Preferred Lies

[hombre_paulo]

Quick question from a discussion that came up in a comp today regarding Preferred Lies and where on the course they can/cant be taken.

We have a hole that goes, tee - fairway - bit of rough - fairway - green

In the summer this bit of rough is very clearly rough and the grass is kept longer than the two adjacent fariways

During winter it is not possible to differentiate where this section of rough starts/finishes or the fairways start/end. The grass on both the bit of rough and the fairway are of similar height.

Under preferred lies can you clean and place on this section of summer 'rough'?

 

[beggsy]

Unless it is easily identified or marked out as rough during the winter who’s to say it’s on the fairway or not if the group I was playing in couldn’t I’d take relief

 

[rulefan]

The required wording of the Local Rule is quite specific.
“When a player’s ball lies in a part of the general area cut to fairway height or less ........"
If it is not clear where this is, the Committee must ensure it is marked or accurately identified.

 

[hombre_paulo]

Thanks. So if its the same length, not marked or clearly different from the rest of the general area then you can pick and place.

 

[rulefan]

Thanks. So if its the same length, not marked or clearly different from the rest of the general area then you can pick and place.

No. If it cannot be differentiated from the known fairway is the test. The general area could be any vegetation of any length.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

It seems a common area of neglect. One course I played one year defined the fairway by painting white lines. Was that a good idea.?
Seemed so, everyone knew where they were.

 

[Old Skier]

Not sure why, if not playing qualifiers why clubs don't adopt preferred lies through the green. Saves all confusion.

 

[duncan mackie]

Not sure why, if not playing qualifiers why clubs don't adopt preferred lies through the green. Saves all confusion.

Who's not playing qualifiers that doesn't use a wider definition, or alternative?
There really isn't any fundamental confusion on the course either - as indicated in most posts people start from not having read the LR; after which it all becomes easy to get confused 🤔

 

[backwoodsman]

I find it difficult to believe that the intention at the OPs course is/was to deliberately eliminate the patch of "summer rough" - ie that the whole length of the hole is deliberately cut at fairway height during winter. (Happy to stand corrected though). I'm guessing the problem is that the transition from fairway to rough and then back again is getting blurred or indistinct. Due to difficult mowing conditions at this time of year, we occasilnally get similar down the sides of fairways where it is difficult to tell difference between the fairway & the first cut.

As some have said, if it is unclear, then it really should be marked. But if it isn't, then my view is that if you can't clearly tell that your ball is on grass cut to fairway height, then you don't have the option to take a preferred lie? (Currently we're getting round it by playing NQ, and having PL throughout the general area).

 

[woofers]

The required wording of the Local Rule is quite specific.
“When a player’s ball lies in a part of the general area cut to fairway height or less ........"
If it is not clear where this is, the Committee must ensure it is marked or accurately identified.

As you say, the wording of the local rule is quite specific......"cut to fairway height or less"
So on that basis, surely if there is no differentiation in grass height between the area usually known to be fairway and an area usually known as "rough", I would argue that strictly by the wording of the rules, free relief would be allowed. Fairway height in this instance being the actual fairway height, rather than the "normal" fairway height that we are accustomed to.
If the Committee are to ensure the areas allowed for free relief are to be marked accordingly, the local rule would need to be amended to specify said markings or otherwise identify these ?

 

[rulefan]

Fairway height in this instance being the actual fairway height, rather than the "normal" fairway height that we are accustomed to.

Yes. The rule makes no mention of 'normal', the presumption therefore is that it is 'actual' or 'current'.

 

[rulie]

Notice the the Model Local Rule says "CUT to fairway height or less", meaning that there is some work done to make it fairway height or less. I think "cut to fairway height or less" disqualifies several areas of the course that may, at times, be equal in height to the actual length of areas that are normally "cut to fairway height or less". Not sure if this helps, but we cannot ignore "cut to".

 

[woofers]

Notice the the Model Local Rule says "CUT to fairway height or less", meaning that there is some work done to make it fairway height or less. I think "cut to fairway height or less" disqualifies several areas of the course that may, at times, be equal in height to the actual length of areas that are normally "cut to fairway height or less". Not sure if this helps, but we cannot ignore "cut to".

I don’t think that helps. At some stage the area that the OP is referring to would have been cut. As would the sides of the fairways that are referred to as “first cut”. The fact that these areas now have the same length of grass as the fairway - for whatever reason - means that they are now “cut to fairway height”. Regardless of when either area was last cut.
The model local rule could be amended to more specific if the Committee wishes.