Water hazard, or casual water?

[Hobbit]

One that cropped up several times in yesterday's Darlington game. Rockcliffe Hall has a number of lakes/ponds that, as you would expect, are clearly defined with plenty of coloured posts.

The problem/query; due to the amount of rain we've had in the last week the water was way beyond the posts and it was possible to be in water but outside the hazard posts. Should it have been played as in the hazard, and the appropriate action taken under the applicable rule, or should the water outside the defined area be considered casual water?

Note, we erred on the side of it being part of the hazard but were we unduly harsh on ourselves?

 

[Twire]

Casual water according to this thread.

http://forums.golf-monthly.co.uk/showthread.php?48010-Overflowing-Hazard

 

[pbrown7582]

i believe any water beyond the normal boundaries and/or over the marked extremities of the hazard is deemed casual water and relief maybe taken without penalty.

 

[CMAC]

as above, the hazard is defined by posts so you know if you are in or out the hazard, simple really.

 

[Colin L]

The reference as mentioned in the other thread is

Decision 25/2​

http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules...ision-25/#25/2

 

[wookie]

We had a similar one at our place last week and werent sure whether you had to find your ball in order to take relief from the casual water or whether its one of those rules where if it can be virtually certain....etc?

 

[wookie]

Just looked - it appears it is ok to take relief as long as you can be sure it is in the casual water rather than the hazard. (25-1-c)

 

[Colin L]

You are right: you don't have to find your ball to get relief from an abnormal ground condition provided you know or are virtually certain that your ball is lost in it. A test of being virtually certain is to ask if there is anywhere else the ball could be lost in other than the abnormal ground condition. If there is a possibility it could be elsewhere then you don't have virtual certainty and would have to proceed under the appropriate rule. Generally that would be 27-1 with a stroke and distance penalty, but in your case where the ball is lost somewhere in the casual water or the hazard and you are not virtually certain it's in the casual water, you would proceed under 26-1 just as if your ball had been found in the water hazard.

 

[Pro Zach]

You are right: you don't have to find your ball to get relief from an abnormal ground condition provided you know or are virtually certain that your ball is lost in it. A test of being virtually certain is to ask if there is anywhere else the ball could be lost in other than the abnormal ground condition. If there is a possibility it could be elsewhere then you don't have virtual certainty and would have to proceed under the appropriate rule. Generally that would be 27-1 with a stroke and distance penalty, but in your case where the ball is lost somewhere in the casual water or the hazard and you are not virtually certain it's in the casual water, you would proceed under 26-1 just as if your ball had been found in the water hazard.

Would you? If 'the ball is lost somewhere in the casual water or the hazard', then you can't be virtually certain it's in the hazard; it could be in either.

 

[Colin L]

An interesting point. But assuming that the ball is definitely in the water, the consequence of deciding that you don't have virtual certainty it is in the casual water can only be that it is in the hazard. By eliminating one possibility, you confirm the other and apply the relevant rule. It may sound strange, but where the ball actually lies doesn't really come into it - you don't know. But you require some means of resolving how to proceed . If you left it as you suggest at the "it could be in either" stage, what rule would you apply to let the player carry on with his game?

 

[MashieNiblick]

in your case where the ball is lost somewhere in the casual water or the hazard and you are not virtually certain it's in the casual water, you would proceed under 26-1 just as if your ball had been found in the water hazard.

Spot on as usual.

Decision 1-4/7 Ball Lost in Either Water Hazard or Casual Water Overflowing Hazard

"Q. A ball is lost. It is either in a water hazard or in casual water overflowing the hazard. What is the proper procedure?

A. In equity (Rule 1-4), the player must proceed under the water hazard Rule."

 

[PhilTheFragger]

Ok here is a variation that happened yesterday on our 8th par 3 , Pond left of green, water extends outside the hazard markers, but the pond is frozen.

Ball veers left, pitches in the rough on the right side of the pond and trickles onto the ice,
In normal temperatures the ball would have stopped in the casual water part of the pond, but because its frozen, it went a bit further and ended up inside the hazard marker on the surface.... looking all forlorn and lost.

Im guessing that its where the ball ends up, rather than where it would have ended up if conditions were different.

Fragger

 

[Colin L]

Im guessing that its where the ball ends up, rather than where it would have ended up if conditions were different.

Fragger

How did you guess? I like the idea though. "Now if that tree hadn't been there, my ball would have ended up on the green so I'll just play from there "


I played on Thursday and Friday on frozen courses - some hilarious bounces! If the ice had been bearing, you could have played the ball as it lay. That might have been hilarious too.

