Lateral Water Hazards

[aaa]

Option c(ii) is not commonly used because the ball rarely crosses a 'normal' lateral from the far side.

We had a lwh bounded by an old railway embankment on the far side. A not too wayward drive often carried the lwh, hit the embankment and bounced back into the water. Access to the far side was virtually impossible. Without c(ii), the player hitting over (ie longer) than a player whose ball simply ran into the hazard, would be unfairly treated by having to take S&Distance.

[DavidHayes]

AAA, could this problem be relieved with the Local Rule described in Decision 33-2a/11?

[aaa]

Yes, makes sense.
But a small complication. The area beyond the lwh was OOB (it was originally owned by the railway authority but now we have owned it for 40 years and have never changed its status.

Although a player who overhit the lwh and bounced back in had the good fortune only to be penalised 1 stroke, the player whose ball remained OOB and was possibly not findable had to pay S&D.

With the LR he would only have the WH penalty of one stroke.

In practice this happened more frequently than the ball coming back into the ditch.

The topic is really rather academic because the ditch has been filled in and the stream diverted.

[Simonko]

One awkward situation that arises with the current Rules is with the dog leg cuddling a lateral water hazard, did a shot landing on the far bank and rolling into the water clear the hazard line or not?

Fortunately such incidents don't happen often as such holes aren't that common and most amateurs don't cut the corner.

I fear that now players have the two clublength option for the common non-lateral water hazard (especially those fronting the green) that such arguments might increase significantly.