Testing a Hazard - Stacy Lewis/Founders Cup

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Thanks guys, I figured it was similar to touching the sand with your hand or club if you were off balance but wasn't sure.

Given these rules, it makes sense for golfers to go barefoot or wear minimalist shoes so they can legally get more information about the condition of the sand compared to the shoes with a lot of support and cushioning.

I don't know ... seems pretty obvious to me once I set foot in a bunker if its soft sand or not.  Then again, I'm a somewhat larger than average guy, so maybe that helps me too. :)

This would bring me nicely to a question I've lately had regarding lies in the fairway bunker.  Assuming I'm using an iron, if I were to make a decent swing on the ball, shouldn't it make no difference whatsoever if the ball is sitting on top of hard or soft sand?  I mean, by the time the club hits the sand the ball should be in the air, right?

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

This would bring me nicely to a question I've lately had regarding lies in the fairway bunker.  Assuming I'm using an iron, if I were to make a decent swing on the ball, shouldn't it make no difference whatsoever if the ball is sitting on top of hard or soft sand?  I mean, by the time the club hits the sand the ball should be in the air, right?

I would assume so, although maybe there would be some very subtle differences that I'm not aware of.  It reminds me of what some of my club members think about hitting out of fairway bunkers: I've heard some of them say "take an extra club."  Meaning, if you are 150 yards out, take your 160 yard club.  I assumed that if you strike the ball properly, you shouldn't need an extra club.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

I would assume so, although maybe there would be some very subtle differences that I'm not aware of.  It reminds me of what some of my club members think about hitting out of fairway bunkers: I've heard some of them say "take an extra club."  Meaning, if you are 150 yards out, take your 160 yard club.  I assumed that if you strike the ball properly, you shouldn't need an extra club.

LOL!  I've followed this advice a couple of times recently, and you are exactly right!  It's crap!  If you're 150 out and the ball is not sitting DOWN in really soft sand ... take your 150 club!

Twice in the last 6 months I've thought I was being prudent only to fly the green both times.

[Beachcomber]

Her challenge was it was a 60 yard shot.  So she wasn't sure what way to play the shot from what I could tell from her response in her post round interview?  But in general, yeah - play a fairway bunker shot similar to how you would hit a shot from the fairway.  Ball first contact.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by Beachcomber

Video doesn't work.

The Golf Channel website seems to be having problems with their videos right now.

I'll check later, and if they changed the link I'll try to find another video.

Sorry.

[Beachcomber]

Originally Posted by dave67az

The Golf Channel website seems to be having problems with their videos right now.

I'll check later, and if they changed the link I'll try to find another video.

Sorry.

Yeah no worries.  I just wanted to watch it again, because the video I saw on Saturday afternoon, I was with some family and the TV was on in the background when we were waiting for dinner to be served, and didn't have the TV volume on.  So I just wanted to re-watch the video to see what the actual exchange was between the player and caddie. What I saw looked very basic - and was surprised a penalty was called.

Side note: I've gone into bunkers before.  Dug my feet in to take my shot (get a secure footing).  Then realized that I wanted to change the lofted club... Due to a large lip - or whatnot. Is that allowed after I go to take my stance?  Or could that be deemed as testing the surface?

In particular I remember one round I was playing in earlier this year and I had about 125yd uphill fairway bunker shot and the bunker had so much sand - it was like a freaking green side bunker.  And I actually changed my club because of the lip - and afraid I'd not get the ball out.  So I went with a PW instead of a 9i.  Looking back at that... I'm wondering if a penalty could've been called on me?  If so, that is really lame.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by Beachcomber

Yeah no worries.  I just wanted to watch it again, because the video I saw on Saturday afternoon, I was with some family and the TV was on in the background when we were waiting for dinner to be served, and didn't have the TV volume on.  So I just wanted to re-watch the video to see what the actual exchange was between the player and caddie.  What I saw looked very basic - and was surprised a penalty was called.

