Water hazard drop zone

[dtc0207]

I play a course that has a par four that you hit you drive to landing zone then you must hit over a red marked hazard. If you hit it in hazard , you have option to use a drop zone on other side of hazard. My question is if I hit my tee ball it to Said hazard can I go to other side and drop in drop zone. I was told that I could only drop in drop zone if I was hitting my second shot over. I feel like he was wrong that the hazard is the hazard. Can anyone clarify

[jlbos83]

A picture or diagram would be helpful.

 

If you have to hit over it, it should not be marked red. The drop zone is probably not where it should be, either. I can't think of any way that it would matter whether you hit your first, second, third, or tenth shot into the hazard.

 

This sentence seems to be missing something!

 

I feel like he was wrong that the hazard is the hazard.

[Sawgrass]

I play a course that has a par four that you hit you drive to landing zone then you must hit over a red marked hazard. If you hit it in hazard , you have option to use a drop zone on other side of hazard. My question is if I hit my tee ball it to Said hazard can I go to other side and drop in drop zone. I was told that I could only drop in drop zone if I was hitting my second shot over. I feel like he was wrong that the hazard is the hazard. Can anyone clarify

Dropping Zones are only enabled by adopting a Local Rule. Following is the applicable segment from Appendix I which recommends language. As it's written, you would be correct that it does not matter if it was your first, second or fifteenth stroke that got you in the hazard.

 

It is true however that a Committee may request of the USGA or R&A to modify a Local Rule in some way. But I'd bet that neither entity would permit the restriction you describe.

 

Edit: forgot to post Rule:

 

6. Dropping Zones

 

The Committee may establish dropping zones on which balls may or must be dropped when the Committeeconsiders that it is not feasible or practicable to proceed exactly in conformity with Rule 24-2b or Rule 24-3(Immovable Obstruction), Rule 25-1b or 25-1c (Abnormal Ground Conditions), 25-3 (Wrong Putting Green), Rule 26-1 (Water Hazards and Lateral Water Hazards) or Rule 28 (Ball Unplayable).

 

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 26-1; or

 

(ii)

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

PENALTY FOR BREACH OF LOCAL RULE:

 

Match play - Loss of hole; Stroke play - Two strokes."

[dtc0207]

The Red Bull's eye is the drop zone. The picture shows you can drive over water but because of the tree growth there is no way to clear water on tee shot unless you can fly about a 280 massive fade

[SNIPERBBB]

I see no need for this drop zone.

[raynorfan1]

Is the hazard red all the way around, or red up to the "corner" (about where your white line intersects the shoreline), and then yellow?

 

We have a hazard that's lateral up the side and then yellow at the front, and you can only use the drop zone if you go over the yellow line.

[Newby]

Assuming the picture is north/south orientation, the margins running south/north should be marked red and the margins near the bulls eye running east/west should be marked yellow. The marking would then satisfy the definition of water hazards and lateral water hazards.

There would seem to be no justification for a DZ at all

 

but particularly

a) not located on the green side of the water

and

b) limiting the use to a second shot (which would be illegal anyway).

[Roadking2003]

Assuming the picture is north/south orientation, the margins running south/north should be marked red and the margins near the bulls eye running east/west should be marked yellow. The marking would then satisfy the definition of water hazards and lateral water hazards.

There would seem to be no justification for a DZ at all

 

but particularly

a) not located on the green side of the water

and

b) limiting the use to a second shot (which would be illegal anyway).

 

You may be correct, but that wasn't his question.

 

And I'm not aware that there are rules regarding justification of a DZ. If the committee designates a DZ and adopts the local rule using DZs, that's all he needs.

 

Here is the only thing I can find about using a DZ closer to the hole "Note: A Committee may make a Local Rule prohibiting the use of a dropping zone that is nearer the hole."

 

[Newby]

Assuming the picture is north/south orientation, the margins running south/north should be marked red and the margins near the bulls eye running east/west should be marked yellow. The marking would then satisfy the definition of water hazards and lateral water hazards.

There would seem to be no justification for a DZ at all

 

but particularly

a) not located on the green side of the water

and

b) limiting the use to a second shot (which would be illegal anyway).

