or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Rules of Golf › Unplayables in a Bunker - Let's Change a Rule of Golf!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Unplayables in a Bunker - Let's Change a Rule of Golf! - Page 8

post #127 of 170
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

The player should always have the option of playing his ball as it lies as long as it's somewhere on the golf course other than a wrong putting green.

 

They can mandate that you not play from ESAs, but also from GUR, too. Say, to protect young trees or new grass or something.

post #128 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

The player should always have the option of playing his ball as it lies as long as it's somewhere on the golf course other than a wrong putting green.

 

They can mandate that you not play from ESAs, but also from GUR, too. Say, to protect young trees or new grass or something.

 

I understand that.  I was just stressing my disagreement with Matt's suggestion that play be disallowed from water hazards.  That is totally contrary to the foundations of the game that if the ball is playable, you should be allowed to play it.  

 

I've seen too many "ESA's" that had no particular reason for being so marked aside from simply preventing a player from losing time by searching for his ball.  One course I play occasionally has several holes that wind down through a little ravine.  There is nothing about this ravine that is different from any other ravine in eastern Colorado, no environment that is in any way "sensitive", but they have it marked as prohibiting entry solely to speed up play, and that goes against the grain for me.  Just a peeve... I'll live with it. 

post #129 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

So a second argument (really, just an adjustment to the first) that I'd give some merit to would be: It doesn't happen often enough that the potential for it to be used "properly" would be more common than the potential for it to be abused, particularly in Scotland.

Yes?

We have plenty of similar bunkers in Ireland. ;)

Third Argument:
The proposed change seeks some kind of "fairness" between different hazards but this is ONLY after an unplayable lie is brought into the equation.
The proposal is flawed if it seeks parity in punishment from different dangers/hazards BUT nit picks when it wants this fairness.

If you filled up all the bunkers on a course with water and red staked them, then scores are going to be higher than if they were left as bunkers.
Thus, on the whole. A bunker is less penal than a water hazard.

Fourth Argument:
The argument for the rule change is based on the premise that "bunkers suck".... Really.....
It shows a lack of respect for a key and fundamental area of this game.
I would have to challenge you and say that I think you may be too caught up in teaching other areas & skills of the game (very well I may add) that you are almost "dumbing down" bunker play, possibly because it is not an area of your teaching skill set.
Bunker play deserves more respect than you are giving it.
post #130 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by hopefulhacker View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

So a second argument (really, just an adjustment to the first) that I'd give some merit to would be: It doesn't happen often enough that the potential for it to be used "properly" would be more common than the potential for it to be abused, particularly in Scotland.

Yes?

We have plenty of similar bunkers in Ireland. ;)

Third Argument:
The proposed change seeks some kind of "fairness" between different hazards but this is ONLY after an unplayable lie is brought into the equation.
The proposal is flawed if it seeks parity in punishment from different dangers/hazards BUT nit picks when it wants this fairness.

If you filled up all the bunkers on a course with water and red staked them, then scores are going to be higher than if they were left as bunkers.
Thus, on the whole. A bunker is less penal than a water hazard.

Fourth Argument:
The argument for the rule change is based on the premise that "bunkers suck".... Really.....
It shows a lack of respect for a key and fundamental area of this game.
I would have to challenge you and say that I think you may be too caught up in teaching other areas & skills of the game (very well I may add) that you are almost "dumbing down" bunker play, possibly because it is not an area of your teaching skill set.
Bunker play deserves more respect than you are giving it.

I don't think Erik's argument has anything to do with bunker "play".
post #131 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by 14ledo81 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hopefulhacker View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

So a second argument (really, just an adjustment to the first) that I'd give some merit to would be: It doesn't happen often enough that the potential for it to be used "properly" would be more common than the potential for it to be abused, particularly in Scotland.

Yes?

