I looked online at the rules and definitions section of the USGA's website but couldn't find the answer.

Here's the situation.........

A player hits his ball in the vicinity of a lateral hazard. He finds and identifies his ball and sees that it is outside of a red line used to define the boundary of the hazard. He plays his next shot, grounding his club in the process. After hitting this shot he realizes that there were two red lines on the ground and that his ball had, in fact, been located between the two lines. Is the boundary of the hazard defined by the inner line or the outer line?

Thanks,

DBOGEY

I would have to see it... to say with 100% certainty...

From your description if his ball was on the other side of a red line away from the hole you were playing, it would have to be considered in the hazard. If it was between two red lines it could be that he was in the middle of the hazard and the other line was the another boundry of the hazzard.

the only thing I can think of that might get him off the hook is if they remarked the hazard and forgot to eliminate the old line... you would have to get a ruling on that one... Sometimes with water hazards they move the boundary as the water recedes or expands, but otherwise can't think of why they would move a boundary...

99.999% of the time if his ball was over a red line clearly marking a hazard, he's in it. The second line is irrelevant unless someone in an official capacity makes a ruling that the line he was past is NOT a hazard line.

I could make that 100% if I saw it.

Oh... and did you check his bag for a can of red spray paint?

You needed a ruling from an official.

In my opinion, unless there was a notice or local rule posted informing the players which line defines the hazard, I think the player should not be penalized. The player observed that there was a hazard, noted that he was outside the hazard, and acted accordingly. Rule 1-4 says if you don't know what to do, do what's fair. I think it would be unfair to penalize a player who had good reason to believe that he was outside of the hazard.

I agree that an official ruling would have been the best way as always if in doubt over a situation... even if they make a mistake, you are protected...

As far as your comment on a local rule, it really goes the other way... you don't need a local rule to define a red hazard line... It IS a hazard. You might have a local rule to say it is NOT a hazard boundry, but not the other way around. The only issue here would be if this line was an old marking that was intended to be removed but was not. He was either in a hazard or he was not; there is no gray area here.

Even if you don't see the line or red stakes first, hit a shot and then later find out that you were in a hazard and grounded your club it is still 2 strokes... maybe not fair, but that's the rule. Rarely happens when there is a painted red line, (if you walk accross a red line you ARE in a hazard) usually it is when there are red stakes and one has been overgrown or removed, falls over... and the player does not see it.

If an official is not immediately available, what he could have done if in doubt was to proceed by playing two balls and then getting a ruling... he would have had to announce this intention prior to playing his first shot.

Since the issue is grounding the club in a hazard which by the provided description he was in one... he would suffer the penalty of 2 strokes or loss of hole in match play.

If it was me, I would just not ground my club if I was in any doubt...

I don't mean to say that a notice or local rule is needed to define the hazard. The red line defines the hazard, or, in the absence of a line, the natural margin of the hazard defines the hazard. What I mean by a notice or local rule was that such a notice or rule is needed to clarify which red line defines the hazard: the one closest to the hazard or the one furthest away. I was thinking about your comment that in some areas they move the hazard line as the water recedes or expands. I interpreted that to mean that if the water receded and they drew a second line closer to the water, then the original line no longer had any meaning because the new line, which is closer to the water, now defines the margin of the hazard.

You make a great point about the second ball (obviously, we are assuming stroke play). What the player should have done after seeing that he was between the lines was played another ball without grounding the club and then spoke with an official to determine which ball to score.

It just seems to me that player wasn't breaking any rules because it sounds to me like he had every reason to believe that he was outside of the hazard. As you point out, it'd be better if we could actually see it.

Not to nit pick... (but that is what the rules of golf are all about) but when you say "after seeing that he was between the lines..." I assume you mean before putting his first ball into play... once he grounded his club in the hazard it would be too late to play a second ball... he would have had to declare his intention to do so prior to playing the first shot. He would have to play the first shot w/o grounding the club and the second ball grounding it... I think... I would actually have to look this one up since most players would opt to just not ground their club... certain situations do not allow you to procede this way.

There is no "he had every reason to believe" rule in golf unfortunately if he was in a hazard and grounded his club no matter what he thought, 2 strokes...

Think of all the times on the PGA where a fan calls in and the pro gets DQ's for a wrong card when they didn't see a hazard line, knelt on a towel, took an improper drop, etc... they all had "reason to believe" they were proceeding correctly. Once you find out you didn't, you either go back and correct your card, or if you already turned it in, get DQ'd... Ouch!

You may very well be correct, but I'm not as sure as you are. The player saw a red line, he was clearly outside of it. After hitting his shot, he saw ANOTHER red line. This, IMHO, was a COLOSSAL error on the part of the committee who marked the course. We all have green paint to cover this type of error, and it sounds like nothing was mentioned in the local rules sheet.

