Water hazard drop zone

[smeech8000]

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.

 

I believe the first part of your post has been addressed above by rogolf and sui generis.

 

What wadesworld refers to above in response to the bolded portion of your post is something I was alluding to in post #44 (which was succinctly answered by Sawgrass in post #45). Just because a DZ exists in opposition to 33-8/2 does not render a score/round unpostable on such a course. In similar scenarios you could post par+handicap strokes (if applicable), however the HC manual guidance suggests that situations outside players' control such as this would allow the course to be played as marked, and the score would stand.

 

I'm sure countless tournaments have been played on improperly marked courses, and I would think that since these misfeasance is applied against the entire field that equity has been met.

[Sawgrass]

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?

 

A slight correction: the Decision I posted doesn't say that a player dropping on the green side in a DZ is a violation of the Rule, it says the Committee has "violated" a Rule by placing the DZ in an unjustified place. Committee's don't get DQed though, they get to march on. So does the player who follows their inappropriate direction.

 

As to what you're missing that Roadking sees, it would be very impressive if he simply acknowledged that he learned something about the legality of Drop Zone positioning here. Let's see if it's in his character.

[sui generis]

The collective wisdom here is stimulating. Without the well-meaning but bogus contributions of some, we'd never dig deeper and have new insights revealed. Two new ways for me to look at the Rules have appeared in the past week. First, the rationale behind R24/R25 requirements for taking "complete relief." Second, some thoughts about Committee responsibility and their duties toward the players contrasted with the notion that the Committee cannot be DQed. :)

[KyGolf]

We have 2 holes on our course were there are water hazards almost 100 yards across, depending on where the tee ball is positioned the carry could be 180 yards or more, no bailout. When we have tournaments that have a high percentage of high handicappers and ladies playing, the drop zone is marked on the green side of the hazard. For the higher level tournaments the drop zone is located on the fairway side or no drop zone is marked at all. I know the former is not permitted, but it is necessary because a lot of the high cappers and ladies would be there an inordinate amount of time trying to carry the water. It really doesn't make any difference because if you can't carry a 100 yard hazard you probably aren't going to win anything anyway.

[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.

 

I hear you but that means the DZ on #17 at TPC Sawgrass is illegal (not really illegal since there is no USGA rule for DZ location, but illegal to many on this board)..

 

So, is the DZ on #17 illegal?

[Roadking2003]

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.

 

No, the DZ at #17 is closer to the hole.

[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?

 

A slight correction: the Decision I posted doesn't say that a player dropping on the green side in a DZ is a violation of the Rule, it says the Committee has "violated" a Rule by placing the DZ in an unjustified place. Committee's don't get DQed though, they get to march on. So does the player who follows their inappropriate direction.

 

As to what you're missing that Roadking sees, it would be very impressive if he simply acknowledged that he learned something about the legality of Drop Zone positioning here. Let's see if it's in his character.

 

So, in order to have "character", I have to agree with your opinion? If you can't express an opinion on this board then why have a board?

 

What I see in the USGA opinion is a request to just drop over the hazard without playing a shot. That was the proposed solution. They didn't say "add two strokes after hitting into the hazard". They wanted to have the golfers not hit at all and just drop on the other side and add two strokes.

[Roadking2003]

The collective wisdom here is stimulating. Without the well-meaning but bogus contributions of some, we'd never dig deeper and have new insights revealed.

 

This is true. Here is what I have learned;

 

1. There is no USGA rule defining where a DZ must be.

2. There are lots of opinions on the proper location of a DZ.

3. Following those opinions, lots of courses have illegal DZs.

4. Following some opinions on this board, the DZ for #17 at Sawgrass is illegal because it is closer to the hole.

 

And I'm still learning.

[Sawgrass]

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?

 

A slight correction: the Decision I posted doesn't say that a player dropping on the green side in a DZ is a violation of the Rule, it says the Committee has "violated" a Rule by placing the DZ in an unjustified place. Committee's don't get DQed though, they get to march on. So does the player who follows their inappropriate direction.

 

As to what you're missing that Roadking sees, it would be very impressive if he simply acknowledged that he learned something about the legality of Drop Zone positioning here. Let's see if it's in his character.

 

So, in order to have "character", I have to agree with your opinion? If you can't express an opinion on this board then why have a board?

 

What I see in the USGA opinion is a request to just drop over the hazard without playing a shot. That was the proposed solution. They didn't say "add two strokes after hitting into the hazard". They wanted to have the golfers not hit at all and just drop on the other side and add two strokes.

 

No, to show character you merely need to acknowledge your error.

 

By the way, the DZ on 17 at Sawgrass fulfills the Rules of Golf requirement to have the DZ positioned in a place that still makes the player hit over water. The cited Decision does not suggest the next shot has to be of any particular length.

