in view of the alignment of the stakes, his ball was in casual water through the green. Was the claim valid?
A.
No. The Committee erred in not properly defining the margin of the hazard as required by Rule 33-2a, but a player is not entitled to take advantage of such an error. Since it was clear that the place where the player's ball lay was within the natural boundaries of the water hazard, the claim should not be upheld.
http://www.randa.org/Rules-of-Golf/...-Including-Lateral-Water-Hazards#alldecisions
Stakes defining the margin of a water hazard were improperly installed. As a result, an area which clearly was part of the water hazard was outside the stakes and, thus, technically was outside the hazard. A player's ball came to rest in water in this area. The player claimed that, in view of the alignment of the stakes, his ball was in casual water through the green. Was the claim valid?
A.
No. The Committee erred in not properly defining the margin of the hazard as required by Rule 33-2a, but a player is not entitled to take advantage of such an error. Since it was clear that the place where the player's ball lay was within the natural boundaries of the water hazard, the claim should not be upheld.