 

You may be correct, but that wasn't his question.

 

And I'm not aware that there are rules regarding justification of a DZ. If the committee designates a DZ and adopts the local rule using DZs, that's all he needs.

 

Here is the only thing I can find about using a DZ closer to the hole "Note: A Committee may make a Local Rule prohibiting the use of a dropping zone that is nearer the hole."

 

 

 

If the red margins are marked correctly, there is no need for a DZ for a ball in a LWH which is parallel to the direction of play

 

If the ball crosses a yellow margin a DZ must not be on the greenside of the WH.

See http://www.usga.org/...sion-33,d33-8-2

[jlbos83]

If there is a Local Rule, I suspect it is not approved.

[dtc0207]

For some reseaon it is marked red all the way around

[Krt22]

IM guessing simply a pace of play thing, it should really be a standard water hazard and if you dont clear the hazard the drop zone should be before the hazard itself. If its red you should be able to play it as such, two club lengths no closer to the hole.

[Augster]

The course is incorrectly marked. The drop zone isn't legal.

 

That said, play the course as you find it. You can use the drop zone, as above, if it's your 1st, 2nd, or 15th stroke. The drop zone is just an additional option to the incorrectly marked red hazard.

 

In the future, tell the person that "told" you the drop zone was only for second shots to show you that in the RB. Wish him luck and tell him not to try for too long because he won't find it as it's not in there.

[larrybud]

The DZ might not be legal technically, but clearly the point of it is so that Mrs Havercamp doesn't drop a dozen balls into the water because she can't hit one in the air.

 

Just reason # 487 on why forced carries are part of horrible course design.

[rogolf]

For some reseaon it is marked red all the way around

Probably marked that way for simplicity and so that the golfers have some idea of how to proceed. The marking is legitimate but the drop zone is not.

[Newby]

The DZ might not be legal technically,

A Rule is either legal or not. The decision says it is not. What does technically mean?

[smeech8000]

For some reseaon it is marked red all the way around

Probably marked that way for simplicity and so that the golfers have some idea of how to proceed. The marking is legitimate but the drop zone is not.

 

If the marking is legitimate** then why would the DZ not be?

 

 

** I'm assuming you mean "legitimate" in that a course may elect to mark what should be a WH as an LWH in the interest of PoP, etc. - if not please clarify.

[Augster]

For some reseaon it is marked red all the way around

Probably marked that way for simplicity and so that the golfers have some idea of how to proceed. The marking is legitimate but the drop zone is not.

 

If the marking is legitimate** then why would the DZ not be?

 

 

** I'm assuming you mean "legitimate" in that a course may elect to mark what should be a WH as an LWH in the interest of PoP, etc. - if not please clarify.

 

The drop zone can't be situated over the hazard to be legitimate or legal.

[raynorfan1]

There is a scenario where the DZ is totally legitimate - if it's actually not for the water hazard but some other ground condition closer to the hole...

[Stuart_G]

Or it's if specifically for balls that last cross the hazard line on the top peninsula only and not the lower one - although I doubt that that's how the local rule is worded.

[rogolf]

For some reseaon it is marked red all the way around

Probably marked that way for simplicity and so that the golfers have some idea of how to proceed. The marking is legitimate but the drop zone is not.

 

If the marking is legitimate** then why would the DZ not be?

 

 

** I'm assuming you mean "legitimate" in that a course may elect to mark what should be a WH as an LWH in the interest of PoP, etc. - if not please clarify.

 

Of course - the Committee can mark the water hazard red or yellow. The drop zone is not appropriate for either if the ball last crossed the margin on the tee side of the hazard.

[Roadking2003]

 

If the red margins are marked correctly, there is no need for a DZ for a ball in a LWH which is parallel to the direction of play

 

If the ball crosses a yellow margin a DZ must not be on the greenside of the WH.

See http://www.usga.org/...sion-33,d33-8-2

 

I have seen many drop zones on a variety of courses that are on the green side of a water hazard.

