Water hazard drop zone

[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.

 

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

 

It is on the tee side of the river. Although, part of my motivation for reading this thread was a comment by an old guy saying there should be a drop zone on the green side of the river for women. I played nice, but not going to do it. Glad I have 33-8/2 for additional support.

[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.

 

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.

 

The decision does say that. On the hole I described, if you hit the ball in the hazard left of the line to the flag. The only drop option would be ob. That's why there is a drop zone. It's not to get the player across the hazard. It's to allow an option other than retee.

 

Courses may have a dz over the hazard. Doesn't mean it's legal.

[Sawgrass]

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've seen a guy pick up and throw his ball out of a bunker.

[Augster]

As ROgolf has alluded to, there isn't supposed be ANY yardage gained that you didn't accomplish with your clubs. That's why the drop options always include, "No closer to the hole".

 

If you want to get closer to the hole, you have to hit it there. Putting a drop zone across a hazard violates this basic premise of golf.

 

No yardage you didn't earn through skill. Or lack thereof.

[Sawgrass]

As ROgolf has alluded to, there isn't supposed be ANY yardage gained that you didn't accomplish with your clubs. That's why the drop options always include, "No closer to the hole".

 

If you want to get closer to the hole, you have to hit it there. Putting a drop zone across a hazard violates this basic premise of golf.

 

No yardage you didn't earn through skill. Or lack thereof.

Rogolf was saying you shouldn't get over a WH via a drop zone. It's not so much a yardage thing as it is a hazard thing. For instance, grandstand TIOs surrounding greens typically have DZs closer to the hole.

[jlbos83]

A course I play has a drop zone positioned so that you have to clear much less water than if you made a drop by the other options, due to the shape of the hazard, It's not closer to the hole, just a different angle. That's why you have a drop zone. I think 17 at Sawgrass is similar.

[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.

 

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.

Then why have a DZ? You can always drop short of the hazard.

[Roadking2003]

As ROgolf has alluded to, there isn't supposed be ANY yardage gained that you didn't accomplish with your clubs. That's why the drop options always include, "No closer to the hole".

 

If you want to get closer to the hole, you have to hit it there. Putting a drop zone across a hazard violates this basic premise of golf.

 

No yardage you didn't earn through skill. Or lack thereof.

 

Then there is no reason for a DZ.

[sui generis]

As ROgolf has alluded to, there isn't supposed be ANY yardage gained that you didn't accomplish with your clubs. That's why the drop options always include, "No closer to the hole".

 

If you want to get closer to the hole, you have to hit it there. Putting a drop zone across a hazard violates this basic premise of golf.

 

No yardage you didn't earn through skill. Or lack thereof.

 

Then there is no reason for a DZ.

 

You'd do well to "stop digging."

 

Once in awhile the options for R26-1 b or c aren't available. DZs are the remedy.

[Sawgrass]

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.

Then why have a DZ? You can always drop short of the hazard.

If you ignore 26-1a's stroke and distance option for a drop, and you study 26-1b's option, you will see that your statement is false. Sometimes there is a flagline drop option, but other times the flagline only leads to another section of the WH bordered by OB. You may not take a relief drop in the WH, you may not take it OB. Other than the S&D, a DZ is the only recourse.

[jlbos83]

As ROgolf has alluded to, there isn't supposed be ANY yardage gained that you didn't accomplish with your clubs. That's why the drop options always include, "No closer to the hole".

 

If you want to get closer to the hole, you have to hit it there. Putting a drop zone across a hazard violates this basic premise of golf.

 

No yardage you didn't earn through skill. Or lack thereof.

 

Then there is no reason for a DZ.

A course I play has a drop zone positioned so that you have to clear much less water than if you made a drop by the other options, due to the shape of the hazard, It's not closer to the hole, just a different angle. That's why you have a drop zone. I think 17 at Sawgrass is similar.

[Newby]

For instance, grandstand TIOs surrounding greens typically have DZs closer to the hole.

 

But they do not conflict with the statement in the decision "it allows the player to drop a ball on a part of the course that the Rule would not have permitted him to reach."

[QEight]

But still many courses do have illegal DZs and every day someone uses those to record an official score.

 

The world is not perfect and without those DZs some people might be spending considerable amount of time on a hole.

 

 

[smeech8000]

So if OP hits it in the hazard, drops in the illegal drop zone and finishes the hole is he required to take a score of par plus handicap since the hole was not played in accordance with RoG?