Side note: I've gone into bunkers before.  Dug my feet in to take my shot (get a secure footing).  Then realized that I wanted to change the lofted club... Due to a large lip - or whatnot.   Is that allowed after I go to take my stance?  Or could that be deemed as testing the surface?

In particular I remember one round I was playing in earlier this year and I had about 125yd uphill fairway bunker shot and the bunker had so much sand - it was like a freaking green side bunker.  And I actually changed my club because of the lip - and afraid I'd not get the ball out.  So I went with a PW instead of a 9i.  Looking back at that... I'm wondering if a penalty could've been called on me?  If so, that is really lame.

The weird thing is, yes, it actually IS allowed.

Rules Consultant Linda Miller explains a lot more about the specifics of the rule here:

http://lindamillergolf.blogspot.com/2008/05/ask-linda-59-bunker-rules.html

[Beachcomber]

Originally Posted by dave67az

The weird thing is, yes, it actually IS allowed.

Rules Consultant Linda Miller explains a lot more about the specifics of the rule here:

http://lindamillergolf.blogspot.com/2008/05/ask-linda-59-bunker-rules.html

Yeah, I thought it was allowed.  So I don't see how the rule can really be enforced?

I mean if I really wanted to see how much sand is in the trap... I'd go and take my stance.  Dig my feet in.  And if I found it was something I wasn't ready to execute... I'd change clubs - stance - or alignment accordingly.  Really, really lame rule IMO.  Almost impossible to really know if the player was testing the surface, or simply trying to get a secure footing.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by Beachcomber

Yeah, I thought it was allowed.  So I don't see how the rule can really be enforced?

I mean if I really wanted to see how much sand is in the trap... I'd go and take my stance.  Dig my feet in.  And if I found it was something I wasn't ready to execute... I'd change clubs - stance - or alignment accordingly.  Really, really lame rule IMO.  Almost impossible to really know if the player was testing the surface, or simply trying to get a secure footing.

Agreed.

The way we currently play the game, we all test ground conditions in a hazard in various ways without improving our lie.

As far as I'm concerned, the game would not suffer if we were to simply eliminate the rule about testing conditions in a hazard so long as we maintain the rule about improving our lie.

I tried to imagine a "worst case scenario" of what would happen if the rule were eliminated.

Couldn't really come up with anything that would justify keeping the rule other than "tradition".

But the tradition isn't that old.

In 1946, the USGA rules didn't prohibit testing the conditions in a hazard.  Here's the relevant section from the 1946 USGA Rulebook (which cost 10 cents more than it does today, by the way)...

HAZARDS - RULE 25
When a ball lies in or touches a hazard the club shall not touch the ground, nor shall anything be touched or moved, before the player strikes at the ball, subject to the following exceptions:—
(1) The player may place his feet firmly on the ground for the purpose of taking his stance.
(2) In addressing the ball, or in the backward or forward swing, any grass, bent, bush, tree or other growing substance, or the side of a bunker, wall, paling, or other immovable obstacle may be touched.
(3) Steps or planks placed in a hazard by the green committee for access to or egress from such hazard, or any obstruction mentioned in Rule 11, may be removed, and if a ball be moved in so doing, it shall be replaced without penalty.  If any fixed steps or plank interfere with a player's stroke the ball may be lifted and placed as near as possible to the spot where it lay in a similar lie and position without penalty. See note to Rule 11.
(4) Any loose impediment not in or touching the hazard may be lifted.

(5) The player shall be entitled to find his ball as provided for by Rule 21.
Penalty in match play—Loss of hole.
Penalty in stroke play—Two strokes.
See Rule 16.
There is no penalty for the player smoothing irregularities in the hazard made by his footprints or the soil displaced by his stroke, provided nothing is done that improves the lie of the ball or assists the player in his subsequent play of the hole. U. S. G. A.
A recognized water hazard cannot be "out of bounds". R. & A.

