JPW
2012-02-19 14:52:13 UTC
I haven't posted for ages so here is a problem to help solve.
At my club we have a small stream only some one metre wide which
crosses both the first and ninth holes. From the onset of the club
(120 years) the stream has rumbled at 90 degrees to the fairway at the
foot of a gorge some 8 metres deep and some 20 metres wide. Over the
years the banks have fallen away in places and it has become generally
untidy. Of course it is a water hazard and the extremes of the hazard
have always been marked at the top of the banks where they meet the
fairway.
This winter the club has engaged contractors to clear out the banks
and sculptor them to a nice even slope everywhere. They have been
turfed with very good quality slow growing turf and the resulting area
is so much transformed to be a lovely grassed sloping area down to the
stream. It looks a treat!!! During the winter the whole area has been
played as Compulsory GUR for obvious reasons.The stream itself has
been completely along its length timber banked and contained within a
one metre channel. Tidy and easier to maintain.
I now come to my point. Where should the extremities of the hazard be
marked? Bear in mind that a badly hit second shot will disappear down
the slope into the stream or maybe not go into the stream or maybe
carry to the far side. Whatever it does the player won't be able to
see what is the result.
Before answering I quote Defintion 33-2a/4 which says that "the lines
and/or stakes defining the hazard should be placed along the NATURAL
limits of the hazard where the ground breaks down to form the
depression containing the water." As the whole area has been just
'manufactured' there are no NATURAL limits where the ground breaks
down to form the hazard.
It has caused a bit of discussion. I know which I prefer but am saying
nothing. Yet!!!
Anyone care to hazard an opinion?
Pat
At my club we have a small stream only some one metre wide which
crosses both the first and ninth holes. From the onset of the club
(120 years) the stream has rumbled at 90 degrees to the fairway at the
foot of a gorge some 8 metres deep and some 20 metres wide. Over the
years the banks have fallen away in places and it has become generally
untidy. Of course it is a water hazard and the extremes of the hazard
have always been marked at the top of the banks where they meet the
fairway.
This winter the club has engaged contractors to clear out the banks
and sculptor them to a nice even slope everywhere. They have been
turfed with very good quality slow growing turf and the resulting area
is so much transformed to be a lovely grassed sloping area down to the
stream. It looks a treat!!! During the winter the whole area has been
played as Compulsory GUR for obvious reasons.The stream itself has
been completely along its length timber banked and contained within a
one metre channel. Tidy and easier to maintain.
I now come to my point. Where should the extremities of the hazard be
marked? Bear in mind that a badly hit second shot will disappear down
the slope into the stream or maybe not go into the stream or maybe
carry to the far side. Whatever it does the player won't be able to
see what is the result.
Before answering I quote Defintion 33-2a/4 which says that "the lines
and/or stakes defining the hazard should be placed along the NATURAL
limits of the hazard where the ground breaks down to form the
depression containing the water." As the whole area has been just
'manufactured' there are no NATURAL limits where the ground breaks
down to form the hazard.
It has caused a bit of discussion. I know which I prefer but am saying
nothing. Yet!!!
Anyone care to hazard an opinion?
Pat