[Sawgrass]

So if OP hits it in the hazard, drops in the illegal drop zone and finishes the hole is he required to take a score of par plus handicap since the hole was not played in accordance with RoG?

USGA Handicap Manual, see Example 3:

4-2/1. Explanation of "Holes Not Played" under The Rules of Golf in Accordance with the USGA Handicap System

 

Q: Are there any circumstances in which it is permissible for a player to record his or her most likely score for a hole, rather than recording par plus handicap strokes even though the hole was not played under the Rules of Golf?

 

A: Yes. Flexibility has been provided within the USGA Handicap System for a score to remain acceptable for handicap posting purposes in limited situations where the player has not played a hole(s) under the Rules of Golf, but the hole was played in such a manner that the player's score on the hole would be sufficiently accurate for handicap purposes. This policy better ascertains the player's potential ability by attempting to capture more scores for handicap purposes.

 

Example 1: If a player uses a distance-measuring device or plays a round under preferred lies where a Local Rule is not in effect, the score is acceptable for handicap purposes. (See Decision 5-1e/2 and Section 7.)

 

Example 2: A player starting, but not finishing a hole in stroke play (e.g., picking up before holing out) records the "most likely score" for handicap posting purposes (See Section 4-1) even though in breach of Rule 3-2 for failing to hole out.

 

Example 3: For situations that are generally out of the player's control, such as an incorrectly marked golf course, or incorrectly installed hole liners, the player's score for the hole is acceptable for handicap purposes. (REVISED)

[Augster]

So if OP hits it in the hazard, drops in the illegal drop zone and finishes the hole is he required to take a score of par plus handicap since the hole was not played in accordance with RoG?

 

He's playing the course as marked. He may use the drop zone.

 

Of course, this may result in a lower score on the hole and vanity caps don't make money.

[Roadking2003]

But still many courses do have illegal DZs and every day someone uses those to record an official score.

 

The world is not perfect and without those DZs some people might be spending considerable amount of time on a hole.

 

But they are not illegal. No rule says a DZ cannot be on the green side of a hazard.

[Roadking2003]

As ROgolf has alluded to, there isn't supposed be ANY yardage gained that you didn't accomplish with your clubs. That's why the drop options always include, "No closer to the hole".

 

If you want to get closer to the hole, you have to hit it there. Putting a drop zone across a hazard violates this basic premise of golf.

 

No yardage you didn't earn through skill. Or lack thereof.

 

Then there is no reason for a DZ.

 

You'd do well to "stop digging."

 

Once in awhile the options for R26-1 b or c aren't available. DZs are the remedy.

 

You do well to stop digging and show me a rule that says a DZ cannot be on the green side of the hole.

 

Almost every DZ I have played is there to speed up play, not because there is no other option. There is always another option which is to replay the shot from where the original shot was played.

[rogolf]

As ROgolf has alluded to, there isn't supposed be ANY yardage gained that you didn't accomplish with your clubs. That's why the drop options always include, "No closer to the hole".

 

If you want to get closer to the hole, you have to hit it there. Putting a drop zone across a hazard violates this basic premise of golf.

 

No yardage you didn't earn through skill. Or lack thereof.

 

Then there is no reason for a DZ.

 

You'd do well to "stop digging."

 

Once in awhile the options for R26-1 b or c aren't available. DZs are the remedy.

 

You do well to stop digging and show me a rule that says a DZ cannot be on the green side of the hole.

 

Almost every DZ I have played is there to speed up play, not because there is no other option. There is always another option which is to replay the shot from where the original shot was played.

 

You just need to read and understand Decision 33-8/2, which clearly states that a drop zone on the green side of a water hazard is not permitted when the ball fails to clear the water hazard. It clearly states that you must drop behind the water hazard.

Perhaps it's time you asked the USGA for clarification on your thoughts and opinions? Then report back to us.

[Sawgrass]

As ROgolf has alluded to, there isn't supposed be ANY yardage gained that you didn't accomplish with your clubs. That's why the drop options always include, "No closer to the hole".

 

If you want to get closer to the hole, you have to hit it there. Putting a drop zone across a hazard violates this basic premise of golf.

 

No yardage you didn't earn through skill. Or lack thereof.

 

Then there is no reason for a DZ.

 

You'd do well to "stop digging."