 

And this ruling is not very clear. "Such a Local Rule substantially alters Rule 26-1b as it allows the player to drop a ball on a part of the course (i.e., on the green side of the water hazard) that the Rule would not have permitted him to reach. "

 

I'm not sure that is the same as "DZ must not be on the green side of the WH." The wording is strange. What rule "would not have permitted him to reach" ? If you cannot put a DZ on the green side of the water hazard why don't they just say that?

 

Again, I have seen many DZs on the green side of the hazard, so lots of courses must be violating that rule if you are correct.

[Roadking2003]

if you dont clear the hazard the drop zone should be before the hazard itself.

 

Why? What rule says that? And doesn't that defeat the purpose of a drop zone?

 

For some reseaon it is marked red all the way around

Probably marked that way for simplicity and so that the golfers have some idea of how to proceed. The marking is legitimate but the drop zone is not.

 

If the marking is legitimate** then why would the DZ not be?

 

 

** I'm assuming you mean "legitimate" in that a course may elect to mark what should be a WH as an LWH in the interest of PoP, etc. - if not please clarify.

 

The drop zone can't be situated over the hazard to be legitimate or legal.

 

Then why have a DZ?

[rogolf]

If the red margins are marked correctly, there is no need for a DZ for a ball in a LWH which is parallel to the direction of play

 

If the ball crosses a yellow margin a DZ must not be on the greenside of the WH.

See http://www.usga.org/...sion-33,d33-8-2

 

I have seen many drop zones on a variety of courses that are on the green side of a water hazard.

 

And this ruling is not very clear. "Such a Local Rule substantially alters Rule 26-1b as it allows the player to drop a ball on a part of the course (i.e., on the green side of the water hazard) that the Rule would not have permitted him to reach. "

 

I'm not sure that is the same as "DZ must not be on the green side of the WH." The wording is strange. What rule "would not have permitted him to reach" ? If you cannot put a DZ on the green side of the water hazard why don't they just say that?

 

Again, I have seen many DZs on the green side of the hazard, so lots of courses must be violating that rule if you are correct.

 

Here is the Decision:

33-8/2

 

Local Rule Allows Drop on Green Side of Water Hazard When Ball Fails to Clear Hazard

 

 

Q. The design of a hole is such that a player must hit the ball about 100 yards in order to carry a water hazard. A Local Rule has been adopted to assist players who cannot drive over the hazard by allowing them to drop a ball, under penalty of two strokes, in a dropping zone that is located across the hazard. Is such a Local Rule authorized?

 

A. No. Such a Local Rule substantially alters Rule 26-1b as it allows the player to drop a ball on a part of the course (i.e., on the green side of the water hazard) that the Rule would not have permitted him to reach. Furthermore, the penalty for taking relief under the water hazard Rule (Rule 26) is one stroke, and may not be increased to two strokes by a Committee through a Local Rule - see Rule 33-8b.

 

"the Rule" reference in the Decision is to Rule 26-1, which is the only applicable Rule for a ball in a water hazard (including lateral water hazard). "The Rule" (26-1) does not permit the ball to be dropped on the green side of the water hazard (including lateral water hazard). There are two potential exceptions for a lateral water hazard - if the ball carried the lateral water hazard, landed on the green side, and then rolled back into the lateral water hazard and if an opposite margin was available.

[Sawgrass]

 

 

Again, I have seen many DZs on the green side of the hazard, so lots of courses must be violating that rule if you are correct.

 

I bet you've also seen may non-water-collection areas marked as water hazards.

[klebs01]

 

Why? What rule says that? And doesn't that defeat the purpose of a drop zone?

 

 

Then why have a DZ?

 

The purpose of the drop zone is to offer an option other than dropping at the previous spot. We have a drop zone on a par three at our course where a river crosses short of the green (yellow line), there is of left and woods right. There is no where to drop keeping the point of entry inline with the flag if the shot is off line at all. The dz provides a place to drop since other options are generally unavailable. It's situations like this that drop zones are allowed.

[rogolf]

Why? What rule says that? And doesn't that defeat the purpose of a drop zone?

 

 

Then why have a DZ?