[Roadking2003]

By the way, the DZ on 17 at Sawgrass fulfills the Rules of Golf requirement to have the DZ positioned in a place that still makes the player hit over water. The cited Decision does not suggest the next shot has to be of any particular length.

 

What "Rules of Golf requirement" would that be? What rule number specifies where a DZ can be?

 

And BTW, many posters on this board have said a DZ cannot be closer to the hole.

 

Obviously, there are lots of OPINIONS on this topic. Your opinion is no better than others. To show character, you should acknowledge that.

[Newby]

 

This is true. Here is what I have learned;

 

1. There is no USGA rule defining where a DZ must be.

2. There are lots of opinions on the proper location of a DZ.

3. Following those opinions, lots of courses have illegal DZs.

4. Following some opinions on this board, the DZ for #17 at Sawgrass is illegal because it is closer to the hole.

 

And I'm still learning.

1. 33-8/2 say where a DZ must not be. ie not on the green side of the water.

2. Many of those opinions are likely to be wrong.

3. Yes indeed.

4. Sawgrass #17 is not illegal. It is not on the green side of the water. It is nearer the hole than the tee but that is not prohibited.

[Newby]

 

 

What "Rules of Golf requirement" would that be? What rule number specifies where a DZ can be?

Decision 33-8/2 says it can't be on the green side of the water. Other than that it can be anywhere other than OB. It wouldn't make sense to put it in a WH, a bunker or GUR etc. I have known them to be placed on a forward tee where all players can get over the water.

 

And BTW, many posters on this board have said a DZ cannot be closer to the hole.

 

Whatever those posters have said, they are wrong. The Rules do not say that anywhere. The Rules are always right.

[Newby]

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."

 

That is used when more than one dropping zone is available to deal with a problem. This often arises when using DZ for when a eg wall or LWH encircles the back of a green and the player cannot find a position within 2cl not nearer the hole. The player seeking relief may well be instructed by this LR to use any DZ that is not nearer the hole.

 

The Rules do not say a DZ cannot be nearer the hole BUT do say a player may be prohibited from using one.

[Augster]

Why do we have to use Google for you? I don't get it.

 

Here it is for you then. Work on your google-fu please.

 

Please read Appendix 1, Dropping Zones in the Rules.

 

THEN go to Dropping Zones in the USGA publication "How to conduct a competition". Pages 40-41.

 

http://online.fliphtml5.com/uksp/axul/#p=40

 

Here's the USGA's take on how to set up drop Zones.

 

"Typically, the Committee should attempt to situate Dropping Zones so they are not closer to the hole than where the player would be dropping the ball when using one of his options under the relevant Rule. For example, if a Dropping Zone is used as an additional option for a Water Hazard, the Dropping Zone should be located in an area which requires the player to negotiate the Water Hazard with his next stroke. The distance should be similar to a ball played under Rule 26-1b. "

 

"Locating a Dropping Zone on the green side of a Water Hazard in order to assist players who cannot carry the hazard is contrary to the spirit of the game and is contrary to the purpose behind establishing Dropping Zones. The character of the hole and the position of the water hazard should be preserved when locating Dropping Zones."

 

So, in a way, you are correct. The USGA uses "SHOULD" in there a lot. This, I feel, is to allow a little wiggle room when posting rounds with Dropping Zones on courses marked against their wishes. They say, specifically, that putting Dropping Zones across the hazard is against the spirit of the game.

 

These are not OPINIONS expressed in this thread. They are the wishes of the USGA as to course setup. If they had their way, and they do when they are the committee in charge of course setup, there wouldn't be any drop zones across hazards.

 

And, as Newby has posted while I was writing that tome, Decision 33-8/2 backs up the USGA's wishes for course setup.

 

There's 20 minutes I wish I had back.

[Sawgrass]

By the way, the DZ on 17 at Sawgrass fulfills the Rules of Golf requirement to have the DZ positioned in a place that still makes the player hit over water. The cited Decision does not suggest the next shot has to be of any particular length.

 

What "Rules of Golf requirement" would that be? What rule number specifies where a DZ can be?

 

And BTW, many posters on this board have said a DZ cannot be closer to the hole.

 

Obviously, there are lots of OPINIONS on this topic. Your opinion is no better than others. To show character, you should acknowledge that.

When I offer you an opinion, I'll label it that way. I've been offering you facts, which despite your admission that you are "still learning" you seem devoted to obfuscating.

 

Now let's get back to that character thing.

[Roadking2003]

This is true. Here is what I have learned;

 

1. There is no USGA rule defining where a DZ must be.

2. There are lots of opinions on the proper location of a DZ.

3. Following those opinions, lots of courses have illegal DZs.

4. Following some opinions on this board, the DZ for #17 at Sawgrass is illegal because it is closer to the hole.

 

And I'm still learning.

