Stones in bunkers

[Rulesman]

In order that I am not off topic I have started a new thread which many not go anywhere.

I have just completed an informal survey of refereeing contacts around the world (except north America).

The consensus was that the LR is used by the majority of clubs and courses but not exclusively. Australia and New Zealand were the exceptions. It is used but seemingly, not by the majority of clubs.

However all national bodies have it on their hard cards.

 

 

 

[saevel25]

48 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

The consensus was that the LR is used by the majority of clubs and courses but not exclusively. Australia and New Zealand were the exceptions. It is used but seemingly, not by the majority of clubs.

However all national bodies have it on their hard cards.

I think it needs to be used everywhere. I have a course I played a lot and I almost took the clubhead off my wedge. I hit a rock that was larger than a golf ball. To me that is a injury risk if you catch a rock the right way and send it flying across the green towards another golfer. 

 

[bkuehn1952]

Our club-without-real-estate uses this Local Rule for all our competitions.  I agree with its use.

As an advocate for the devil, should stones be considered moveable obstructions through the green?  Why should they only be considered a moveable obstruction when in a sand bunker, which is a hazard?  If one's ball rests against or atop a stone, removing the stone and causing the ball to move is a penalty.  That does not seem consistent with the treatment of a similar situation in a sand bunker under the Local Rule. 

 

[Fourputt]

I don't really have any issue with this aside from the question of what is a qualifying stone?  Is it pea sized?  Marble?  Grape?  Where is the cutoff?  I've seen bunkers where you could be there all day moving pea sized pebbles, but on another course that pebble would be a stone in comparison to the fine grained sand in their bunkers.  

[Rulesman]

58 minutes ago, bkuehn1952 said:

 

As an advocate for the devil, should stones be considered moveable obstructions through the green?  Why should they only be considered a moveable obstruction when in a sand bunker, which is a hazard?  If one's ball rests against or atop a stone, removing the stone and causing the ball to move is a penalty.  That does not seem consistent with the treatment of a similar situation in a sand bunker under the Local Rule. 

 

I reckon it is because

(a) stones fit the definition of LI better

(b) stones in bunkers are more likely to have the ball finish on top of them.

(c) those bunkers that suffer with stones tend to have many of them in that close area. You don't often see collections of stones in the fairway (or anywhere else that a mowing machine visits from time to time).

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

 To me that is a injury risk if you catch a rock the right way and send it flying across the green towards another golfer. 

 

That is the major argument.

[curitiba]

I Know for a fact the Web.com doesnt have it on their hard card.

They mark the course and if needed add it in the local rules.

 

 

[Rulesman]

20 minutes ago, curitiba said:

I Know for a fact the Web.com doesnt have it on their hard card.

They mark the course and if needed add it in the local rules.

 

 

What has that got to do with the price of fish?

[bkuehn1952]

@Fourputt raises a good point.  What is a stone?  I suppose we all would grant another player considerable leeway in removing stones of decent size but what if the "stone" is the size of a pea?  A player who removes small pea-size pebbles could perform a considerable excavation job.  We certainly don't want a small ruler to be required equipment as a result of defining the size of a "stone."  Still, the vagueness of "stone" does open up the rule to abuse.

[Dormie1360]

I'm not sure the issue of what qualifies as a "stone" gets any harder or easier depending where it lay.  If it qualifies as a LI, it can be removed.

PGA Tournament a few years ago in a playoff.  Player's ball landed in a waste area.  The official allowed him to pick away, MANY very small stones, which  is what the waste area was mainly comprised of.  He basically cleaned behind his ball so it was almost teed up.

FWIW I have this in my notes under Loose Impediments.

Natural objects, not growing, not rooted in the ground, not fixed or solidly embedded that can be picked - up individually. About 2mm size or larger is a loose impediment for picking up. Anything adhering to a ball is not a loose impediment. Solidly embedded : needs prying or digging .  

Found it, look at the 5 min mark. 

Story afterwards in the paper.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Dormie1360

[Martyn W]

2 hours ago, Dormie1360 said:

I'm not sure the issue of what qualifies as a "stone" gets any harder or easier depending where it lay.  If it qualifies as a LI, it can be removed.

Except in a hazard. of course. Sand is a LI on the putting green only, thus many thought that Cink was in violation of 13-2. He was not since the 'sand-like' material was in fact crushed shells, which are a LI. The  incident prompted the following Decision:

33-8/40

 

Local Rule Clarifying Status of Material Similar to Sand

Q.A course has material other than sand (e.g., finely crushed shell or lava dust) filling its bunkers. May the Committee establish a Local Rule stating that such material is deemed to have the same status as sand or loose soil (i.e., loose impediments on the putting green but not elsewhere)?

A.Yes.

[natureboy]

5 hours ago, bkuehn1952 said:

@Fourputt raises a good point.  What is a stone?  I suppose we all would grant another player considerable leeway in removing stones of decent size but what if the "stone" is the size of a pea?  A player who removes small pea-size pebbles could perform a considerable excavation job.  We certainly don't want a small ruler to be required equipment as a result of defining the size of a "stone."  Still, the vagueness of "stone" does open up the rule to abuse.

But aren't you still bound by the time requirement / expectation to hit your shot? In casual play out of etiquette (or 5 minute lost ball rule) and in tournament play under condition of competition?

