Bunkers - New Rule 12

[rulie]

See post 3

Yes, thanks.

 

[rulefan]

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.

In post 28 I said " ..... there was no evidence to ....."
But where is the evidence you refer to?

 

[clubchamp98]

In post 28 I said " ..... there was no evidence to ....."
But where is the evidence you refer to?

Well I am sure he could find the bill for his glasses repair.
So how can u say there is NO evidence.

 

[backwoodsman]

I think it is a question of quantifying the risk. Yes a player could hit a stone in a bunker & end up getting hurt. And yes, folk have posted evidence of players to whom it has happened. But, when you consider how many bunker shots are played over the course of, say, a year, and compare it to the number of resulting injuries/accidents, then I fear it has to be considered extremely low risk - probably to the extent of being negligible in terms of risk assessment.

 

[jim8flog]

I think it is a question of quantifying the risk. Yes a player could hit a stone in a bunker & end up getting hurt. And yes, folk have posted evidence of players to whom it has happened. But, when you consider how many bunker shots are played over the course of, say, a year, and compare it to the number of resulting injuries/accidents, then I fear it has to be considered extremely low risk - probably to the extent of being negligible in terms of risk assessment.

There's statistics and there's statistics.

How can you use the number the of accidents when you were able to remove stones without risk of penalty?

 

[SGC001]

I think it is a question of quantifying the risk. Yes a player could hit a stone in a bunker & end up getting hurt. And yes, folk have posted evidence of players to whom it has happened. But, when you consider how many bunker shots are played over the course of, say, a year, and compare it to the number of resulting injuries/accidents, then I fear it has to be considered extremely low risk - probably to the extent of being negligible in terms of risk assessment.

As up until 2019 u could remove them without fear of a penalty if the ball moved, i would expect there would only be few instances.

Last i heard (on our rules meeting with the r@a they were looking into it as it had been raised as a potential issue a week or 2 earlier.

Dont know if a final decision has been made. Would like official clarification.

 

[rulefan]

Taken from the latest issue of Certain Topics or Proposals Not Addressed in the Proposed New Rules of Golf for 2019

Restrictions on touching sand in a bunker – Although the proposed new Rules significantly relax the current prohibitions on what a player can do in the bunker, we have retained certain restrictions (namely, no deliberately touching the sand with hand or club to test the condition of the bunker and no touching of the sand with a club in the area right in front of or behind the ball or in making a practice swing or the backswing for the stroke). These prohibitions have been maintained to preserve the essential challenge of playing a shot from the sand in a bunker. See also Explanation for Proposed Rule Change: Moving or Touching Loose Impediments and Touching Sand in a Bunker

Although the relevant rule is mentioned, nothing is said about this specific situation. Nor is it mentioned in the final section of the document "Proposals that Need More Time for Consideration"

 

[duncan mackie]

As up until 2019 u could remove them without fear of a penalty if the ball moved, i would expect there would only be few instances.

I think you will find that there were many more years (decades, even centuries) prior to the permissable LR (that not every club implemented) where you were stuck withnwhat you could see - and obviously you have always been stuck with what you can't see.

 

[backwoodsman]

Well, I think my final comment is that if one has genuine, serious, concern about the risk of injury resulting from the possibility of hitting a stone in a bunker, then my suggestion is that golf is probably not the game for you. Perhaps one should consider sitting in a quiet, darkened, box instead - provided of course, that any/all sharp corners have been padded beforehand...

 

[clubchamp98]

I think you will find that there were many more years (decades, even centuries) prior to the permissable LR (that not every club implemented) where you were stuck withnwhat you could see - and obviously you have always been stuck with what you can't see.

I just don’t understand the logic !
You will now be able to move lots of things you couldn’t move before in a bunker.
But the one thing you could move ,now you can’t. (If ball is going to move)

I don’t see why it is suddenly a penalty now, for moving something that could possibly hurt you!

 

[rulie]

I just don’t understand the logic !
You will now be able to move lots of things you couldn’t move before in a bunker.
But the one thing you could move ,now you can’t. (If ball is going to move)

I don’t see why it is suddenly a penalty now, for moving something that could possibly hurt you!

I suppose one could say that your safety is your responsibility, not the responsibility of the Rules?
Some people have suggested that melanoma is a safety issue when playing golf.