We have plenty of similar bunkers in Ireland. ;)

Third Argument:
The proposed change seeks some kind of "fairness" between different hazards but this is ONLY after an unplayable lie is brought into the equation.
The proposal is flawed if it seeks parity in punishment from different dangers/hazards BUT nit picks when it wants this fairness.

If you filled up all the bunkers on a course with water and red staked them, then scores are going to be higher than if they were left as bunkers.
Thus, on the whole. A bunker is less penal than a water hazard.

Fourth Argument:
The argument for the rule change is based on the premise that "bunkers suck".... Really.....
It shows a lack of respect for a key and fundamental area of this game.
I would have to challenge you and say that I think you may be too caught up in teaching other areas & skills of the game (very well I may add) that you are almost "dumbing down" bunker play, possibly because it is not an area of your teaching skill set.
Bunker play deserves more respect than you are giving it.

I don't think Erik's argument has anything to do with bunker "play".

 

Au contraire, Erik's proposal means that nobody, ever, has to play a golf shot out of a bunker. I dare say that's not his objective, though, it would be an outcome.

post #132 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

 

 

I imagine that he wouldn't.  However, I'm not understanding how this relates to my post?

It was with respect to abuse of the rule.  Some are contending that players would just take the drop outside the bunker to avoid playing in the bunker.  I read your first sentence as being wary that people would.

 

"No, not at all.  I just don't want to see this rule abused"

 

I was just pointing out that the odds are in your favor to play a bunker shot vs. taking the drop.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hopefulhacker View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

So a second argument (really, just an adjustment to the first) that I'd give some merit to would be: It doesn't happen often enough that the potential for it to be used "properly" would be more common than the potential for it to be abused, particularly in Scotland.

Yes?

We have plenty of similar bunkers in Ireland. ;)

Third Argument:
The proposed change seeks some kind of "fairness" between different hazards but this is ONLY after an unplayable lie is brought into the equation.
The proposal is flawed if it seeks parity in punishment from different dangers/hazards BUT nit picks when it wants this fairness.

If you filled up all the bunkers on a course with water and red staked them, then scores are going to be higher than if they were left as bunkers.
Thus, on the whole. A bunker is less penal than a water hazard.


Fourth Argument:
The argument for the rule change is based on the premise that "bunkers suck".... Really.....
It shows a lack of respect for a key and fundamental area of this game.
I would have to challenge you and say that I think you may be too caught up in teaching other areas & skills of the game (very well I may add) that you are almost "dumbing down" bunker play, possibly because it is not an area of your teaching skill set.
Bunker play deserves more respect than you are giving it.
 

Interesting comment.  Is there data that shows this to be true?  If data does support this, then the unplayable drop outside a bunker would be an advantage.

post #133 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post

It was with respect to abuse of the rule.  Some are contending that players would just take the drop outside the bunker to avoid playing in the bunker.  I read your first sentence as being wary that people would.

"No, not at all.  I just don't want to see this rule abused"

I was just pointing out that the odds are in your favor to play a bunker shot vs. taking the drop.

FWIW......a rule cannot be "abused". It can only be applied. I agree though, I really don't think it would be applied all that often.

I still don't see the need though, especially if the argument lies in comparing rule 28 to rule 26. Absent that comparison, I'm ok with rule 28 imposing a bit more restriction/penalty to a shot that's in a hazard (bunker) than that through-the-green.
post #134 of 170

A little off topic, but why does Rule 25 allow dropping outside a bunker under penalty of one stroke for an abnormal ground condition?

 

25-1. Abnormal Ground Conditions

a. Interference

Interference by an abnormal ground condition occurs when a ball lies in or touches the condition or when the condition interferes with the player’s stance or the area of his intended swing. If the player’s ball lies on the putting green, interference also occurs if an abnormal ground condition on the putting greenintervenes on his line of putt. Otherwise, intervention on the line of play is not, of itself, interference under this Rule.