 

The purpose of the drop zone is to offer an option other than dropping at the previous spot. We have a drop zone on a par three at our course where a river crosses short of the green (yellow line), there is of left and woods right. There is no where to drop keeping the point of entry inline with the flag if the shot is off line at all. The dz provides a place to drop since other options are generally unavailable. It's situations like this that drop zones are allowed.

 

Hopefully the drop zone is on the tee side of the river!

[Roadking2003]

If the red margins are marked correctly, there is no need for a DZ for a ball in a LWH which is parallel to the direction of play

 

If the ball crosses a yellow margin a DZ must not be on the greenside of the WH.

See http://www.usga.org/...sion-33,d33-8-2

 

I have seen many drop zones on a variety of courses that are on the green side of a water hazard.

 

And this ruling is not very clear. "Such a Local Rule substantially alters Rule 26-1b as it allows the player to drop a ball on a part of the course (i.e., on the green side of the water hazard) that the Rule would not have permitted him to reach. "

 

I'm not sure that is the same as "DZ must not be on the green side of the WH." The wording is strange. What rule "would not have permitted him to reach" ? If you cannot put a DZ on the green side of the water hazard why don't they just say that?

 

Again, I have seen many DZs on the green side of the hazard, so lots of courses must be violating that rule if you are correct.

 

Here is the Decision:

33-8/2

 

Local Rule Allows Drop on Green Side of Water Hazard When Ball Fails to Clear Hazard

 

 

Q. The design of a hole is such that a player must hit the ball about 100 yards in order to carry a water hazard. A Local Rule has been adopted to assist players who cannot drive over the hazard by allowing them to drop a ball, under penalty of two strokes, in a dropping zone that is located across the hazard. Is such a Local Rule authorized?

 

A. No. Such a Local Rule substantially alters Rule 26-1b as it allows the player to drop a ball on a part of the course (i.e., on the green side of the water hazard) that the Rule would not have permitted him to reach. Furthermore, the penalty for taking relief under the water hazard Rule (Rule 26) is one stroke, and may not be increased to two strokes by a Committee through a Local Rule - see Rule 33-8b.

 

"the Rule" reference in the Decision is to Rule 26-1, which is the only applicable Rule for a ball in a water hazard (including lateral water hazard). "The Rule" (26-1) does not permit the ball to be dropped on the green side of the water hazard (including lateral water hazard). There are two potential exceptions for a lateral water hazard - if the ball carried the lateral water hazard, landed on the green side, and then rolled back into the lateral water hazard and if an opposite margin was available.

 

I read it. But it doesn't make sense. Why have a DZ if you have to drop on the other side of the hazard. You can do that without a DZ.

[Roadking2003]

Why? What rule says that? And doesn't that defeat the purpose of a drop zone?

 

 

Then why have a DZ?

 

The purpose of the drop zone is to offer an option other than dropping at the previous spot. We have a drop zone on a par three at our course where a river crosses short of the green (yellow line), there is of left and woods right. There is no where to drop keeping the point of entry inline with the flag if the shot is off line at all. The dz provides a place to drop since other options are generally unavailable. It's situations like this that drop zones are allowed.

 

Hopefully the drop zone is on the tee side of the river!

 

I don't think the decision says that. The purpose of a DZ is to get you over the hazard. You don't need a DZ to drop short of the hazard.

 

Again, many many golf courses have a DZ over the hazard.

[rogolf]

Why? What rule says that? And doesn't that defeat the purpose of a drop zone?

 

 

Then why have a DZ?

 

The purpose of the drop zone is to offer an option other than dropping at the previous spot. We have a drop zone on a par three at our course where a river crosses short of the green (yellow line), there is of left and woods right. There is no where to drop keeping the point of entry inline with the flag if the shot is off line at all. The dz provides a place to drop since other options are generally unavailable. It's situations like this that drop zones are allowed.

 

Hopefully the drop zone is on the tee side of the river!

 

I don't think the decision says that. The purpose of a DZ is to get you over the hazard. You don't need a DZ to drop short of the hazard.

 

Again, many many golf courses have a DZ over the hazard.

 

I'm afraid you don't understand. The purpose of a drop zone is NOT to get you over the hazard, you need to golf your way over it - the Decision is very clear about that; it doesn't matter how many improper drop zones you may have seen.