[Fourputt]

3 hours ago, natureboy said:

But aren't you still bound by the time requirement / expectation to hit your shot? In casual play out of etiquette (or 5 minute lost ball rule) and in tournament play under condition of competition?

The only time requirement under the Rules of Golf is that the player must play without undue delay.  There is no definition of "undue delay", so that is a judgement call depending on the situation.  

If the competition has a pace of play policy in effect, then that may determine what constitutes undue delay.  In a tournament with the necessary resources, a slow player may be "put on the clock", the parameters of which would be defined in the conditions of the competition.

[DrvFrShow]

I doubt they're talking about pea sized stones. Most sand will have some of those. Grapeshot and larger in a sand bunker can be a problem. Your better maintained courses don't usually have this problem, but your public muni courses do. The rule on this only matters if you play tournament golf. If you don't, remove the stones. Your eyes are more valuable than a rule.

[Buckeyebowman]

3 hours ago, DrvFrShow said:

I doubt they're talking about pea sized stones. Most sand will have some of those. Grapeshot and larger in a sand bunker can be a problem. Your better maintained courses don't usually have this problem, but your public muni courses do. The rule on this only matters if you play tournament golf. If you don't, remove the stones. Your eyes are more valuable than a rule.

You kind of swerved very close to my thought with the use of the term "sand" bunker. Of course there are grass bunkers, but an oft used term for a bunker is sand trap. If you want to use sand as a rigorous definition for the filling of a bunker, then anything larger than a grain of sand would qualify as a stone and a loose impediment. There is anywhere from coarse to fine sand, but stones don't make the grade.

Some courses like to use different sands for historical or style reasons. Oakmont likes a coarser, darker sand (mined from the Allegheny River, I believe) because that's what they've had from the beginning. Augusta likes a finer, white sand that contrasts with the deeper green of the surroundings. I will say this, I find it easier to get out of the coarser sand bunkers than those with the fluffy stuff.

I'm also wondering how often this problem really rears it's head. I've played golf a long time and had very few instances where stones in bunkers were a problem. After all, how hard is it to get screened, graded sand? Of course, I do live in an area with quite a few sand & gravel mines.

If i see a big stone where I expect the club to enter the sand, I pick it out. i''m not about to embark on a major excavation, the course isn't paying me to groom their bunkers!

[DrvFrShow]

Plus stones will gouge the face of my $130 Callaway PM Grind wedge, and that's not a good thing. 

I think a lot of the pebbles get into the sand from the surrounding natural hole they dug for the sand. I most area the Quaternary Alluvium contains pebbles. Dig a hole in your yard and chances are you'll find them. 

When they prepare sand for sale, they pass it through sieves of varying sizes to take out anything larger than a certain grain size. Pebbles cannot pass through these screens. 

But when the build a golf course they dig a hole for the bunker. Then they fill it with sand that they ordered from a certain company. Now when it rains heavily, there will be natural soil erosion. This erosion will wash pebbles from the Quaternary Alluvium into the bunker sand. How well maintained the course is will determine how many pebbles make their way into the sand. One course I play doesn't maintain its bunkers very well and there are a lot of pebbles in the bunkers. Another maintains their bunkers very well, and although this course is in an area where there are actually more pebbles in the soil than the first course mentioned, the bunkers have few if any pebbles in them. I wonder how they do that? Maintenance. It's a good thing. 

Hence the LR for removal of stones from bunkers. The course doesn't want to put in the maintenance $$ so they pass it on to the consumer.

This said I'd rather end up in a sand bunker than a grass bunker.

[Fourputt]

4 hours ago, Buckeyebowman said:

You kind of swerved very close to my thought with the use of the term "sand" bunker. Of course there are grass bunkers, but an oft used term for a bunker is sand trap. If you want to use sand as a rigorous definition for the filling of a bunker, then anything larger than a grain of sand would qualify as a stone and a loose impediment. There is anywhere from coarse to fine sand, but stones don't make the grade.

 

No, there are not.  A grassy depression is not a bunker (under the rules), it is just through the green.  Grass is grass, no matter if it is 1/2", 1" or 12" high, it's all through the green as long as it's not a putting green or the teeing ground of the hole being played, or inside the margin of a hazard.

It's important when discussing the rules to use the correct terminology or you confuse the issue.  From the Definitions in the Rules of Golf:

Quote

Through the Green

"Through the green" is the whole area of the course except:

a.

The teeing ground and putting green of the hole being played; and

b.

All hazards on the course.

Quote

Bunker

A "bunker" is a hazard consisting of a prepared area of ground, often a hollow, from which turf or soil has been removed and replaced with sand or the like.

Grass-covered ground bordering or within a bunker, including a stacked turf face (whether grass-covered or earthen), is not part of the bunker. A wall or lip of the bunker not covered with grass is part of the bunker. The margin of a bunker extends vertically downwards, but not upwards.

A ball is in a bunker when it lies in or any part of it touches the bunker.

 

[Rulesman]

An American colleague tells me that they estimate 50% of clubs in the NY area use the LR.

[iacas]

On April 9, 2016 at 4:14 AM, Rulesman said:

An American colleague tells me that they estimate 50% of clubs in the NY area use the LR.

I don't remember the last time I've seen the LR being used.