1. 33-8/2 say where a DZ must not be. ie not on the green side of the water.

 

 

I keep reading rule 33-8 and cannot find where it says a DZ cannot be on the green side of the water.

 

Please show me the rule that defines where a DZ can be.

[sui generis]

This is true. Here is what I have learned;

 

1. There is no USGA rule defining where a DZ must be.

2. There are lots of opinions on the proper location of a DZ.

3. Following those opinions, lots of courses have illegal DZs.

4. Following some opinions on this board, the DZ for #17 at Sawgrass is illegal because it is closer to the hole.

 

And I'm still learning.

1. 33-8/2 say where a DZ must not be. ie not on the green side of the water.

 

 

I keep reading rule 33-8 and cannot find where it says a DZ cannot be on the green side of the water.

 

Please show me the rule that defines where a DZ can be.

 

There's this secret stuff called Decisions.

[Sawgrass]

This is true. Here is what I have learned;

 

1. There is no USGA rule defining where a DZ must be.

2. There are lots of opinions on the proper location of a DZ.

3. Following those opinions, lots of courses have illegal DZs.

4. Following some opinions on this board, the DZ for #17 at Sawgrass is illegal because it is closer to the hole.

 

And I'm still learning.

1. 33-8/2 say where a DZ must not be. ie not on the green side of the water.

 

 

I keep reading rule 33-8 and cannot find where it says a DZ cannot be on the green side of the water.

 

Please show me the rule that defines where a DZ can be.

Newby is not citing Rule 33-8, he's citing Decision 33-8/2. Rules don't have "/" (slashes) in them, but all Decisions do:

 

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.

[Roadking2003]

Why do we have to use Google for you? I don't get it.

 

Here it is for you then. Work on your google-fu please.

 

Please read Appendix 1, Dropping Zones in the Rules.

 

THEN go to Dropping Zones in the USGA publication "How to conduct a competition". Pages 40-41.

 

http://online.flipht...uksp/axul/#p=40

 

Here's the USGA's take on how to set up drop Zones.

 

"Typically, the Committee should attempt to situate Dropping Zones so they are not closer to the hole than where the player would be dropping the ball when using one of his options under the relevant Rule. For example, if a Dropping Zone is used as an additional option for a Water Hazard, the Dropping Zone should be located in an area which requires the player to negotiate the Water Hazard with his next stroke. The distance should be similar to a ball played under Rule 26-1b. "

 

"Locating a Dropping Zone on the green side of a Water Hazard in order to assist players who cannot carry the hazard is contrary to the spirit of the game and is contrary to the purpose behind establishing Dropping Zones. The character of the hole and the position of the water hazard should be preserved when locating Dropping Zones."

 

So, in a way, you are correct. The USGA uses "SHOULD" in there a lot. This, I feel, is to allow a little wiggle room when posting rounds with Dropping Zones on courses marked against their wishes. They say, specifically, that putting Dropping Zones across the hazard is against the spirit of the game.

 

These are not OPINIONS expressed in this thread. They are the wishes of the USGA as to course setup. If they had their way, and they do when they are the committee in charge of course setup, there wouldn't be any drop zones across hazards.

 

And, as Newby has posted while I was writing that tome, Decision 33-8/2 backs up the USGA's wishes for course setup.

 

There's 20 minutes I wish I had back.

 

OK, we are making progress. Thanks for doing the research.

 

Here is the bottom line;

 

1. There are no USGA rules that specify where a DZ must be.

2. There are USGA recommendations about DZ placement.

3. The USGA recommendation is "not closer to the hole than where the player would be dropping the ball when using one of his options under the relevant Rule." So clearly, Sawgrass #17 is in violation of the USGA recommendations as are many many other courses.

4. Why should other courses follow the USGA recommendation if the PGA Tour chooses to ignore it?

[Roadking2003]

This is true. Here is what I have learned;

 

1. There is no USGA rule defining where a DZ must be.

2. There are lots of opinions on the proper location of a DZ.

3. Following those opinions, lots of courses have illegal DZs.

4. Following some opinions on this board, the DZ for #17 at Sawgrass is illegal because it is closer to the hole.

 

And I'm still learning.

1. 33-8/2 say where a DZ must not be. ie not on the green side of the water.

 

 

I keep reading rule 33-8 and cannot find where it says a DZ cannot be on the green side of the water.

 

Please show me the rule that defines where a DZ can be.

 

There's this secret stuff called Decisions.

 

Got it. So no RULE!