 

ii)In a Bunker: If the ball is in a bunker, the player must lift the ball and drop it either:

(a) Without penalty, in accordance with Clause (i) above, except that the nearest point of relief must be in the bunker and the ball must be dropped in the bunker or, if complete relief is impossible, as near as possible to the spot where the ball lay, but not nearer the hole, on a part of the course in the bunker that affords maximum available relief from the condition; or

(b) Under penalty of one stroke, outside the bunker keeping the point where the ball lay directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped, with no limit to how far behind the bunker the ball may be dropped.

post #135 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post
 

It was with respect to abuse of the rule.  Some are contending that players would just take the drop outside the bunker to avoid playing in the bunker.  I read your first sentence as being wary that people would.

 

"No, not at all.  I just don't want to see this rule abused"

 

I was just pointing out that the odds are in your favor to play a bunker shot vs. taking the drop.

Gotcha.  No, that's not really what I meant.  At least not in the sense that Asheville et. al. are saying.  I'm only talking about seeing this on the British Open in situations similar to the video I posted of Tiger.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post


FWIW......a rule cannot be "abused". It can only be applied. I agree though, I really don't think it would be applied all that often.

Yeah, it's not technically the correct word, but I think you know what I mean.  It is super rare (as in I've never seen it yet) where somebody would choose to apply the UNPLAYABLE rule to a ball that is, in fact, perfectly playable.  You really only currently see it when it's basically impossible to get your club on the ball.  I'm fearing (and I'm really only talking about British Open stuff here) that would not be the case anymore if the paragraph was removed.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post
 

A little off topic, but why does Rule 25 allow dropping outside a bunker under penalty of one stroke for an abnormal ground condition?

 

25-1. Abnormal Ground Conditions

a. Interference

Interference by an abnormal ground condition occurs when a ball lies in or touches the condition or when the condition interferes with the player’s stance or the area of his intended swing. If the player’s ball lies on the putting green, interference also occurs if an abnormal ground condition on the putting greenintervenes on his line of putt. Otherwise, intervention on the line of play is not, of itself, interference under this Rule.

 

ii)In a Bunker: If the ball is in a bunker, the player must lift the ball and drop it either:

(a) Without penalty, in accordance with Clause (i) above, except that the nearest point of relief must be in the bunker and the ball must be dropped in the bunker or, if complete relief is impossible, as near as possible to the spot where the ball lay, but not nearer the hole, on a part of the course in the bunker that affords maximum available relief from the condition; or

(b) Under penalty of one stroke, outside the bunker keeping the point where the ball lay directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped, with no limit to how far behind the bunker the ball may be dropped.

Hmmm ... the math tells me that if you were to try and apply something like this to the unplayable rule that you'd have to ADD a paragraph instead of remove one.  Abnormal ground is a free drop but they are offering you an out if you want to take a penalty.  Since unplayables already include a penalty, I would think if you wanted to "match" this rule, then you'd be talking about adding a second paragraph that starts with "under penalty of TWO strokes ..."

post #136 of 170
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hopefulhacker View Post

Thus, on the whole. A bunker is less penal than a water hazard.

 

The discussion is not about "on the whole." It's about when a player is better off declaring an unplayable, and in those situations, he's penalized MORE than he would if he were to take a stroke and drop anywhere else on the golf course… because he MUST drop into a bunker.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hopefulhacker View Post

Fourth Argument:
The argument for the rule change is based on the premise that "bunkers suck".... Really.....

 

Nope, sorry. Not even close to the foundation of the argument.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asheville View Post
 

Au contraire, Erik's proposal means that nobody, ever, has to play a golf shot out of a bunker. I dare say that's not his objective, though, it would be an outcome.

 

Nope, wrong-o. Players can still advance the ball from a bunker, and thus save strokes over taking a penalty stroke.