Sounds to me like a perfect place to invoke 1-4.

My opinion, I would like confirmation by other officials on this.

Kevin

I don't see how equity would come in here... he was either in a hazard or he wasn't.

If the markings were confusing somehow he should have gotten a ruling before proceeding. If that was impractical, he may have been able to play 2 balls and get a ruling... again I would have to check that but am not going to spend the time...

To invoke equity; this would have to be a situation where it would be unreasonable to suspect that he was lying in a hazard.... and with no indication that it was a hazard... Since it sounds like he saw a red line and he was on the wrong side of it... I just don't see it from the way it has been described.

I guess I am somewhat unclear as to what actually happened as far as when he realized there were 2 lines, etc... And the big one is I would have to see exactly what the situation is to make a call...

I think I qualified all this in my first post.... Bottom line is you and I cannot make a ruling on an internet forum for a situation that we did not see on a golf course we have never been to...

The best way to get an answer to this would be to ask the local pro.

Agreed?

I would agree if we changed the last line to:

The best way to get an answer to this would be to ask the USGA.

I mean no disrespect, I said you may be correct in my post, I just don't agree at first blush...

It may have been the professional that created this problem. I feel the gentleman saw the hazard line, he was outside of it. After playing a shot believing he was outside the hazard according to the red line he saw, he saw another red line. This is a perfect spot to invoke equity. Are we expected to study every area for second lines that were incorrectly marked before proceeding?

Kevin

Interesting discussion, but, in his original post, the player did not see the second red line indicating he was in a hazzard until after first observing he was on the correct side of a red line and then playing his ball. Labilyboy, does this change your feeling towards this issue??

Not really, again think about it in these terms...how many tour players have been DQ'd after the fact for infractions they didn't know they committed... It is the same here, if he was in a hazard, he was in a hazard you can not ground your club. It is a 2 stroke penalty if you do... period.

Not knowing he was in a hazard in and of itself would not allow him to avoid the penalty...

Sure, there could be a situation where there is absolutely no possible way anyone would have any reason whatsoever to even suspect a little bit, possibly that they were near a hazard and therefore take caution to determine whether they were or not... like if someone painted a red line in the middle of a fairway or something... that is about the ONLY way I could see equity coming in...

I am assuming there was some type of actual hazard here, water, creek, canyon, woods... something... they normally don't just paint red lines on the ground for nothing, right? It is incumbent on the player to assess this situation and anticipate that there could potentially be a hazard defined... I cited probably the only situation I have seen that fits this where he would avoid the penalty with receding water hazards.

Here's the problem, if you went by what a player said they saw... how do you enforce the rule... ever?

For the what? the 3rd or 4th time, I could not make that judgement without actually seeing the situation... but it would be really, really, really hard to imagine one where this guy would avoid the penalty.

For the future, the OP needs to go to the local pro at the end of the round and get a decisoin before settling the bets, turning in the cards or what ever the situation is...Just can't make a 100% accurate call over the internet...

Gentlemen-

Thank you for all the reply's. This was a very tough situation to describe in a post. We have actually emailed the USGA to see what they say. I believe the committe is at fault for not clearly marking the hazzard. The ball was clearly outside of the first "red line" and we didn't see the 2nd red line untill after the shot was played. We couldn't really tell what the "fresh" line marking the hazzard. Just thought this would make an interesting topic and now more people are aware of this type of situation. I will post the USGA's response when I recieve it.

Again thanks for the reply's and clairification.

DBOGEY

After a quick scan I don't see any rulings on this exact situation... (doesn't mean there isn't one just that I only spent 10 minutes on it) but if you look at 26/2 (below) that refers to a situation with improperly installed markings for a water hazard seems to indicate that even if the markings are wrong (and I don't think these were) you still have to treat a hazard as a hazard.... this is where I would actually have to see the situation... was the location within the natural boundaries of the lateral water hazard? If so, 2 strokes...

Keep in mind if the red line he had crossed was properly installed and marking the lateral water hazard then he was in the hazard and is penalized the existance of another "old" line or line for another hazard would be irrelevant.

The question I keep coming up with is how could he have gotten to his ball without crossing the line? If he walked accross the line, he was aware of it, what made him think he was not in the hazard?

Anyway here is 26/2...

26/2 Ball Within Natural Margin of Water Hazard But Outside Stakes Defining Margin

Q. Stakes defining the margin of a water hazard were improperly installed. As a result, an area which clearly was part of the water hazard was outside the stakes and, thus, technically was outside the hazard. A player’s ball came to rest in water in this area. The player claimed that, in view of the alignment of the stakes, his ball was in casual water through the green. Was the claim valid?

