Red penalty area with ambiguous extent

[cliveb]

On one hole of my home course, there is a ditch along the left side with an area of dense trees beyond.
Past the trees is another part of the course (another hole).
The ditch is marked with red stakes, but only on one side, as per the attached diagram:

My question is this: since the other side of the ditch is not marked with red stakes, what is the extent of the penalty area? If a ball goes over the ditch into the dense trees, is it still in the penalty area (which means lateral 2CL relief can be taken), or is it just unplayable (in which case you'd have to take stroke+distance, because you can't drop back in line).

It is pretty clear that the penalty area (formerly lateral water hazard) is intended to just be the ditch, but with the new rules coming in does this give scope for ambiguity?
I guess the committee should put red stakes on the other side of the ditch to make it clear.

 

[KenL]

If the ditch only was ever meant to be the hazard/penalty area then it should have been marked on both sides.

For me, anything beyond those stakes is now in the penalty area so you can drop accordingly.

What do your local rules say?

 

[rulefan]

Are there any stakes between the other fairway and the far side of the dense trees?

 

[cliveb]

Are there any stakes between the other fairway and the far side of the dense trees?

No, there are not.
That place is an area of rough to the side of another hole and there are no stakes. When you're playing that hole, if you hook a ball into the trees, you have to take an unplayable (assuming you find it, otherwise it's a lost ball, of course).

 

[cliveb]

What do your local rules say?

Our local rules don't mention it at all.

 

[rulie]

It's quite apparent that it's not marked correctly; only the Committee knows what was intended. Imo, the way it's marked now, the penalty area extends to infinity.

 

[cliveb]

It's quite apparent that it's not marked correctly; only the Committee knows what was intended. Imo, the way it's marked now, the penalty area extends to infinity.

That was my thinking. I will talk to the Committee about it.
Thanks for the responses.

 

[rulefan]

Do you think the dense trees should be included in the penalty area? For both holes?

 

[cliveb]

Do you think the dense trees should be included in the penalty area? For both holes?

No, I absolutely do not. To my mind (and I suspect the committee's), if you stuff a ball in the trees, it's unplayable. (Or lost)
If not having red stakes on the other side of the ditch means the penalty area extends to infinity, then I will talk to the committee to advise them of that. I'm sure they will then decide to add the missing stakes.

 

[rulie]

Remind them of the limitations on the other hole(s) that are in the penalty area in "to infinity" area - no free relief from immovable obstructions, no free relief from abnormal ground conditions, no preferred lies, no unplayable ball option, no free relief for embedded ball. Any "relief" from the penalty area will have to be on the fairway of the hole with the red stakes.

 

[KenL]

If there is a health and safety issue in crossing the ditch or if the ground within the trees is hazardous it may be a sensible option to keep the whole area left of the stakes as a penalty area, no?

The new rules allow this. Will speed up play also if it is a place that many players put their ball.

 

[chrisd]

Would there be any sense in making the area, one side of the ditch or the other, 'out of bounds' ?

 

[rulefan]

No, I absolutely do not. To my mind (and I suspect the committee's), if you stuff a ball in the trees, it's unplayable. (Or lost)
If not having red stakes on the other side of the ditch means the penalty area extends to infinity, then I will talk to the committee to advise them of that. I'm sure they will then decide to add the missing stakes.

Presumably the dense trees to the left are currently not treated as part of the LWH (although that actually extends to infinity). How and frequentlu is it in play and doe it cost much time with searching?
Is access to that side easy or difficult? This becomes more significant because if 'opposite' side relief is desirable, there now has to be a local rule.

 

[duncan mackie]

If there is a health and safety issue in crossing the ditch or if the ground within the trees is hazardous it may be a sensible option to keep the whole area left of the stakes as a penalty area, no?

The new rules allow this. Will speed up play also if it is a place that many players put their ball.

Whilst I can understand how it might speed up play, and make scoring easier, I don't see any relevance to your first paragraph. You would have to designate it as a no play zone to impact it as a hazardous area (although people tend to wish to recover their balls anyway!) Which may, or may not be a penalty area.

 

[cliveb]

It's very rare for anyone to put a ball in the trees. It would be a misshit of epic proportions. And if they did, they probably wouldn't try to retrieve it (unless it's a brand new ProV1). But that doesn't alter the fact that the staking appears to be wrong.

 

[rulefan]

It's very rare for anyone to put a ball in the trees. It would be a misshit of epic proportions. And if they did, they probably wouldn't try to retrieve it (unless it's a brand new ProV1). But that doesn't alter the fact that the staking appears to be wrong.

Given that it has seemingly always been played as a properly marked LWH, then I see no reason not to mark it correctly.

 

[williamalex1]

Couldn't they make it, in or over the ditch internal OOB, and use the new rule option of dropping NPR back on the fairway , adding 2 strokes.

 

[cliveb]

Couldn't they make it, in or over the ditch internal OOB, and use the new rule option of dropping NPR back on the fairway , adding 2 strokes.

I know my club isn't going to be adopting that local rule, so it's not an option. Seems much simpler to just add the missing red stakes on the other side of the ditch.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

Is there an argument that despite not being marked correctly the ditch is the penalty area and natural line of the ditch define the area?

 

[rulefan]

Is there an argument that despite not being marked correctly the ditch is the penalty area and natural line of the ditch define the area?

The Definition would support such a view. The area beyond the ditch would not be included unless specifically defined bt the Committee
A penalty area is:
Any body of water on the course (whether or not marked by the Committee), ..........
and any other part of the course the Committee defines as a penalty area.