One of my local courses says explicitly on the scorecard "all native grass areas play as lateral hazards."

Hole 8 has a large lateral water hazard to the right of the tee box stretching up to the right side of the green. The previous hole is to the right of that. My playing partner hit over this lateral hazard into some native grasses. He hiked over there to find his ball was unplayable. Now the only places for him to drop from there (with a penalty) within the spirit of the rules was to drop behind the hazard, which would have been in a sand bunker. Going further back from the bunker would have put him into the water hazard. Since I don't think that is allowed, I told him that he would have to rehit from the tee. He claimed that, since he made it over the water, he should have been able to drop on the other side of the lateral hazard. I said this wasn't allowed either because, even though it was no closer to the hole, it does not lie on the line where the ball crossed into the hazard. He was disgruntled as he teed up again, and he put his second tee shot over the white stakes on the other side of the hole.

Just wondering if I was correct.

I'd also like to add another twist since it is something that comes up often. Say a player hits over a yellow or red staked hazard, lands on the other side, but then bounces back into the hazard. Am I correct in assuming that if there is no place that is no closer to the hole in line with where the ball entered that the player must drop on the near side of teh hazard? This comes up a LOT.

His ball was in the native grass, according to the local rule therefore it should be considered to be in a lateral water hazard (I assume they actually use the term "lateral water hazard" and not "lateral hazard" - the latter renders the LR invalid).

Thus, normal rules for the LWH apply: (1) play it as it lies or (2) go back to original position (3) go back in a straight line from the flag (4) drop within 2 clublengths not nearer to the hole from the point where it last crossed the margin and (5) drop it within 2 clublengths on the other side of the LWH not nearer to the hole.

It is unclear from your description if this native grass was the same hazard as the "real" water hazard. If it is the same hazard, he handled okay. Otherwise, he should've determined where the ball last crossed the margin of the "grass LWH".

As for the second question: you should follow the water hazard rules by the letter. That means: the margin where the ball last crossed the hazard. From there, you should never drop in the hazard and/or closer to the hole. In a water hazard there is never an option to drop it "on the other side".

Let's assume you play a hole south to north and there is a water hazard running through the fairway east to west. Your teeshot clears the water hazard, than bounces back into the water. You will than have to drop south of the hazard (or play it as it lies or go back to the tee). Going sideways is never an option with a frontal WH. So:


If the water hazard was a lateral water hazard (red stakes) it would flow north-south. Say it is on the right side of the fairway. If the ball crosses the WH and than bounces back into it, the position where it crossed the boundary on the east side is "reference point X". You can than either drop it on the east side of the hazard within 2 clublengths from X not nearer to the hole or on the west side of the hazard (2 clublengths from Y, not nearer to the hole). And of course, the other options as with a normal WH apply (thus rehit from tee, play it as it lies, drop back on the line from hole through X).

To make things complete:

jev wrote:

His ball was in the native grass, according to the local rule therefore it should be considered to be in a lateral water hazard (I assume they actually use the term "lateral water hazard" and not "lateral hazard" - the latter renders the LR invalid). Thus, normal rules for the LWH apply: (1) play it as it lies or (2) go back to original position (3) go back in a straight line from the flag (4) drop within 2 clublengths not nearer to the hole from the point where it last crossed the margin and (5) drop it within 2 clublengths on the other side of the LWH not nearer to the hole. It is unclear from your description if this native grass was the same hazard as the "real" water hazard. If it is the same hazard, he handled okay. Otherwise, he should've determined where the ball last crossed the margin of the "grass LWH".

The native grass is designated as a “lateral hazard”. Not a “lateral water hazard”. There is native grass all over the course, and that’s kind of where it gets its flavor. So my understanding is that the native grass is a separate hazard from the water hazard that it is adjacent to.

So it sounds like my on course interpretation of the rule was correct?

In response to the second post, thank you for the outstanding reply.

However, what about a situation where a lateral water hazard has a bay that juts into the fairway or the fairway has a dogleg that goes around the lateral water hazard? Should a shot clear that bay but then roll back into the hazard, is one allowed to drop within two club lengths on the other side as long as it is farther from the hole?

Bryan K wrote:

jev wrote: (I assume they actually use the term "lateral water hazard" and not "lateral hazard" - the latter renders the LR invalid). The native grass is designated as a “lateral hazard”. Not a “lateral water hazard”.

That makes things very simple. A "lateral hazard" does not exist within the Rules of Golf. Therefore, no special rules apply. Thus, declare it unplayable and drop either 2 clublengths from where it lies (not nearer to the hole), go back in a straight line or go back to the place where the ball originally was played from. All with 1 penalty shot.

Quote:

There is native grass all over the course, and that’s kind of where it gets its flavor.

Sounds like an interesting place to play! I love playing unusual courses where people got inventive .

Quote:

So it sounds like my on course interpretation of the rule was correct?

Yep. Even it had been declared a LWH, clearing the first would not have provided relief from a second hazard.

Bryan K wrote:

However, what about a situation where a lateral water hazard has a bay that juts into the fairway or the fairway has a dogleg that goes around the lateral water hazard? Should a shot clear that bay but then roll back into the hazard, is one allowed to drop within two club lengths on the other side as long as it is farther from the hole?

It is the margin that was crossed last that determines the type of hazard and how it should be treated. It doesn't matter if it has crossed the margin of that same hazard before and what the status of that margin indicated.

What I called options 4 and 5 are actually the same option in the rules. If you're allowed to drop within 2 clublengths (thus a LWH), you may drop on the other side of the hazard too, no matter what color it has there.

