‘general_zeke’ has drawn our attention to the possible dodginess of Decision 26-1/12.
This
Decision states:
Hazard Marked as Water Hazard Where Ball Last Crosses Margin and as
Lateral Hazard Where Ball Comes to Rest
Q. A body of water is defined in part as a water hazard and in part
as a lateral water hazard. A ball last crosses the hazard margin at a spot
where it is marked as a water hazard but it comes to rest in that part of the
hazard marked as a lateral water hazard. In addition to playing the ball as it
lies, what are the player's options?
A. Since the ball last crossed the margin of the hazard where
it is defined as a water hazard, the options in Rule 26-1c are not available.
Thus, the player is limited to the options in Rules 26-1a and 26-1b.
As
the ‘general’ says: ‘How can a ball that lies within a lateral water hazard
have “last crossed the margin of the hazard where it is defined as a water
hazard”? ‘Surely the demarcation between water hazard and lateral water hazard
(an imaginary line across the hazard) is a boundary of both. If it is the
boundary of both one would assume that it is this margin that the ball last
crossed. As such it would be the margin of both water hazard and lateral water
hazard with the lateral water hazard being the side that the ball last
crossed.’
The ‘general’ makes a very interesting point.
The Definition of a Lateral Water Hazard states, in part:
A “lateral water hazard” is a water hazard or that part of a water
hazard so situated that it is not possible, or is deemed by the Committee to be
impracticable, to drop a ball behind the water hazard in accordance with Rule
26-1b. All ground and water within the margin of a lateral water hazard
are part of the lateral water hazard.
When the margin of a lateral water hazard is defined by stakes, the
stakes are inside the lateral water hazard, and the margin of the hazard is
defined by the nearest outside points of the stakes at ground level. … The
margin of a lateral water hazard extends vertically upwards and downwards.
A ball is in a lateral water hazard when it lies in or any part of
it touches the lateral water hazard.
The question is: How can a
ball be in a lateral water hazard unless it has crossed a/the margin of that
hazard?
The implication of the Definition is that the lateral water hazard
part has only one (continuous) margin. This can, in my view, support the
view that the line across the water between the two red pegs on either side of
the hazard is part of that margin. It is difficult to see how
part of this hazard is a water hazard, and part a lateral water hazard, if
there is not a boundary between them.
Rule 26-1 states, in part:
Relief for
Ball in Water Hazard
c.
As additional options available only if the ball last crossed the
margin of a lateral water hazard, drop a ball outside the water hazard within
two club-lengths of and not nearer the hole than (i) the point where the
original ball last crossed the margin of the water hazard or (ii) a point on
the opposite margin of the water hazard equidistant from the hole.
The
clear implication here is that a lateral water hazard has more than one
margin.
So,
which is it? The Definition and Rule 26-1 cannot both be correct.
In
both cases, however, there cannot be any doubt that there is a margin across
the hazard between the water hazard and the lateral water hazard and that it is
the margin of the lateral water hazard which the ball last crossed before
coming to rest in the lateral hazard. That is, since it is a fact that
the ball is within the lateral water hazard, it follows, ipso facto,
that it must have crossed a margin of that hazard.
Relief
should, therefore, be taken utilising this point as reference and option 26-1c
should be available.
It
is difficult to fathom the rationale which the Castle Dwellers have
applied when reaching this Decision. But there will invariably be a relief
option within two club-lengths of the point where the ball crossed the margin between
the two hazards or on one of the other margins of the lateral hazard at
a point which is the same distance from the hole as the reference point.
We
would be grateful to receive any comment from Roggies who have a view on the
extent to which this Decision is dodgy, or argument as to why it is not dodgy at all.
The margin of a wh or lwh does not cross through water. Exterior only. What kind of hazard the ball is in is completely determined by where the ball last crossed the margin.
ReplyDeleteFrom the definitions
ReplyDelete"When the margin of a wh (or lwh) is defined by a line on the ground,..."
This decision has often bugged me.
ReplyDelete"A ball last crosses the hazard margin at a spot where it is marked as a water hazard but it comes to REST in that part of the hazard marked as a lateral water hazard"
(mixed marked WH)The only time a ball can be defined as coming to REST in either a WH or LWH is when it is at rest on a red or yellow line. Therefore it is possible for the above quote to be correct. Although I doubt this is what the question was meant to convey. We know the last crossing point was over yellow markings/margins so the landing on the red line/margin is not applicable because, although the ball is in the LWH it has not last crossed this point.
Anon,
Your quote 1
Rog's diagram shows the margin crossing the water. yellow first then red, hence red was the last crossing point. I think margins do cross over water, only lines do not.
This I agree with. "What kind of hazard the ball is in is completely determined by where the ball last crossed the margin."
Your second quote.
"When the margin of a wh (or lwh) is defined by a line on the ground," this statement is only to inform that the line IS part of the hazard. It does not mean margins are only defined by lines, if that was what you were pointing out.