In 1950, the R&A; added a sentence to their "Rule 36 - Hazards and Water Hazards" section that stated as follows ( bold emphasis is mine):

The player may, without penalty , place his clubs in a hazard prior to making a stroke, provided nothing is done which could improve the lie of the ball or which could constitute a testing of the soil.

This was the first mention of testing conditions on a part of the course, other than the green, that I could find in the historic rule books.  (I'm nothing if not thorough...lol)

The next USGA rule book came out in 1957.  It states:

Rule 33 - Hazards and Water Hazards

1. Touching Hazard Prohibited
When a ball lies in or touches a hazard or a water hazard, nothing shall be done which may in any way improve its lie. Before making a stroke, the player shall not touch the ground or the water with a club or otherwise, nor touch or move a loose impediment lying in or touching the hazard, nor test the condition of the hazard or of any similar hazard ; subject to the following  considerations:
a. STANCE
The player may place his feet firmly in taking his stance.
b. TOUCHING FIXED OR GROWING OBJECT
In addressing the ball or in the stroke or in the backward movement for the stroke, the club may touch any wooden or stone wall, paling or similar fixed object or any grass, bush, tree, or other growing substance (but the club may not be soled in the hazard).
c. OBSTRUCTIONS
The player is entitled to relief from obstructions under the provisions of Rule 31.
d. LOOSE IMPEDIMENT OUTSIDE HAZARD
Any loose impediment not in or touching the hazard may be removed.
e. FINDING OR IDENTIFYING BALL
The player is entitled to find his ball in accordance with Rule 17-2. If the ball be covered by sand, fallen leaves or the like, he may remove as much thereof as will enable him to see the top of the ball; if the ball be moved in such removal, no penalty shall be incurred, and the ball shall be replaced. The ball may not be lifted for identification.
f. PLACING CLUBS IN HAZARD
The player may, without penalty, place his clubs in the hazard prior to making a stroke, provided nothing is done which may improve the lie of the ball or constitute testing the soil.
g. SMOOTHING IRREGULARITIES
After playing a stroke, there is no penalty should the player smooth irregularities in the hazard made by footprints or the soil displaced by a stroke, provided nothing is done that improves the lie of the ball or assists the player in his subsequent play of the hole.

...

So it's not like it's an OLD rule, but then again it's not necessarily a NEW rule either.

Any opinions on what the effect would be if the rule were to be removed from the books?  Sure wish I knew why it was instituted in the first place.

- Dave

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by Beachcomber

Yeah, I thought it was allowed.  So I don't see how the rule can really be enforced?

I mean if I really wanted to see how much sand is in the trap... I'd go and take my stance.  Dig my feet in.  And if I found it was something I wasn't ready to execute... I'd change clubs - stance - or alignment accordingly.  Really, really lame rule IMO.  Almost impossible to really know if the player was testing the surface, or simply trying to get a secure footing.

In fact, I do this often.  As many of us weekend hackers that like to play lots of different courses can likely attest to, the quality of different bunkers can vary greatly from course-to-course and even hole-to-hole.  I've played in some bunkers that were just a few ticks softer than hard-pan, and before I really understood why, noticed that I would bounce my SW off the hard dirt and skull the ball 30 yards further than I wanted to hit it.  I sometimes take my low-bounce wedge to a bunker just in case It's a lot harder than I anticipated after taking my stance, and walk out of the bunker to get it if necessary.

[Rulesman]

Originally Posted by dave67az

Sure wish I knew why it was instituted in the first place.

- Dave

Possibly to prevent time wasting ?

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by Rulesman

Possibly to prevent time wasting ?

Yeah, that could be it.

Assuming they also didn't let caddies wander around in sand traps before each bunker shot.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave67az

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beachcomber

Yeah, I thought it was allowed.  So I don't see how the rule can really be enforced?

I mean if I really wanted to see how much sand is in the trap... I'd go and take my stance.  Dig my feet in.  And if I found it was something I wasn't ready to execute... I'd change clubs - stance - or alignment accordingly.  Really, really lame rule IMO.  Almost impossible to really know if the player was testing the surface, or simply trying to get a secure footing.