If the bay is marked correctly, it has yellow stakes (even if the rest of the hazard is a LWH) and if the ball crossed that margin last the option to take 2 clublengths does not exist. And thus there would not be an option to drop on the other side either.

Same for the status of the water in the inside of the dogleg. If there is an option to go back in line, the WH will be marked yellow and no option to take 2 clublengths exist. If the option to go back in a straight line is not viable, the hazard should have been marked red and thus it is a LWH. In that case, you may drop on the other side not nearer to the hole too (but usually that point will be an awfull long way back to the tee).

Last edited by jev on Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:32 pm; edited 1 time in total

Here is another question regarding this. I'm curious now as to how these native grass patches should be approached in general. Are they to be played like bunkers? It's easier for me to associate a rule about such an occurance with an already existing rule. I suppose I should ask the crew at the clubhouse about them next time I'm out there.

One thing to keep in mind about this course...it's a par 33 course, though I hesitate to call it "executive" because it appears as if the course designer intended it to be regulation length. I love the first seven holes. But holes 8 and 9, both par 3's, feel like they left the course incomplete. There is even room for another par 4 and a par 5 to finish it off, and given the layout, those two holes would have been absolutely awesome. But they shortened the course by converting hole 8, which was supposed to be a par 4, into the two par 3's. And then they turned the land where the par 5 was supposed to be into a giant practice facility with three practice holes and a chipping green.

Maybe I'm missing something in the translation (English is not my native language), but what is so special about this "native grass"? It seems to me there's no reason to treat it for what it is: grass. If it cannot be mowed, it's rough. You got a photo from it?

Edit: okay, I googled it (should've done that earlier ). It is the same as "ornamental grass", right? Nothing special with that, if cannot be mown (and I guess they don't want to do that) they can have it declared an environmentally sensitive area. That is something the course-owner and the committee cannot do, it needs to be declared as such by an external authority. The committee may than create a local rule stating (like they tried to) that is treated as a (lateral) water hazard, GUR or OB. See decision 33-4/81.

jev wrote:

Maybe I'm missing something in the translation (English is not my native language), but what is so special about this "native grass"? It seems to me there's no reason to treat it for what it is: grass. If it cannot be mowed, it's rough. You got a photo from it?

Many courses in the USA create lateral water hazards (often shortened to lateral hazard, which in the USA generally means the same thing) for areas where balls frequently are lost. It is a pace of play issue. The course prefers that players go to the edge of the long native grass (or woods) and then proceed under the lateral water hazard rule. It is supposed to save time.

Personally I do not like the "local rule" these courses use in this manner. The USGA indicates it is not proper to create a lateral water hazard in areas that are not commonly filled with water. Nonetheless, it is common at many northern resorts in Michigan to see red stakes lining the woods and forest land adjacent to each hole.

Thanks for that explanation. I know about the issues with (lateral) water being misused in order to speed up play, that is frowned on here too. It's not as common on this side on the pond as it is in the USA, but I've seen it on a couple of courses, mainly in France, Spain and Portugal.

I take it these patches of native grass however aren't that large, are they? Couple of 10s yards long, maybe 20 or 30 yard? Declare it an ESA and as such GUR if you must.

We've got them too on my homecourse and they have no special status. The layout of the fairways is such that they don't really pose a problem, usually directly in front of a teebox before the fairway begins. Where the greenkeepers really want you to stay out from, they make it GUR - we've got maybe two semi-permanent GUR areas. Local rule forbids playing from GUR, BTW.

The "native grass" (or "prairie grass" or "native prairie grass) situation is actually extremely common in the prairie states in the US. I think I've played at least a dozen courses, from Texas to North Dakota, where native prairie grass plays as a hazard.

These patches tend to be quite large. The grass tends to be anywhere from knee high to waste high. Some of the locals like to call it "fescue", if that helps.

These areas exist primarily on links style courses that don't have any trees. The areas are intentionally left long to provide hazards. Since these courses tend to be wide open, they need to give some kind of penalty to big hitters who like to tee it high and let it fly but miss. It also provides a means to naturally separate the holes while giving the course some flavor.

I talked to the course pro today about the fescue, and it turns out that the course changed course a couple of years ago in order to be in line with the USGA rules. The fescue is actually nothing special. The ball plays as it lies, and if you can't find it, it's stroke and distance.

The scorecard no longer states that the fescue plays as a lateral hazard.

Does anyone know the rationale for the rule that ball cannot be declare in a water hazard?
The other day my ball went into a LWH which happened to be dry. I was able to go down to the hazard, found my ball lodged in a hole among some rocks and mud. I wanted to drop two clublength from this position WITH A PENALTY but was informed that I had to take it out of the hazrd to play. The lie outside the hazard is not as good as the one in the hazard (when dry). Is my flightmate correct? I am invoking a rule of fairness to the player when a penalty is incurred already and playing from a hazard.

tigerwoo14 wrote:

Does anyone know the rationale for the rule that ball cannot be declare in a water hazard? The other day my ball went into a LWH which happened to be dry. I was able to go down to the hazard, found my ball lodged in a hole among some rocks and mud. I wanted to drop two clublength from this position WITH A PENALTY but was informed that I had to take it out of the hazrd to play. The lie outside the hazard is not as good as the one in the hazard (when dry). Is my flightmate correct? I am invoking a rule of fairness to the player when a penalty is incurred already and playing from a hazard.

Your flightmate was correct that you can not take relief from a lateral water hazard by dropping inside the hazard. Generally the conditions outside the hazard lines should be better than inside. In your instance the dry hazard trench was better than where you were required to drop but that was the result of unusually dry conditions. My guess is typically the trench would be partially filled with water and hitting from it not an option.