Bunkers - New Rule 12

[duncan mackie]

While I understand the rationale of being consistent and making stones LIs throughout the course, I do have a real issue with this.

Q. What was the purpose of the old local rule making stones MOs in bunkers?
A. It was a SAFETY issue - a small stone flying out of a bunker could take someone's eye out.

But this new rule means that if your ball is in a bunker against a stone, then because you know you'll be penalised if the ball moves, you will leave the stone there and it'll come flying out when when play your shot. Therefore this change in rules is compromising safety, and I don't see how that can be justified.

What do you do at the moment when your ball is resting against a stone on the fairway? Sitting on an integral gravel path? etc

 

[Crow]

Loose stones are pretty commonplace in many bunkers, it's very rare that you'll encounter one in the general area and I can't ever remember finding one lodged against my ball.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Loose stones are pretty commonplace in many bunkers, it's very rare that you'll encounter one in the general area and I can't ever remember finding one lodged against my ball.

If the general area includes ground under trees that is in play and not subject to any relief of any sort - then there are plenty of loose stones around the place that my ball can - and does - come into contact with. After doing whatever I decide to do I usually chuck it somewhere well out of the way so that it will not bother anyone else as it bothered me.

 

[cliveb]

This is the exact point I made when I queried the new rule with the R&A, as said, they assessed it was no different to your ball being against a stone in the general area.

OK, so the R&A's view is that whatever danger a stone presents is the same whether it's in a bunker or not.
In which case why did the current rules not permit an LR that stones are MOs everywhere on the course?

They might argue that they acknowledge the rules were inconsistent up to now and they've made them consistent.
Which of course they have, but they've compromised safety in the process.
Perhaps on safety grounds stones should be reclassified as MOs everywhere in the course?

 

[rulefan]

How often does a sensible play stand in front of another player hitting from a bunker?

 

[LIG]

OK, so the R&A's view is that whatever danger a stone presents is the same whether it's in a bunker or not.
In which case why did the current rules not permit an LR that stones are MOs everywhere on the course?

They might argue that they acknowledge the rules were inconsistent up to now and they've made them consistent.
Which of course they have, but they've compromised safety in the process.
Perhaps on safety grounds stones should be reclassified as MOs everywhere in the course?

When is a stone a stone and not a grain of sand? In other words, what size is a stone?

 

[Deleted member 16999]

How often does a sensible play stand in front of another player hitting from a bunker?

Surely that’s irrelevant, nothing has changed under the rules or in the game that would change the reason for allowing the LR under current rules and not taking that reason forward.

 

[rulefan]

I understand the change of thought came about because there was no evidence to suggest the stones in bunkers really did present a possible danger - even given that there are hundreds or thousands of over zealous Health and Safety bods out there telling us that our kids can't play conkers.

 

[backwoodsman]

While I understand the rationale of being consistent and making stones LIs throughout the course, I do have a real issue with this.

Q. What was the purpose of the old local rule making stones MOs in bunkers?
A. It was a SAFETY issue - a small stone flying out of a bunker could take someone's eye out.

But this new rule means that if your ball is in a bunker against a stone, then because you know you'll be penalised if the ball moves, you will leave the stone there and it'll come flying out when when play your shot. Therefore this change in rules is compromising safety, and I don't see how that can be justified.

Really?

There are loads of places on a course where one might hit a stone. And in reality, how often have you sent one flying? And quite frankly, I'd think a stone coming out of a bunker along with a shovelful of sand, is likely to be far less hazardous, than one sent pinging off a fairway.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Really?

There are loads of places on a course where one might hit a stone. And in reality, how often have you sent one flying? And quite frankly, I'd think a stone coming out of a bunker along with a shovelful of sand, is likely to be far less hazardous, than one sent pinging off a fairway.

This is the current wording in the RoG.

“Stones in bunkers are, by Definition, loose impediments and, when a player’s ball is in a hazard, a stone lying in or touching the hazard must not be touched or moved (Rule 13-4). However, stones in bunkers may represent a danger to players (a player could be injured by a stone struck by the player’s club in an attempt to play the ball) and they may interfere with the proper playing of the game.
When permission to lift a stone in a bunker is warranted, the recommended Local Rule in Appendix 1, Part A of the Rules of Golf should be implemented.”

It’s not posters on here deciding it is/was a safety issue.

