Ask The Expert Chris Vengesa

Q: Stakes defining the margin of a water hazard have been improperly installed and as a result, an area which clearly is a part of a water hazard is outside the stakes. A player’s ball comes to rest in water in this area. The player claims that, In view of the of the alignment of the stakes, his ball is in casual water through the green. Is the claim valid?
A: No. The committee in not properly defining the margin of the hazard. But since it’s clear that the place where the player’s ball lies is within the natural boundaries of the hazard, the claim should not be upheld.

Q: As a result of heavy rains, water over flows the natural margin of the hazard as marked by stakes. A player’s ball finishes outside the stakes but in the water overflow. Is the ball in the hazard or in the casual water?
A: Any overflow of water from a water hazard which is outside the margin of the hazard is casual water.

Q: An unmarked ditch on the left of a hole is in bounds, but the left-hand margin is out of bounds. Accordingly, it is impossible to drop behind the water hazard under rule 26-1b. A player’s ball comes to rest in the ditch. Is the player restricted to playing the ball as it lies or proceeding under Rule 26-1a?
A: It is the committee’s responsibility to define accurately the margins of water hazards and lateral water hazards – see Rule 33-2a. However, if the committee has not done so (the ditch is unmarked), the ditch is, by definition, a lateral water hazard and the player should be permitted to proceed under Rule 26- 1c (i). If the committee has marked the ditch as a water hazard then the player must take the stroke and distance option.

Q: A Player assumes his original ball is in a water hazard, although there is not reasonable evidence to that effect. Using the option in Rule 26-Ia, he plays another ball under stroke and distance. He the finds his original ball outside the hazard. What is the ruling?
A: The original ball is lost and the other ball is in play under penalty of stroke and distance.

Q: What does ‘reasonable evidence mean?
A: The term ‘reasonable evidence’ in Rule 26-1 is purposely and necessarily broad so as to permit sensible judgments to be reached on the basis of all the relevant circumstances of particular cases. A player may not deem his ball lost in a water hazard. The evidence must be preponderantly in favor of its being in the hazard. Otherwise the ball must be considered lost outside the hazard and the player must proceed under Rule 27-1. Physical conditions in the area have a great deal to do with it. For example, if a water hazard is surrounded by a fairway on which the ball could hardly be lost, the existence of reasonable evidence that the ball is in the hazard would be more likely than if there was deep rough in the area.

Q: A Player believes his original ball has come to rest in a water hazard. He searches for about a minute but does not find his ball. He therefore drops another ball behind the hazard and plays it. He then finds his original ball outside the hazard within five minutes of having begun to search for it. What is the ruling?
A: If there is reasonable evidence that the original ball was lost in the water hazard, the player is entitled to invoke Rule 26-1 and , when the player dropped and played another ball behind the hazard , it became the ball in play and the original ball was lost.

Q: When a ball crosses the margin of a lateral water hazard at the side of a putting green, it is sometimes impossible to drop a ball within two clublengths of the point where the ball last crossed the hazard margin without dropping nearer the hole than the point. What is the procedure in such a case?
A: It is usually possible to drop a ball on the near side of a lateral water hazard and conform with Rule 26-1c(i) by dropping the ball close to the hazard margin and using the two clublengths provided for to move to the side furthest from the pin. However, if it is indeed impossible the player must proceed under one of the other options provided in Rule 26-1.