 

Once in awhile the options for R26-1 b or c aren't available. DZs are the remedy.

 

You do well to stop digging and show me a rule that says a DZ cannot be on the green side of the hole.

 

Almost every DZ I have played is there to speed up play, not because there is no other option. There is always another option which is to replay the shot from where the original shot was played.

 

You just need to read and understand Decision 33-8/2, which clearly states that a drop zone on the green side of a water hazard is not permitted when the ball fails to clear the water hazard. It clearly states that you must drop behind the water hazard.

Perhaps it's time you asked the USGA for clarification on your thoughts and opinions? Then report back to us.

I believe there's a strong desire to not understand.

[rogolf]

I believe there's a strong desire to not understand.

If so, I won't be responding to any more of his posts since he's not willing to accept the USGA ruling.

[sui generis]

I believe there's a strong desire to not understand.

If so, I won't be responding to any more of his posts since he's not willing to accept the USGA ruling.

 

Some days it's the "labor of Sisyphus" around here. :)

[Roadking2003]

You just need to read and understand Decision 33-8/2, which clearly states that a drop zone on the green side of a water hazard is not permitted when the ball fails to clear the water hazard. It clearly states that you must drop behind the water hazard.

Perhaps it's time you asked the USGA for clarification on your thoughts and opinions? Then report back to us.

 

Maybe you just need to show me where it says "a drop zone on the green side of a water hazard is not permitted when the ball fails to clear the water hazard"

 

33 - 8/2 does not say that. The context of 33 - 8/2 is a committee allowing a golfer to just drop over the hazard and add two strokes because he cannot hit over the hazard. So he doesn't hit into the hazard at all. He just drops and adds two strokes.

 

That's totally different from saying "a drop zone on the green side of a water hazard is not permitted"

 

And the weight of many golf courses and many tournaments with drop zones on the green side of the hazard supports my statement.

 

BTW, under your interpretation of the rule, a golfer who cannot carry the hazard would have to stand there all day hitting balls into the hazard.

[Roadking2003]

I believe there's a strong desire to not understand.

If so, I won't be responding to any more of his posts since he's not willing to accept the USGA ruling.

 

You need to learn how to read USGA rulings. They are quite specific.

[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.

 

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.

 

Show me where it says the drop zone is not to get you over the hazard.

[sui generis]

D33-8/2 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.

[sekrah]

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.

 

 

Rule 26-1b describes how to drop after entering a water hazard, and this ruling says dropping on the greenside of the water hazard is a violation of this rule. What am I missing that Roadking2003 sees?

[sui generis]

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.

 

 

Rule 26-1b describes how to drop after entering a water hazard, and this ruling says dropping on the greenside of the water hazard is a violation of this rule. What am I missing that Roadking2003 sees?

 

Doubtless, he'll get back to us in a minute . . . after he's done arguing with that stop sign on the corner. :swoon:

[Roadking2003]

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.

 

 

Rule 26-1b describes how to drop after entering a water hazard, and this ruling says dropping on the greenside of the water hazard is a violation of this rule. What am I missing that Roadking2003 sees?

 

Doubtless, he'll get back to us in a minute . . . after he's done arguing with that stop sign on the corner. :swoon:

 

A stop sign would certainly provide a better response than your posts. :swoon:

[wadesworld]

 

 

That's totally different from saying "a drop zone on the green side of a water hazard is not permitted"

 

And the weight of many golf courses and many tournaments with drop zones on the green side of the hazard supports my statement.

 

BTW, under your interpretation of the rule, a golfer who cannot carry the hazard would have to stand there all day hitting balls into the hazard.

 

Sorry RoadKing, they're right, and you're wrong.

 

The fact many courses have illegal drop zones does not support your statement. Many courses have red staked hazards that shouldn't be, or even woods and high grass that are red staked even though they are not hazards at all. I played one course that had a sign which said "after 2 balls in the water, golfers are required to use the drop zone on the green." Yep, they had a circle painted on the green itself.

 

Many course operators believe a "local rule" is anything they want to make up, but that couldn't be further from the truth.

 

As for the golfer which can't clear the water, no. They don't have to stand there all day. They can just pick the ball up and then just record par+handicap strokes as their score for handicap purposes, or they can pull out their putter and putt it down the cart path. If the player can't get across the water, there's a good chance they can't get it out of a big bunker either. Picking up is the solution, not creating artificial "drop it up here" zones.