[Roadking2003]

By the way, the DZ on 17 at Sawgrass fulfills the Rules of Golf requirement to have the DZ positioned in a place that still makes the player hit over water. The cited Decision does not suggest the next shot has to be of any particular length.

 

What "Rules of Golf requirement" would that be? What rule number specifies where a DZ can be?

 

And BTW, many posters on this board have said a DZ cannot be closer to the hole.

 

Obviously, there are lots of OPINIONS on this topic. Your opinion is no better than others. To show character, you should acknowledge that.

When I offer you an opinion, I'll label it that way. I've been offering you facts, which despite your admission that you are "still learning" you seem devoted to obfuscating.

 

 

In my OPINION, That sounds like an opinion.

[Sawgrass]

This is true. Here is what I have learned;

 

1. There is no USGA rule defining where a DZ must be.

2. There are lots of opinions on the proper location of a DZ.

3. Following those opinions, lots of courses have illegal DZs.

4. Following some opinions on this board, the DZ for #17 at Sawgrass is illegal because it is closer to the hole.

 

And I'm still learning.

1. 33-8/2 say where a DZ must not be. ie not on the green side of the water.

 

 

I keep reading rule 33-8 and cannot find where it says a DZ cannot be on the green side of the water.

 

Please show me the rule that defines where a DZ can be.

 

There's this secret stuff called Decisions.

 

Got it. So no RULE!

Since you're still learning, look up "Rule or Rules" in the Definitions section of the Rules of Golf, and see what's included within the concept of "Rule." Then come back and retract this joyous, yet false, statement.

[Roadking2003]

Since you're still learning, look up "Rule or Rules" in the Definitions section of the Rules of Golf, and see what's included within the concept of "Rule." Then come back and retract this joyous, yet false, statement.

 

I see on the USGA website "Rules" and "Decisions". Are you saying the USGA guys are wrong? They are all "Rules"?

 

Maybe you should learn something.

 

There is NO USGA RULE that specifies where DZs must be.

 

When you show me a USGA rule that specifies where a DZ must be I'll retract my joyous statement.

[sui generis]

Since you're still learning, look up "Rule or Rules" in the Definitions section of the Rules of Golf, and see what's included within the concept of "Rule." Then come back and retract this joyous, yet false, statement.

 

I see on the USGA website "Rules" and "Decisions". Are you saying the USGA guys are wrong? They are all "Rules"?

 

Maybe you should learn something.

 

There is NO USGA RULE that specifies where DZs must be.

 

When you show me a USGA rule that specifies where a DZ must be I'll retract my joyous statement.

 

You don't want to learn. You only want to be a horses Word not allowed. Well, you've reached your goal; we all acknowledge your success.

[Sawgrass]

Since you're still learning, look up "Rule or Rules" in the Definitions section of the Rules of Golf, and see what's included within the concept of "Rule." Then come back and retract this joyous, yet false, statement.

 

I see on the USGA website "Rules" and "Decisions". Are you saying the USGA guys are wrong? They are all "Rules"?

 

Maybe you should learn something.

 

There is NO USGA RULE that specifies where DZs must be.

 

When you show me a USGA rule that specifies where a DZ must be I'll retract my joyous statement.

Tell you what: Just let your statement stand. Right along with your misinterpretations.

 

But please stop asking for help.

[SNIPERBBB]

The Decisions tell you where you cannot put a DZ. So by inference you can figure out where they can go.

[Newby]

Got it. So no RULE!

 

The term "Rule" includes:

 

a. The Rules of Golf and their interpretations as contained in "Decisions on the Rules of Golf";

b. Any Conditions of Competition established by the Committee under Rule 33-1 and Appendix I;

c. Any Local Rules established by the Committee under Rule 33-8a and Appendix I; and

d. The specifications on:

(i) clubs and the ball in Appendices II and III and their interpretations as contained in "A Guide to the Rules on Clubs and Balls"; and

(ii) devices and other equipment in Appendix IV.

[KyGolf]

I'll condense what Newby said for you:

 

Decisions are rule too.

[Roadking2003]

Interesting. I'm watching the US Women's Open and the USGA is violating the RULES that posters on this board claim to know so well. They have a drop zone that clearly is closer to the hole and allows the player to NOT hit over the water. It's about 90 yards to the left and short of the green but you could use a putter from there and get it on the green.

 

Their explanation was that the normal options were too penal. LOL.

 

Maybe somebody on this board will call the officials at the USGA and tell them they are violating their own rules.

 

LOL.

[QEight]

It's about 90 yards to the left and short of the green but you could use a putter from there and get it on the green.

 

Their explanation was that the normal options were too penal. LOL.

 

They used word "should" in their guidance. So perhaps even they feel that it is not possible in some cases to stick to the spirit.

 

But being able to play around the WH is not against the spirit, just not to carry the ball across.