Agreed.

The way we currently play the game, we all test ground conditions in a hazard in various ways without improving our lie.

As far as I'm concerned, the game would not suffer if we were to simply eliminate the rule about testing conditions in a hazard so long as we maintain the rule about improving our lie.

I tried to imagine a "worst case scenario" of what would happen if the rule were eliminated.

Couldn't really come up with anything that would justify keeping the rule other than "tradition".

But the tradition isn't that old.

In 1946, the USGA rules didn't prohibit testing the conditions in a hazard.  Here's the relevant section from the 1946 USGA Rulebook (which cost 10 cents more than it does today, by the way)...

HAZARDS - RULE 25
When a ball lies in or touches a hazard the club shall not touch the ground, nor shall anything be touched or moved, before the player strikes at the ball , subject to the following ...

...There is no penalty for the player smoothing irregularities in the hazard made by his footprints or the soil displaced by his stroke, provided nothing is done that improves the lie of the ball or assists the player in his subsequent play of the hole. U. S. G. A .
A recognized water hazard cannot be "out of bounds". R. & A.

In 1950, the R&A; added a sentence to their "Rule 36 - Hazards and Water Hazards" section that stated as follows ( bold emphasis is mine):

The player may, without penalty , place his clubs in a hazard prior to making a stroke, provided nothing is done which could improve the lie of the ball or which could constitute a testing of the soil.

This was the first mention of testing conditions on a part of the course, other than the green, that I could find in the historic rule books.  (I'm nothing if not thorough...lol)

Note first sentence in the R&A; rule and the single sentence I left from the 1946 USGA rule.  That part that I put in bold would reference the prohibition for testing the condition ("nor shall anything be touched" and "nothing is done that  ...assists the player in his subsequent play").  It may be a bit vague, but it says the same thing, just leaving more up to interpretation by the referee.  It was stated it more clearly in 1950, but the procedure certainly wasn't new.  Just because something isn't spelled out word for word doesn't rule out intent, especially in earlier versions of the rules.  In many cases it was expected that the players knew the intent of the rule just through community knowledge.  It was only as the game grew that more questions were asked and more new players were in the game than tradition and word of mouth could properly educate.  That is when you start seeing the rules become more defined, and ultimately you see the Decisions start to be an important part of the rules for clarifying certain situations.

All that needs to be said is that a bunker is a hazard, and many of the rules have been applied in a different fashion when your ball lies in a hazard.  Look at immovable obstructions and loose impediments for a big difference between through the green and hazards.  Even though bunkers and water hazards are both considered hazards under the rules, there are some differences between them in how certain situations are treated.

Quote:

So it's not like it's an OLD rule, but then again it's not necessarily a NEW rule either.

Any opinions on what the effect would be if the rule were to be removed from the books?  Sure wish I knew why it was instituted in the first place.

- Dave

Hazards are different from through the green.  The rules makers feel that there has to be some differentiation in how play proceeds between the two.  Since the consistency of the terrain or surfaces of various hazards can be very different, it seems logical to me that testing those conditions by any manner could be advantageous.  As a result, it was decided that any act which directly tested the surface conditions was not to be allowed.  Obviously, the player gets some feedback just by walking into a bunker.  I've been playing for a long time, and I don't have to dig into a bunker know whether the sand is soft or firm, deep or just a thin layer.  I can tell just by looking whether it's coarse or fine.  I also am not a digger.  I only do as much as I feel I need for my stance.  I see some take it to extremes, but it's so difficult to identify what goes beyond what the rule allows that the player can do most anything in taking his stance and get away with it.  The only obvious breach in such a case is if he kicks sand or any loose impediment out of the way.  Digging in doesn't mean pawing the ground like a bull getting ready to charge.

So as far as how it affects most of us, I don't see any need to question it.  I just do what the rule says and don't worry about it.