Bunker play question

[Farneyman]

Looking for an answer here on a question I have.

I understand (I think) that you can not touch the sand at address in a bunker however what is the ruling if

(i) you brush the sand in your back swing of the actual shot

(ii) you catch the back/side/face of bunker in the process of playing your shot

For the purpose of both scenarios the ball is played and lands inches from the pin :whoo:

Ta

 

[Foxholer]

i) Penalty
ii) No penalty - assuming you meant 'on your stroke'.

Note ii) is unlikely to be a penalty if it's on your backswing either as, unless there is sand at the point you hit, it's not actually part of the bunker that is forbidden to touch.

 

[Farneyman]

i) Penalty
ii) No penalty - assuming you meant 'on your stroke'.

Note ii) is unlikely to be a penalty if it's on your backswing either as, unless there is sand at the point you hit, it's not actually part of the bunker that is forbidden to touch.

Thought that, thanks. Is there a reference to the rules for this? Page/rules etc for clarification. I cant seem to find it...

 

[atticusfinch]

Rule 13-4.

 

[palindromicbob]

Thought that, thanks. Is there a reference to the rules for this? Page/rules etc for clarification. I cant seem to find it...

Rule 13-4:

I need a new laptop. Took 6 minutes to post that thanks to the page freezing.

 

[Colin L]

i) Penalty
ii) No penalty - assuming you meant 'on your stroke'.

Note ii) is unlikely to be a penalty if it's on your backswing either as, unless there is sand at the point you hit, it's not actually part of the bunker that is forbidden to touch.

An earthen wall/side/face of a bunker is part of the bunker and you would be penalised for touching it with your backswing.

 

[Farneyman]

So part (ii) would also be a penalty??

 

[palindromicbob]

So part (ii) would also be a penalty??

If during your back swing not during your actual stroke (the forward movement with intention to hit the ball)

 

[Farneyman]

Cheers folks :thup:

 

[Foxholer]

An earthen wall/side/face of a bunker is part of the bunker and you would be penalised for touching it with your backswing.

Doh! Thanks Colin! Another lesson learned.

My excuse is (my misconception of) the term 'ground'...but not a very good excuse!

 

[nemicu]

see decision 13-4/35.
Although the committee may make a local rule for stacked or "rivetted" faced bunkers (decision 33-8/39)

 

[Colin L]

I expect you meant Decision 13-4/34.

Decision 33-8/39 doesn't really have any connection with the matter of hitting the wall of a bunker with your backswing. A grass covered or stacked turf face is not, by definition, part of the bunker. The purpose of the Decision in allowing a local rule to the effect that such a wall is not "closely mown" is so that you can prevent a player gaining relief from a ball embedded in the face.

 

[nemicu]

I expect you meant Decision 13-4/34.

Decision 33-8/39 doesn't really have any connection with the matter of hitting the wall of a bunker with your backswing. A grass covered or stacked turf face is not, by definition, part of the bunker. The purpose of the Decision in allowing a local rule to the effect that such a wall is not "closely mown" is so that you can prevent a player gaining relief from a ball embedded in the face.

Apologies - yes I did mean 13-4/34. For the local rule 33-8/39 I believe it also means they can make it part of the hazard too - at their discretion - if the local rule is not implemented. Stacked turf does not have to be grass covered and it can be used to form part of a hazard. The decision 33-8/39 is intended to provide clarity as to whether the ball lies within a hazard or not - and whether or not any breach is applicable if it is touched during the backswing. As well as the equal clarity for relief for an embedded ball when it's not part of the hazard. Clear as mud.

 

[duncan mackie]

For the local rule 33-8/39 I believe it also means they can make it part of the hazard too - at their discretion - if the local rule is not implemented. Stacked turf does not have to be grass covered and it can be used to form part of a hazard. The decision 33-8/39 is intended to provide clarity as to whether the ball lies within a hazard or not - and whether or not any breach is applicable if it is touched during the backswing. As well as the equal clarity for relief for an embedded ball when it's not part of the hazard. Clear as mud.

taken together with 33-8/39.5 it's pretty clear...

