Par 3 and water

[Dellboy]

I was playing yesterday (in between the showers) and when walking up to our 4th, par 3 over water, the couple in front were having a right old ding dong.

One of them came over and asked me if I knew where the drop zone was as his tee shot went in the drink, I told him to just drop one behind the point in went in (yellow stakes) or reload of the tee.

He gave me a funny look and they told me at his local course (North wales) you couldn't do that and had to use the drop zone and that it why they were looking for one.

Now I thought you always had the option of 3 off the tee, is that not right ? I thought it was, but then watching the golf last night on the box, on the 17th anybody who hit into the water went straight to the DZ, or is this some kind of local rule?

Dellboy

 

[Colin L]

Delboy. Yes you always have the option of playing again from where you played your previous shot. If there is a problem over players getting a reasonable place to drop behind a water hazard, you can have a local rule for a DZ.

 

[Spuddy]

Here's the recommended wording for the local rule.

If the Committee considers that it is not feasible or practicable to proceed in accordance with a Rule providing relief, it may establish dropping zones in which balls may or must be dropped when taking relief. Generally, such dropping zones should be provided as an additional relief option to those available under the Rule itself, rather than being mandatory.

Using the example of a dropping zone for a water hazard, when such a dropping zone is established, the following Local Rule is recommended:


“If a ball is in or it is known or virtually certain that a ball that has not been found is in the water hazard (specify location), the player may:


(i) proceed under Rule 26; or


(ii) as an additional option, drop a ball, under penalty of one stroke, in the dropping zone.

 

[pbrown7582]

With no local rule for a DZ you are correct anywhere behind point of entry or reload from tee.

 

[Foxholer]

Seems like another myth to me.

LRs cannot overrule Rules of Golf, so the DZ, supported by the LR would have to be in addition to the options available in RoG. But presumably it's such an obvious alternative to the uncomfortable ones that RoG allows, that the expression 'have to use the DZ' has crept in!

 

[Dellboy]

Thanks all, I thought I was right, but last nights golf from the USA just put a doubt into my mind.

Cheers all,

Dellboy

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

I've had this same discussion with an FC before, who also picked it up from watching Tv. He was convinced that you had to use the DZ, just because that was what they did on tv. Luckily, my rules app swiftly showed him that wasn't the case.

 

[Spuddy]

Adam Scott (I think) played 3 off the tee at 17 instead of using the DZ. Not a bad shout as it's arguably a more comfortable yardage than the 80 or so from the DZ.

 

[atticusfinch]

Fred Couples played three off the tee one year and knocked it in the hole for par.

 

[BTatHome]

If the LR states that the DZ 'must' be used then surely the only option under 26 is from the tee again?
Whilst not 'overruling' the rules of golf the use of 'must' will be restricting the possible options available.

 

[guest100718]

i think Garcia had 2 reloads at 17 last year?

 

[duncan mackie]

If the LR states that the DZ 'must' be used then surely the only option under 26 is from the tee again?
Whilst not 'overruling' the rules of golf the use of 'must' will be restricting the possible options available.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make?

The key lies in your first sentence because the LR shouldn't state that because, contrary to your second sentence, restricting an option in that way would be overruling the rules (unless it is specifically permitted of course)

 

[BTatHome]

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make?

The key lies in your first sentence because the LR shouldn't state that because, contrary to your second sentence, restricting an option in that way would be overruling the rules (unless it is specifically permitted of course)

Am I mis-understanding the use of the word must in the following?

If the Committee considers that it is not feasible or practicable to proceed in accordance with a Rule providing relief, it may establish dropping zones in which balls may or must be dropped when taking relief. Generally, such dropping zones should be provided as an additional relief option to those available under the Rule itself, rather than being mandatory.

i assumed that it was possible to have the LR stating that DZ must be used. I know it says they would rather not have them like that, but they do leave the option open.

 

[Spuddy]

Am I mis-understanding the use of the word must in the following?
i assumed that it was possible to have the LR stating that DZ must be used. I know it says they would rather not have them like that, but they do leave the option open.

I think that's more the case when taking relief from something like a grandstand rather than hitting it in the water.

 

[duncan mackie]

Am I mis-understanding the use of the word must in the following?
i assumed that it was possible to have the LR stating that DZ must be used. I know it says they would rather not have them like that, but they do leave the option open.

I agree with your interpretation - this is an example of a specific permission.

I also agree with Spuddy's observation that this is usually related to relief situations around Obstructions however, whilst strictly you aren't getting relief under 26-1, the wording of the rule clearly enables it to fall under this statement!

You shouldn't get a situation where a player would prefer to proceed under 26-1 b or c than use a DZ (because it's existence is prevalent on such a drop being feasible or practicable).

However, my concern with this seemingly logical interpretation is that 26-1 a would also fall under this, and I can't accept that this is contemplated. Unlike 28 (unplayable) 27-1 has no restriction on where the ball ends up and the player is therefore entitled to replay his shot, effectively bypassing 26-1.

So, I agree a committee can require a player whose ball goes into a water hazard to play their next shot from a DZ rather than proceeding under 26-1 b or c, but they can't insist the player does it rather than replay from where the last shot was played.

 

[BTatHome]

I agree with your interpretation - this is an example of a specific permission.

I also agree with Spuddy's observation that this is usually related to relief situations around Obstructions however, whilst strictly you aren't getting relief under 26-1, the wording of the rule clearly enables it to fall under this statement!

You shouldn't get a situation where a player would prefer to proceed under 26-1 b or c than use a DZ (because it's existence is prevalent on such a drop being feasible or practicable).

However, my concern with this seemingly logical interpretation is that 26-1 a would also fall under this, and I can't accept that this is contemplated. Unlike 28 (unplayable) 27-1 has no restriction on where the ball ends up and the player is therefore entitled to replay his shot, effectively bypassing 26-1.

So, I agree a committee can require a player whose ball goes into a water hazard to play their next shot from a DZ rather than proceeding under 26-1 b or c, but they can't insist the player does it rather than replay from where the last shot was played.

Cheers Duncan, that makes 100% sense to me! and thankfully means my original interpretation wasn't way off the mark

 

[rulefan]

Generally such dropping zones should be provided as an additional relief option to those available under the Rule itself, rather than being mandatory.

That's what it says and that's what it means

 

[HawkeyeMS]

The pro players will only use the drop zone if they like the angle\yardage, if not, they will go three off the tee. Plenty will go 3 off the tee.