A. No. The Committee erred in not properly defining the margin of the hazard as required by Rule 33-2a, but a player is not entitled to take advantage of such an error. Since it was clear that the place where the player’s ball lay was within the natural boundaries of the water hazard, the claim should not be upheld.

The more I think about this one the less I can come up with any logic to say he was not in a hazard... Good luck with the USGA... did you send them pictures?

labillyboy
I agree that if a player commits breaks a rule he is penalized whether or not he knew that he broke the rule. What's got me saying that player shouldn't be penalized here (via Rule 1-4) is that the player saw the hazard, saw a red line, and saw that he was outside of that red line and played believing that he was outside of the hazard. I agree with KevCarter that the Committee made a little boo-boo by not getting rid of one of those red lines. If the Committee had properly marked the hazard, meaning there was only one red line, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Decision 26/2 may be the answer, but, unfortunately, we don't have enough information to know if we have that situation or a similiar situation here. We are having to make assumptions regarding the terrain and depending on what is assumed the answer changes. I've been assuming that the player was in an area that would not be considered part of a hazard except for the fact that there was a red line.

You asked how the player could have gotten between the lines without seeing the first line? Good question. I can think of a few reasons how that's possible.
1. The player wasn't watching the ground when he crossed the outside line (cleaning clubs, talking with his partner, drinking, observing the scenery, had dust in his eye, etc).
2. The outside line had faded (or the grass had been cut) which made it hard or impossible to see the outside line at the point where the player crossed the line.
3. The outside line didn't begin until it was near the ball. (Another poor job of marking job by the Committee).

Since the player didn't see the outside line until after he hit his shot, I assume that the distance between the inside line and outside line was at least several feet. I don't understand why that would be the case. Argh! We need more information.

You are just too nice of guy... never make a referee... LOL

Have you considered that this guy might have been trying to pull a fast one and got caught? That is possible too... I KNOW people like that, have to watch them like a hawk!

He should have just not grounded his club and there would not be any issue. That is one thing I have learned whenever there is any doubt, proceed under the most unfavorable assumption and you won't have a problem.

This will be a good learning experience for these guys.

If the player is being truthful and never saw the second line until after playing the shot, then their would have been no thought as to not grounding his club for his shot. However, if he was in fact in a hazzard, i would agree that he would incur the penalty whether he realized he was in or not. What this really comes down to is why their were two lines and which one was the actual hazzard indicator. It could very well be an unfair situation, but life and golf are full of them. Just ask anyone who has gotten a terrible bounce of off a fairway sprinkler head or hit a mid fairway cart direction sign.

Wow! Ya gotta love the rules!

It was actually my brother that was in this situation. Again tough to explain without pics. He would never try to pull a fast one. I just thought this was the strangest ruling that I have ever came across and wanted to see what everyone thought. Didn't know it would be this hot of a topic. We actually played with 2 MGA Officals (mass golf officals) today in a mem-guest at the course where this happened. At first they were like HUH? how could that happen???? After a litlle further explanation they both said they would have invoked the 1-4 equity. We showed them excatly where the ball was and how the lines were painted and the ball was clearly outside the margin of the hazzard. Any way...this was the strangest situation I have ever come across. Hope if it happens to any of you u know how to proceed.

Dbogey

I's not seeing a 1-4 situation... Equity is only for situations not covered by the rules. Those officials out there in MA must be real softies. Still, I would have to go by what they say assumnig they know the rules and that they were THERE... I am really glad you were able to get a proper ruling.

5000 miles away on the internet, to my mind this IS covered by the rules. Either the line is the hazard line or it's not... The fact that it is poorly done is immaterial (26/2) He was over it or he wasn't... black and white. This must be so obviously NOT a hazard line that it was a no brainer.

The problem with using 1-4 so you can understand my objection is that in essence you are saying that all course markings suddely become negotiable and they are not. The fact that there are two lines there tells me that what they were really saying is that the line was clearly a mistake after looking at it. Make sure the course goes out and removes it.... or X it out ( I have seen this done often for GUR situations) because as it is right now... if there is a line there it is a hazard. We are instructed that 1-4 is always a last ditch measure used only when every other angle is exhausted... I feel like I could have settled this under the rules, your brother might not have been happy, but that is the "rub of the green".

Best wishes to you, fairways and greens (and no more red lines).

I think you might want to look up "rub of the green." It's in the definition section of the rule book.

Kevin

yes if you go by the definition in the rule book... that would require an outside agency...

The term is also used to refer to good or bad luck in general....

the rub of the green (mainly British)
if you have the rub of the green, you have good luck, especially in a sports competition. This player hasn't had the rub of the green in the last few tournaments.