Jump to content
Note: This thread is 2416 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 199
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This is an incorrect hypothesis.  The other methods of taking relief from an unplayable lie do not guarantee you a good lie.  Even relief from obstructions or GUR don't offer any such guarantees.  You

I just don't get why bunkers are so special. Heck lets say a person was in some 6 inch tall rough. just on the top lip of a bunker. He would have a crazy hard shot to make, near impossible stance. Cou

Here's a question. Suppose I hit a 200 yard approach shot, it crosses the green into a greenside bunker, where it embeds in the wall at the farthest end of the bunker, and is unplayable. Here's the pr

[quote name="iacas" url="/t/74531/unplayables-in-a-bunker-lets-change-a-rule-of-golf/120#post_992270"]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.[/quote] I don't think Erik's argument has anything to do with bunker "play".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Quote:

Originally Posted by hopefulhacker

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

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 iacas

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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. "[COLOR=181818]No, not at all.  I just don't want to see this rule abused"[/COLOR] [COLOR=181818]I was just pointing out that the odds are in your favor to play a bunker shot vs. taking the drop.[/COLOR]

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator

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 green intervenes 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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.

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.

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 ..."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
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.

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.

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.

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).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Interesting comment.  Is there data that shows this to be true?

Yes, lots of data, the only problem is deciding on which course of the 1000's that converted all their bunkers into water hazards to use (slight hint of sarcasm)

Of course there is no data to show this to be true.

I am using Erik's workings, you had no problem using these workings yourself.

Ball out of bunker: 1.75

Ball into water hazard (formerly bunker) : 2.5

The 2.5 being the penalty stroke and the 1.5 used for greenside rough (after drop)

So without asking my local course to do me a favour and convert there bunkers to water hazards... yes, scores would go up!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

The discussion is ALSO about changing a rule of the game.... which would surely warrant a holistic approach it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Note: This thread is 2416 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • Support TST Affiliates

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    Whoop
    SuperSpeed
    FlightScope Mevo
    Use the code "iacas" for 10% off Mevo and the code "iacasjun21" for 10% off SuperSpeed.
  • Posts

    • One of the people who introduced me to golf in the first place would regularly do things that are generally bad etiquette:  try to make me mad during the round, talk during my swing, etc.  The good news is that now, when someone does things like making noise while I'm swinging my accident, it doesn't annoy me unless they're trying to mess me up (which no one has done, at least to my knowledge).
    • In OK, schools are not legally allowed to require masks, even for those who are too young to get vaccinated.  😞 I'm glad to hear that the vaccine can make keys stick to your head.  Maybe it will work on the five simple keys from a while back?  
    • And almost as if Florida is trying to double down on it, -->   Being a resident of SW Missouri, I guess I shouldn't throw stones.  It's almost like they're having a competition, except they've forgotten that LSW.
    • Day 1: Starting over because I keep forgetting to post. More chipping/pitching COVID-19 drills with new wedges. Then downswing priority piece work with 7-iron. 
    • My usual dbl bogie- bogie- bogie start till the back let me swing. Settled in and was 4 over at the turn after an additional bogie nullified by a bird.  Was even on the back till we hit a log jam on the tee of 15. lost concentration and bogied in. 80.  I would like to add, I wasn't having a particularly  good ball striking day. I could have easily shot a lot worse, but the forgiveness of the T300s and a good day with the flat stick kept me out of the mid 80s.  
  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Architex
      Architex
      (51 years old)
    2. cygnusjen
      cygnusjen
      (48 years old)
    3. Garbz3
      Garbz3
      (72 years old)
    4. Joefree
      Joefree
      (38 years old)
    5. KurtActual
      KurtActual
      (36 years old)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...