Question:

I suggest you go back and read the thread as I don’t remember asking for any help. It seems like a valid attempt to speed play.

Is that what you do when someone offers to do something.  Ask them to re-read your previous thread comments?  Okay buddy-boy. I asked previously for the logic behind doing this local rule you mentioned.   I asked why a lateral hazard is not a viable option for the problem posed.  You responded with: "Speed of play when the only viable option is going back to the tee and hitting another." As that didn’t answer my question (which is your right) I asked for the course name so that I could find the details out for myself (and all of us). Now, we get your latest response.  Seems like you don’t want to cite the name of one of these golf courses with this supposed local rule. So be it, I won’t ask again.  Perhaps you don’t recall the name. Perhaps word association will help.  Try these … Could it be: Transparent Harbor Golf Links or Vapor Golf and Tennis Club Bye. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Not my local rule so I don’t know why, but there should be water in the hazard. Please share the name of the course and I’ll call them up to find out the details.  Be glad to help. I suggested it be a lateral hazard, not a lateral water hazard.  Just like a grass bunker can be a hazard. Also, the point of entry is difficult to determine in order to take the penalty. Just mark it with red stakes and it is no harder to determine the point of entry than any other hazard. Speed of play when the only viable option is going back to the tee and hitting another. Tom, So I can learn something here, why not make the nasty area a lateral hazard and be done with it? Then, if there are portions where someone could still hit their ball, this option is still viable within the lateral hazard option (other than grounding of the club). Nothing to do with hazards at all. ROG 27 – Lost or OB. You hit a ball into the stuff and hit a provisional for lost per ROG 27. You find the first ball which is totally unplayable. Instead of slowing down the world while you go back to the tee (ROG 28), the provisional is put into play taking the stroke and distance penalty for the unplayable. It is a local rule that I have seen at some clubs. Could you explain how that is thought to help?  I may not be understanding the reason for the local rule. On the surface of things (which is sometimes dangerous) I don’t know why a golfer/club would want to give up a golfer’s option of taking the ball back on line between ball and hole.  Further, if the landing area is so nasty (that you can’t hit out) and it is shaped so that taking it back along the line is not a viable option – then maybe it would be a better candidate for a lateral hazard.  That would really speed things up without unfairly penalizing the golfer.  as then you would get two club lengths from the margin of the hazard (plus other options).

Response:

Not my local rule so I don’t know why, but there should be water in the hazard. Please share the name of the course and I’ll call them up to find out the details.  Be glad to help.

You should be aware that the local rule Tom has mentioned is invalid, as it modifies a rule of golf. I suggested it be a lateral hazard, not a lateral water hazard.  Just like a grass bunker can be a hazard.   …… Just mark it with red stakes and it is no harder to determine the point of entry than any other hazard.

There’s no such thing as a ‘lateral hazard’ as distinct from a lateral water hazard.  I know that numerous golf courses in the US use red stakes at the boundaries of the course and wooded areas, presumably as a ploy to stop players returning to where they last played from, but unless the area in question satisfies the definition of a water hazard, this is also invalid.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Not my local rule so I don’t know why, but there should be water in the hazard. Please share the name of the course and I’ll call them up to find out the details.  Be glad to help. You should be aware that the local rule Tom has mentioned is invalid, as it modifies a rule of golf. I suggested it be a lateral hazard, not a lateral water hazard.  Just like a grass bunker can be a hazard.   …… Just mark it with red stakes and it is no harder to determine the point of entry than any other hazard. There’s no such thing as a ‘lateral hazard’ as distinct from a lateral water hazard.  

You are correct.   I know that numerous golf courses in the US use red stakes at the boundaries of the course and wooded areas, presumably as a ploy to stop players returning to where they last played from, but unless the area in question satisfies the definition of a water hazard, this is also invalid.

You are correct.  But then the test to be a lateral water hazard appears pretty loose (since it doesn’t have to contain water).  From RoG definitions: A "water hazard