Water hazzard

[bobmac]

The rule of thumb rulefan mentioned is "could it be anywhere else?" By looking "anywhere else" you confirm that you are not certain it is in the water. Thus, no VC.

If I cannot use the English Oxford Dictionary then maybe you can help me with this

''In the majority of cases, in order for it to be reasonably concluded that the ball does not lie anywhere outside the water hazard, it is necessary to go forward to assess the physical conditions around the hazard.''

 

[duncan mackie]

There seems to be a right old mix of language and principles here!

I think it started with the phrase looking for a ball - as an inevitable function of assessing the situation it's obviously fine; once a player is undertaking a grid search of an area of nearby longer grass I believe the principle in rulefan's early post kicks in strongly.

A discreet water hazard in the middle of a large area of undulating fairway being the example the other way. You may need to spend a little time ensuring that the ball isn't on the fairway behind a bump but once that time is spent you can be 100% certain it's in the hazard.

The issue normally being that most situations lie between the two examples in practice.

I would summarise it that the longer you search outside the hazard the lower the VC that it's lost in the hazard, and in most cases you very quickly get to a point when you need to find it in the hazard to proceed under 26.

 

[Region3]

The rule of thumb rulefan mentioned is "could it be anywhere else?" By looking "anywhere else" you confirm that you are not certain it is in the water. Thus, no VC.

Could it be anywhere else? Yes.

It could be in the semi rough on the slope leading down into the hazard.
If it isn't there, it is definitely in the hazard because there is nowhere else for it to be without being visible.

If I go to the edge of the hazard to check if it's stopped short are you denying me VC?

 

[freddielong]

If I cannot use the English Oxford Dictionary then maybe you can help me with this

''In the majority of cases, in order for it to be reasonably concluded that the ball does not lie anywhere outside the water hazard, it is necessary to go forward to assess the physical conditions around the hazard.''

Did he not come back ?

 

[rulefan]

Could it be anywhere else? Yes.

It could be in the semi rough on the slope leading down into the hazard.
If it isn't there, it is definitely in the hazard because there is nowhere else for it to be without being visible.

If I go to the edge of the hazard to check if it's stopped short are you denying me VC?

It would depend on the nature of the area you were looking in. How far from the hazard, length of grass.

 

[chrisd]

It would depend on the nature of the area you were looking in. How far from the hazard, length of grass.

But who makes the decision of how far, how long should it be in a club medal and what if the player disagrees with the conclusion? Let's be honest I'd be suprised if anyone's going to risk a big fall out just because the grass is 2" taller than someone else thinks under VC

 

[Region3]

what if the player disagrees with the conclusion?

Please see US Open for what to do in this situation..

 

[IanM]

Yes

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!decision-26,d26-1-7

Wow! I remember playing a course near Hereford with the River Wye running through it... a ball in that (marked with red stakes) could end up at Chepstow!!

 

[rulefan]

Wow! I remember playing a course near Hereford with the River Wye running through it... a ball in that (marked with red stakes) could end up at Chepstow!!

If you don'y know where it ends up you only need to know where it last crossed the margin.

 

[IanM]

If you don'y know where it ends up you only need to know where it last crossed the margin.

#


...was my assumption and thank goodness for that! The only time "not knowing where it ends up" is a good thing!

 

[atticusfinch]

So I should ignore the English Oxford Dictionary when looking for the meaning of a phrase and look to an American interpretation instead?

There's no need to get all cultural about it. There are many "terms of art" in the rules where the definition is not in standard sources but the rules themselves, including interpretations by the ruling bodies.

 

[freddielong]

There's no need to get all cultural about it. There are many "terms of art" in the rules where the definition is not in standard sources but the rules themselves, including interpretations by the ruling bodies.

Why would anyone write the rules of anything in a language that isn't standard definition, surely that is a ridiculous thing to do.

 

[rulefan]

Why would anyone write the rules of anything in a language that isn't standard definition, surely that is a ridiculous thing to do.

It makes more sense to qualify the meaning within the environment in which it is being used.
'Lost' is a good example. Without the qualifications in the Rules of Golf Definitions it wouldn't work in the game of golf.

 

[cliveb]

Why would anyone write the rules of anything in a language that isn't standard definition, surely that is a ridiculous thing to do.

Because sometimes you need to regularly describe a situation for which there is no English word with the exact meaning. Rather than keep repeating a complex phrase, you need a simple word. You can either make one up (which is bound to confuse people), or you can use the English word with the closest meaning and define what you intend it to mean just the once.

 

[freddielong]

Because sometimes you need to regularly describe a situation for which there is no English word with the exact meaning. Rather than keep repeating a complex phrase, you need a simple word. You can either make one up (which is bound to confuse people), or you can use the English word with the closest meaning and define what you intend it to mean just the once.

That makes sense, thanks.

 

[Foxholer]

So I should ignore the English Oxford Dictionary when looking for the meaning of a phrase and look to an American interpretation instead?

Or refer to Definitions (eg 'Lost Ball') or Decisions, as in this case.

Slight correction: where it most likely last crossed the margin of the hazard.

Indeed! I was sure I corrected that before posting!

 

[bobmac]

Or refer to Definitions (eg 'Lost Ball') or Decisions, as in this case.

Strangely enough I can read thank you.

 

[Foxholer]

Strangely enough I can read thank you.

Then try reading the R&A's version if you don't want an 'American interpretation'. I think you will find it's exactly the same!

http://www.randa.org/Rules-of-Golf/...-Relief-for-Ball-in-Water-Hazard#alldecisions

The USGA site seems rather simpler to get at info, though R&A version is definitely different now than what it used to be!

 

[bobmac]

Then try reading the R&A's version if you don't want an 'American interpretation'. I think you will find it's exactly the same!

See post no. 37

I'm out

 

[atticusfinch]

It makes more sense to qualify the meaning within the environment in which it is being used.
'Lost' is a good example. Without the qualifications in the Rules of Golf Definitions it wouldn't work in the game of golf.

"Lost" is an excellent example. "Unplayable lie" is another. Your ball could be sitting on a tee peg but be "unplayable" within the meaning of the rules.

This is also an example of how the rules are not based in logic. I often get hammered when I say logic has nothing to do with the rules but it is true. The rules are not based on the logic of the world but on the elements of balance and fairness (derived from decades of experience) necessary to regulate a game. The unplayable lie rule is not logical by anyone's measure.

The same is true of the common law system in UK and USA (which mirrors the structure of the ROG). A famous jurist said, "The life of the law is not logic, but experience." I think the ROG are the same.