Tweet
I have a question regarding interpretation of Rule 26-1.c, which specifies two additional options if your ball lies in a lateral water hazard.
The golf course I play a lot has a creek running through it, which comes into play on several of the holes. On most of the holes, the creek is a true lateral water hazard, as it runs parallel to the fairway either on the right or left hand side. But on three holes, the golfer must hit across the creek from the tee to get to the green. In fact, on one of the holes, Hole #8, a par 3, the creek fronts the green and runs perpendicular to the target line from tee to the flagstick (in no way is the creek “lateral” on this hole). However, the creek is still designated as a lateral water hazard on this hole.
My issue is the apparent inequity of designating a water hazard as “lateral” when you can easily drop behind the hazard per Rule 26-1b. The two additional options given in 26-1.c allow the golfer to go across the creek on Hole #8 at a point on the hazard margin that is equidistant to the hole from the original entry point, and drop two club lengths no nearer the hole. Doing this means that the golfer no longer has to hit across the creek on the next shot, which seems to me to be an advantage that violates the spirit of having to hit across a water hazard.
Now you might be saying at this point, “Why don’t you just shut up and enjoy the advantage given by the local club rules,” but it seems wrong that the creek is treated as a lateral water hazard on the three holes requiring a shot over the creek. If you have to hit across a water hazard to get to the hole, it shouldn’t be “lateral” until you have crossed it. Comments?
The golf course I play a lot has a creek running through it, which comes into play on several of the holes. On most of the holes, the creek is a true lateral water hazard, as it runs parallel to the fairway either on the right or left hand side. But on three holes, the golfer must hit across the creek from the tee to get to the green. In fact, on one of the holes, Hole #8, a par 3, the creek fronts the green and runs perpendicular to the target line from tee to the flagstick (in no way is the creek “lateral” on this hole). However, the creek is still designated as a lateral water hazard on this hole.
My issue is the apparent inequity of designating a water hazard as “lateral” when you can easily drop behind the hazard per Rule 26-1b. The two additional options given in 26-1.c allow the golfer to go across the creek on Hole #8 at a point on the hazard margin that is equidistant to the hole from the original entry point, and drop two club lengths no nearer the hole. Doing this means that the golfer no longer has to hit across the creek on the next shot, which seems to me to be an advantage that violates the spirit of having to hit across a water hazard.
Now you might be saying at this point, “Why don’t you just shut up and enjoy the advantage given by the local club rules,” but it seems wrong that the creek is treated as a lateral water hazard on the three holes requiring a shot over the creek. If you have to hit across a water hazard to get to the hole, it shouldn’t be “lateral” until you have crossed it. Comments?
Comment