 

[nemicu]

taken together with 33-8/39.5 it's pretty clear...

Quite. Meaning it can be either.

 

[Colin L]

Apologies - yes I did mean 13-4/34. For the local rule 33-8/39 I believe it also means they can make it part of the hazard too - at their discretion - if the local rule is not implemented. Stacked turf does not have to be grass covered and it can be used to form part of a hazard. The decision 33-8/39 is intended to provide clarity as to whether the ball lies within a hazard or not - and whether or not any breach is applicable if it is touched during the backswing. As well as the equal clarity for relief for an embedded ball when it's not part of the hazard. Clear as mud.

33-8/39 is about being allowed to define a revetted or grass covered face as not being closely mown, the only purpose of which as far as I can see is to disallow relief for an embedded ball. How does it clarify whether a ball is in the bunker or not? Such a face is, by Definition not part of a bunker. If a ball is on it, it is not in the bunker........

.....unless Decision 33-8/39.5, as Duncan hints, has been used to support a local rule that defines such faces as part of the bunker.

 

[nemicu]

33-8/39 is about being allowed to define a revetted or grass covered face as not being closely mown, the only purpose of which as far as I can see is to disallow relief for an embedded ball. How does it clarify whether a ball is in the bunker or not? Such a face is, by Definition not part of a bunker. If a ball is on it, it is not in the bunker........

.....unless Decision 33-8/39.5, as Duncan hints, has been used to support a local rule that defines such faces as part of the bunker.

What are you talking about? The decision was local rule to allow the status to be determined - not an absolute status one way or the other. There literally thousands of bunkers worldwide with stacked turf sides that are either in or out of the bunker - regardless if a local rule deems them otherwise.

 

[Colin L]

What are you talking about? The decision was local rule to allow the status to be determined - not an absolute status one way or the other. There literally thousands of bunkers worldwide with stacked turf sides that are either in or out of the bunker - regardless if a local rule deems them otherwise.

I am talking about these.
a. the part of the Definition of a bunker that states
Grass-covered ground bordering or within a bunker, including a stacked turf face (whether grass-covered or earthen), is not part of the bunker.
and which tells me that anywhere in the world a stacked turf face is not part of a bunker unless there is a local rule, sanctioned by Decision 33-8/39.5, that says otherwise.

b. Rule 25-2 which allows relief from an embedded ball in a closely mown area and could allow relief from a ball embedded in a stacked turf or grass covered face if closely mown.

c. Decision 33-8/39 which permits a local rule which states that any stacked turf or grass covered face is not considered closely mown and which therefore denies any relief from a ball embedded in such face.

 

[nemicu]

I am talking about these.
a. the part of the Definition of a bunker that states
Grass-covered ground bordering or within a bunker, including a stacked turf face (whether grass-covered or earthen), is not part of the bunker.
and which tells me that anywhere in the world a stacked turf face is not part of a bunker unless there is a local rule, sanctioned by Decision 33-8/39.5, that says otherwise.

b. Rule 25-2 which allows relief from an embedded ball in a closely mown area and could allow relief from a ball embedded in a stacked turf or grass covered face if closely mown.

c. Decision 33-8/39 which permits a local rule which states that any stacked turf or grass covered face is not considered closely mown and which therefore denies any relief from a ball embedded in such face.

I believe we were discussing whether or not a penalty would be incurred for touching the wall of a bunker during the backswing. In most cases yes, but in other instances it may not be the case. Since a stacked turf wall within - either with or without grass - can be either in or out of a bunker at the committees discretion, your point has no relevance - other than a pissing contest.

 

[Colin L]

I believe we were discussing whether or not a penalty would be incurred for touching the wall of a bunker during the backswing. In most cases yes, but in other instances it may not be the case. Since a stacked turf wall within - either with or without grass - can be either in or out of a bunker at the committees discretion, your point has no relevance - other than a pissing contest.

Discussions in this forum have habitually been carried out in a polite and respectful manner. It's a pity you don't seem to have noticed and I would be grateful if you could keep it in mind.