Thanks for the comments.
DeleteAnon: Could you identify the section of the Rules which specifies that the margin of a hazard can only be ‘exterior’ and ’does not cross through the water’?
Anon: I acknowledge that the diagram can be interpreted to indicate that the there is a line across the water, and that this is difficult to imagine in practice. I also acknowledge that where there is a line it defines the margin of the hazard. However, the Definition also states that: When the margin of a lateral water hazard is defined by stakes, the stakes are inside the lateral water hazard, and the margin of the hazard is defined by the nearest outside points of the stakes at ground level. In this case the margin is an imaginary line between adjacent stakes and there is no reason (in my view) why such an imaginary line/margin should exist between the ‘corner’ stakes on either side of the hazard at the point where the hazards abut, as indicated in the diagram. Thus in the case where the margin of a water hazard is only partially marked by a line, the remainder of the margin is defined by the imaginary (straight) line between the stakes.
arny: I do not understand your point (as I read it) about a ball only being at rest in a water hazard when it is on a line. Rule 26-2, for instance refers to a ball coming to rest in the same or another water hazard. I would have thought that any ball within a water hazard could be referred to as being at rest in that hazard. Could you please clarify.
As indicated to Anon, I think that where a line is used it does define the margin of the hazard but where a line is absent the margin is defined by the stakes. Do you agree with this?
Rog,
DeleteI was trying to explain the only way I could understand the Question, was to give an example of how it could happen. The ball must be on a line to determine where it lies in the hazard. If it is not on a line then it is in THE hazard without definition of WH or LWH.
"What kind of hazard the ball is in is completely determined by where the ball last crossed the margin."
A ball at rest in a hazard is in THE hazard irrespective of the stakes/ markings defining the margin. It is the crossing point that is required for relief purposes, this does not define in which part of the hazard the ball lies.
I think Anon, has a point there is no purpose of having a margin crossing a WH. It is only the outside boundaries that are required. In your diagram it looks like two hazards. And we know that is not the case.
OK, thanks arny.
DeleteI agree that there is a legitimate point of view that this is one hazard (divided into two parts, for particular Rules of Golf purposes) and that there is one continuous margin surrounding it.
I also accept as a legitimate point of view that water hazards and lateral water hazards are separate entities, separately defined, and that the margin of a hazard can be defined by the imaginary line between adjacent hazard stakes.
Interesting question though.
While there are rational contrary arguments and there is (so far as I am aware) no unequivocal substantiation within the Rules, I think, given the likely rarity of its invocation, that we can probably classify this Decision as dubious but tolerable.
i agree Arny. Quite often water hazards are only defined by pegs. When this is the case the margin of the hazard is the straight line defined by the outside of adjacent pegs as endpoints. (or line segment if we are to be pedantic). It is difficult to envisage a reason that this "line segment" shouldn't cross water as well as ground.
ReplyDeleteThanks general, see supporting comments above.
Delete"But there will invariably be a relief option within two club-lengths of the point where the ball crossed the margin between the two hazards or on one of the other margins of the lateral hazard at a point which is the same distance from the hole as the reference point."
ReplyDeleteHave a look at D26-1/14. In particular, X2Y2. It would be easy to tweak your diagram so that the only relief options are 26-1a and b. Not sure about b either. Might need a boat for the reference point.
I am not completely clear on your point here Anon.
DeleteIt seems to me that in the Decision 26-1/14 diagram options 26-1a and 26-1b are available (from reference point X2 in the latter case). While Y2 does not, according to this Decision, meet the specifications for being on the ‘opposite margin’, such a judgement does, in my view, qualify this Decision as ‘dodgy’.
In my view any reasonable plane English interpretation would indicate that an ‘opposite margin’ is one which is crossed by the arc from the flagstick through the point of entry. I do not believe that there is any mention of ‘straight lines’ in the Rules as they apply to this situation. I will stick my neck out and say that in every diagram you might see, the ‘opposite margin’ is depicted by and arc. In Decision 26-1/15, why is the line E-C not straight?
But that is for another day, possibly.
In regard to my diagram, this debate is about what should be available theoretically and not necessarily what is available practically. That is, if the lateral water hazard in my diagram were to meet the strict narrow definition that it is ‘not possible’ to drop behind it, the only practical options are 26-1a and 26-1b (taking the point where the ball crossed the lateral hazard margin as the reference). In practical terms option 26-1c, taken from the point ‘X’ on my diagram, would, while theoretically available, not be available by virtue of this geographical restriction. A 26-1c option on the ‘opposite side’ is not available because the arc from ‘X’ passes through the margin of the water hazard.
I realise there is some geometry involved here but I'm unsure as to what you mean by "plane english" Rog!
ReplyDeleteZeke
ReplyDeleteAs I have said before, it is little wonder that you are a general!
I could attempt to claim distraction by arcs and line segments and the like but it is easier to just plead guilty to incompetence. Plain English it is.