 

I wouldn't take an unplayable because I'm not regularly losing a full stroke over playing from the grass behind the bunker. Few are, and those who are so bad out of bunkers that they can make up the stroke penalty are the same who are not breaking 100 regularly. The odds that they're even playing by the rules are low.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

Hmmm ... the math tells me that if you were to try and apply something like this to the unplayable rule that you'd have to ADD a paragraph instead of remove one.  Abnormal ground is a free drop but they are offering you an out if you want to take a penalty.  Since unplayables already include a penalty, I would think if you wanted to "match" this rule, then you'd be talking about adding a second paragraph that starts with "under penalty of TWO strokes ..."

 

I saw you heading in that direction and already said I'd not favor supporting that rule. I'd rather leave it the way it is than to ADD a rule (or a clause to an existing rule).

post #137 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

The discussion is not about "on the whole." It's about when a player is better off declaring an unplayable, and in those situations, he's penalized MORE than he would if he were to take a stroke and drop anywhere else on the golf course… because he MUST drop into a bunker.

 

 

Nope, sorry. Not even close to the foundation of the argument.

 

 

Nope, wrong-o. Players can still advance the ball from a bunker, and thus save strokes over taking a penalty stroke.

 

I wouldn't take an unplayable because I'm not regularly losing a full stroke over playing from the grass behind the bunker. Few are, and those who are so bad out of bunkers that they can make up the stroke penalty are the same who are not breaking 100 regularly. The odds that they're even playing by the rules are low.

 

 

I saw you heading in that direction and already said I'd not favor supporting that rule. I'd rather leave it the way it is than to ADD a rule (or a clause to an existing rule).

Add to this:  A player who is so bad at bunkers and would take the drop would also most likely be bad at the ensuing pitch shot and put it back in the bunker if they could drop outside.  A pitch shot over a bunker is no guarantee of an up and down even for good players.

post #138 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

I saw you heading in that direction and already said I'd not favor supporting that rule. I'd rather leave it the way it is than to ADD a rule (or a clause to an existing rule).

Yeah, I figured as much.  Funny too, because I didn't see myself heading in that direction.  I got your comment, understood that you'd not favor the 2-stroker ... but had no idea that the foundation for that idea came from Rule 25.  :)

 

Either way, I agree.  Adding an extra paragraph isn't exactly simplifying anything, nor is it adding much.

post #139 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post
 

A little off topic, but why does Rule 25 allow dropping outside a bunker under penalty of one stroke for an abnormal ground condition?

 

25-1. Abnormal Ground Conditions

a. Interference

Interference by an abnormal ground condition occurs when a ball lies in or touches the condition or when the condition interferes with the player’s stance or the area of his intended swing. If the player’s ball lies on the putting green, interference also occurs if an abnormal ground condition on the putting greenintervenes on his line of putt. Otherwise, intervention on the line of play is not, of itself, interference under this Rule.

 

ii)In a Bunker: If the ball is in a bunker, the player must lift the ball and drop it either:

(a) Without penalty, in accordance with Clause (i) above, except that the nearest point of relief must be in the bunker and the ball must be dropped in the bunker or, if complete relief is impossible, as near as possible to the spot where the ball lay, but not nearer the hole, on a part of the course in the bunker that affords maximum available relief from the condition; or

(b) Under penalty of one stroke, outside the bunker keeping the point where the ball lay directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped, with no limit to how far behind the bunker the ball may be dropped.

 

Because if you drop in the bunker, there is no penalty associated with the rule - you should not be penalized for taking relief from an obstruction.  My only peeve with this one is that if a player leaves a rake inside the bunker on a slope so that when your ball comes to rest against it, when the rake is removed the ball will not stay where placed, and there is no place where the ball will stay that is not closer to the hole, you then have no choice but to drop outside of the bunker and take a penalty stroke that you did not really deserve.  This is why I always lobby for rakes outside of bunkers, as there is virtually zero chance of it causing an unnecessary penalty.

post #140 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

Because if you drop in the bunker, there is no penalty associated with the rule - you should not be penalized for taking relief from an obstruction.  My only peeve with this one is that if a player leaves a rake inside the bunker on a slope so that when your ball comes to rest against it, when the rake is removed the ball will not stay where placed, and there is no place where the ball will stay that is not closer to the hole, you then have no choice but to drop outside of the bunker and take a penalty stroke that you did not really deserve.  This is why I always lobby for rakes outside of bunkers, as there is virtually zero chance of it causing an unnecessary penalty.