 

[PhilTheFragger]

Imurg tried to get it back with the flag, managed to break the ice and my poor ball sank into a watery grave.

Think he might have done that on purpose

 

[Imurg]

What do you expect - it was orange.....

 

[Pro Zach]

An interesting point. But assuming that the ball is definitely in the water, the consequence of deciding that you don't have virtual certainty it is in the casual water can only be that it is in the hazard. By eliminating one possibility, you confirm the other and apply the relevant rule. It may sound strange, but where the ball actually lies doesn't really come into it - you don't know. But you require some means of resolving how to proceed . If you left it as you suggest at the "it could be in either" stage, what rule would you apply to let the player carry on with his game?

The rules are clear for both 'Ball in Abnormal Ground Condition Not Found' (25-1c) and 'Relief for Ball in Water Hazard' (26-1). Both state that in the absence of knowledge or virtual certainty the player must proceed under rule 27-1.


We cannot be virtually certain it is in either because it could be in the other, so the only option (according to the rules) is to proceed under rule 27-1. (or so I thought)


Mashie Niblick shows I am wrong because decision 1-4/7 covers this exact eventuality. In equity (Rule 1-4),the player must proceed under the water hazard Rule. (or am I?)


From FAQs. What does the term “equity”mean?


Occasionally situations arise that are simply not covered by the rules of golf, thus a decision must be made according to what is fair under the rules of golf. Equity (rule 1-4)is not a substitute for a rule or a lack of knowledge of a rule.


I think the situation is already covered by the rules of golf, so decision 1-4/7 is a substitute for a rule.


What takes precedence? Do we ignore the rules, ignore the definition of equity or ignore the decision?


Or am I missing something?

 

[duncan mackie]

The rules are clear for both 'Ball in Abnormal Ground Condition Not Found' (25-1c) and 'Relief for Ball in Water Hazard' (26-1). Both state that in the absence of knowledge or virtual certainty the player must proceed under rule 27-1.


We cannot be virtually certain it is in either because it could be in the other, so the only option (according to the rules) is to proceed under rule 27-1. (or so I thought)


Mashie Niblick shows I am wrong because decision 1-4/7 covers this exact eventuality. In equity (Rule 1-4),the player must proceed under the water hazard Rule. (or am I?)


From FAQs. What does the term “equity”mean?


Occasionally situations arise that are simply not covered by the rules of golf, thus a decision must be made according to what is fair under the rules of golf. Equity (rule 1-4)is not a substitute for a rule or a lack of knowledge of a rule.


I think the situation is already covered by the rules of golf, so decision 1-4/7 is a substitute for a rule.


What takes precedence? Do we ignore the rules, ignore the definition of equity or ignore the decision?


Or am I missing something?

Your logic is sound, as far as it goes.

1-4 only comes into play because for both 26-1 and 25-1 b we do have virtual certainty ie the absence of VC for one provides VC for the other.

this leaves the question of whether because we do not have VC the ball's in the hazard we can play it as in the AGC, or, because we don't have VC it's in the AGC it's in the hazard?

For such questions we have answers, in this case 1-4/7.

 

[Colin L]

I think the situation is already covered by the rules of golf, so decision 1-4/7 is a substitute for a rule.
What takes precedence? Do we ignore the rules, ignore the definition of equity or ignore the decision?
Or am I missing something?

You can't ignore Decisions: they are clarifications of the Rules as they apply in particular situations. They are binding just as the Rules are. A Decision will never substitute for a rule: it will either expand on one or fill in the gaps between them.

What you are probably missing is that in this situation we don't know which of two rules to apply. Assuming, as I said, the ball is known to be in the water, then we either apply 25-1c if the ball is lost in the casual water, or 26-1 if the ball is in the water hazard. Importantly, whichever it is lost in, Rule 27-1 does not apply and it would be unfair to apply it since it is a more severe penalty than either relief from the casual water (free) or from the hazard (1 stroke). Equally it would a bit too generous (ie unfair on other competitors) to allow free relief when there is no certainty the ball is in the casual water. The Decision is entirely consistent and fair (ie in equity) in saying that you apply the Rule that is the worse option.

 

[MashieNiblick]

From what I gather it is generally the case in situations where the facts are unclear that they are resolved on the basis that the opition giving the player the least advantage is applied.

One example is if you hit a provisional to the same area as the original but you can only find one ball. If you can't tell if it is the provo or the original, in equity the ball you found must be presumed to be the provisional. Even if you find both balls, but can't tell them apart, you have to select one of the balls, treat it as the provisional ball and abandon the other - Decision 27/11 Provisional Ball Not Distinguishable from Original Ball.