Obviously, Courses like mine have this local rule in place and on the 01st Jan it disappears, all I, and possibly others, are looking to clarify is why if the RB’s have stated it’s a possible safety issue, why have they removed it? Members are used to using the LR and have asked for an explanation.
Rulefan has hopefully provided the answer, but it would be nice to have the definitive response from the RB’s to show or give to members.

 

[rulie]

This is the current wording in the RoG.

“Stones in bunkers are, by Definition, loose impediments and, when a player’s ball is in a hazard, a stone lying in or touching the hazard must not be touched or moved (Rule 13-4). However, stones in bunkers may represent a danger to players (a player could be injured by a stone struck by the player’s club in an attempt to play the ball) and they may interfere with the proper playing of the game.
When permission to lift a stone in a bunker is warranted, the recommended Local Rule in Appendix 1, Part A of the Rules of Golf should be implemented.”

It’s not posters on here deciding it is/was a safety issue.

Obviously, Courses like mine have this local rule in place and on the 01st Jan it disappears, all I, and possibly others, are looking to clarify is why if the RB’s have stated it’s a possible safety issue, why have they removed it? Members are used to using the LR and have asked for an explanation.
Rulefan has hopefully provided the answer, but it would be nice to have the definitive response from the RB’s to show or give to members.

Your club can ask your national union and/or the R&A for a "definitive response", then you could share it here.

 

[Imurg]

I not so concerned with someone being hit by the stone as it's a pretty minor chance that it's going to happen. Obviously bad if it does but not highly likely.
More likely is the damage to clubs.
Until the end of the year I can move a stone (LR allowing) with no penalty if the ball moves
Next year, if it moved, it's a penalty
If my ball is resting against a stone - and I've played plenty of decent courses where there have been sizable ones in bunkers - and I can't move it because the ball will move then I stand a good chance of taking a large chunk out of the £120 wedge I've just purchased.
And I know that hitting a stone anywhere on the course is possible but that's not the point.
The change in the rule is going to damage clubs.
I'm moving stones and if the ball moves I'm taking the penalty rather than ruining wedges.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Your club can ask your national union and/or the R&A for a "definitive response", then you could share it here.

I have done, the head rules guy at Durham County Golf Union has been approached and he has approached the R&A.
Any updates I will share.

 

[clubchamp98]

I have seen a lad break his glasses hitting a stone in a bunker.
when he played his shot the stone hit the face of the bunker and hit him.
Cost him a new lens but a non glasses wearer could have lost an eye.

Shots from bunkers and from the fairway are totally different imo and a splash shot is designed to move the sand and not hit the ball, a fairway shot is the opposite so stones will react in different ways.

Think this is making the game more hazardous if you play courses with stones in bunkers and there are lots of them.

 

[duncan mackie]

The real problem is stones in the bunkers.

The interaction of the rules is merely a question for the player, in the same way as many other issues that can crop up from time to time from tree roots to rocks in penalty areas, integral roads (17th St A) to trees etc.

If you can't see the stone there's nothing that can be done either way - and this represents by far the greatest threat.

 

[rulefan]

I have seen a lad break his glasses hitting a stone in a bunker.
when he played his shot the stone hit the face of the bunker and hit him.
Cost him a new lens but a non glasses wearer could have lost an eye.
.

If he could see it why did he play it? If he couldn't the rule change wouldn't make any difference.

 

[cliveb]

If he could see it why did he play it? If he couldn't the rule change wouldn't make any difference.

I think you've missed the point.

If he couldn't see it, then yes, the rule change would make no difference.

But if he could see it, then he made a poor decision in not moving it, since under the current rules he could have done so without any risk of penalty.
Whereas under the new rules, attempting to move it might cost his a penalty shot, so he would be tempted to play it as is, with the consequent danger.

 

[jim8flog]

Your club can ask your national union and/or the R&A for a "definitive response", then you could share it here.

See post 3

 

[rulefan]

It is his responsibility to make sensible choices. Eye or penalty. Penalty drop or hit a rebound shot off the 17th wall.

 

[clubchamp98]

If he could see it why did he play it? If he couldn't the rule change wouldn't make any difference.

I posted because there is evidence they are a danger (see your post 28) players will be tempted to just play it knowing there’s a penalty if the ball moves.
It’s not a good change imo.