I'm with you on that.  I always leave rakes outside of bunkers unless they are marked otherwise.  My brothers club actually has "Please leave rakes in bottom of bunkers" written on the handle.  So that aleviates the example that you listed**, however it presents other logistical problems.  Namely, if you're in a big bunker, you have to throw the rake to get it into the middle, which could bounce or skid and leave someone with a potentially bad lie if they were really unlucky.  The only other option is to not rake your footprints as you walk out ... also not good.

 

**Well it would if it was actually adhered to properly ... rakes are at the edges of the bunkers all the time.

 

Silly idea, that is.

 

Sorry ... back to the topic.

post #141 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

Because if you drop in the bunker, there is no penalty associated with the rule - you should not be penalized for taking relief from an obstruction.  My only peeve with this one is that if a player leaves a rake inside the bunker on a slope so that when your ball comes to rest against it, when the rake is removed the ball will not stay where placed, and there is no place where the ball will stay that is not closer to the hole, you then have no choice but to drop outside of the bunker and take a penalty stroke that you did not really deserve.  This is why I always lobby for rakes outside of bunkers, as there is virtually zero chance of it causing an unnecessary penalty.

But why allow you to leave the bunker?  I guess I cannot think of the abnormal ground condition that would force you out of the bunker except a fully flooded bunker.

post #142 of 170

A bunker undergoing maintenance would, if declared so by the committee, qualify as "ground under repair" and thus might merit free relief outside the bunker. (nb a bunker declared as gur loses its status as a hazard, though.)

post #143 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

Because if you drop in the bunker, there is no penalty associated with the rule - you should not be penalized for taking relief from an obstruction.  My only peeve with this one is that if a player leaves a rake inside the bunker on a slope so that when your ball comes to rest against it, when the rake is removed the ball will not stay where placed, and there is no place where the ball will stay that is not closer to the hole, you then have no choice but to drop outside of the bunker and take a penalty stroke that you did not really deserve.  This is why I always lobby for rakes outside of bunkers, as there is virtually zero chance of it causing an unnecessary penalty.

But why allow you to leave the bunker?  I guess I cannot think of the abnormal ground condition that would force you out of the bunker except a fully flooded bunker.

 

I can - casual water where there is no point to drop within the bunker which is not closer to the hole than where the ball lies.

 

In equity, like situations are treated alike.  Rules 24 (Obstructions) and 25 (Abnormal ground) both involve the same relief statements but with slightly different treatments because of the difference in the potential interference.   Relief from an obstruction in a bunker can conceivably require a drop outside of a bunker (Rule 24), as can relief from casual water (Rule 25).  Therefore, to satisfy equity, the same procedure is followed in both cases, with the same one stroke penalty for escaping the bunker without being required to make a stroke.

post #144 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

I can - casual water where there is no point to drop within the bunker which is not closer to the hole than where the ball lies.

 

In equity, like situations are treated alike.  Rules 24 (Obstructions) and 25 (Abnormal ground) both involve the same relief statements but with slightly different treatments because of the difference in the potential interference.   Relief from an obstruction in a bunker can conceivably require a drop outside of a bunker (Rule 24), as can relief from casual water (Rule 25).  Therefore, to satisfy equity, the same procedure is followed in both cases, with the same one stroke penalty for escaping the bunker without being required to make a stroke.

Thanks Rick.  I have definitely been in bunkers with casual water and even seen ones full to the brim.  I have also played out of bunkers with casual water where my ball was plugged and the sand was wet but not puddling.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Rules of Golf
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Rules of Golf › Unplayables in a Bunker - Let's Change a Rule of Golf!