 

[KenL]

At the England Golf presentation were informed:
Under new Rule 12, players will be allowed to touch or move loose impediments in a bunker, such as such as stones, leaves, twigs, pine cones etc and will be generally allowed to touch the sand with a hand or club.

However:
There would still be a one stroke penalty if in removing the loose impediment, the ball moved. The ball must be replaced. (No change in the Rules).

Currently we have a local rule:
Stones in Bunkers are moveable obstructions. Rule 24-1 applies.

Therefore to avoid people being penalised under New Rule 12 am I right in thinking we will still need a local rule 15.2a to cover our existing local rule?

We have removed that from our local rules effective from 1/1/19.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Well, I think my final comment is that if one has genuine, serious, concern about the risk of injury resulting from the possibility of hitting a stone in a bunker, then my suggestion is that golf is probably not the game for you. Perhaps one should consider sitting in a quiet, darkened, box instead - provided of course, that any/all sharp corners have been padded beforehand...

I suppose one could say that your safety is your responsibility, not the responsibility of the Rules?
Some people have suggested that melanoma is a safety issue when playing golf.

Tbh, these aren’t the normal replies you would expect in this part of the forum.
AGAIN, all people are asking for is actual written proof that the RB’s have changed the policy on allowing a local rule.
Clubs have had this rule in place for a long time and members of those clubs at times will of used the LR.
Charts have been produced showing all the changes to the rules and this is not shown.
If a member is penalised for carrying out the old LR it would be good if they can be shown were it has been changed rather than going on hearsay and speculation.

 

[duncan mackie]

I just don’t understand the logic !
You will now be able to move lots of things you couldn’t move before in a bunker.
But the one thing you could move ,now you can’t. (If ball is going to move)

I don’t see why it is suddenly a penalty now, for moving something that could possibly hurt you!

Understand and appreciate that.

If you are looking for something logical the best I can see is that the ability to define stones in bunkers as moveable obstructions was an interim (and relatively recent), somewhat illogical (as they are by definition loose impediments) step towards the more dramatic changes implemented in these rules.

On the logical side, I still find it somewhat strange that a fully lined, prepared area, has all these stones in it! Note, I'm not denying they are there, find the odd one in ours from time to time...maybe more clubs should have stone evenings as well as divot evenings?

 

[duncan mackie]

Tbh, these aren’t the normal replies you would expect in this part of the forum.
AGAIN, all people are asking for is actual written proof that the RB’s have changed the policy on allowing a local rule.
Clubs have had this rule in place for a long time and members of those clubs at times will of used the LR.
Charts have been produced showing all the changes to the rules and this is not shown.
If a member is penalised for carrying out the old LR it would be good if they can be shown were it has been changed rather than going on hearsay and speculation.

I've not seen any chart that purports to show all the changes. I've not even seen one that covers the new requirement regarding the placement of the ball - which is pretty major as everyone will do it at least once a round!

Your proof as you refer to it is in the removal, or absence, of a model local rule.

 

[duncan mackie]

How do you know about the new requirement regarding the placement of the ball?

It's in the rules....even has it's own section, 14.2

There are literally hundreds of changes that haven't been charted; many have similar (but not always the same) outcomes but are in themselves changes...eg match play, ball comes to rest overhanging hole and opponent knocks it away before the entitled time elapses. Used to be replace and penalty - now considered holed and no penalty.

Others have different consequences, and some are still being clarified! List of clarifications published last week - although it lacked a working definition of where clarifications fit with rules and interpretations 🤔

 

[Deleted member 16999]

It's in the rules....even has it's own section, 14.2

There are literally hundreds of changes that haven't been charted; many have similar (but not always the same) outcomes but are in themselves changes...eg match play, ball comes to rest overhanging hole and opponent knocks it away before the entitled time elapses. Used to be replace and penalty - now considered holed and no penalty.

Others have different consequences, and some are still being clarified! List of clarifications published last week - although it lacked a working definition of where clarifications fit with rules and interpretations 🤔

Obviously not every scenario is shown, and maybe it was my wording Duncan, I was asking about this one particular change and as far as I’m aware this “change” for whatever reason is not mentioned.
All that has been asked is for clarification so we can educate our members.
Then we get posters totally over reacting and suggesting if people are bothered then maybe golf isn’t for them. I really don’t understand that sort of post.
My County has asked the R&A on our behalf and I’ll now refrain from posting in this thread until I receive the reply and then I’ll share it.
Thank you for your sensible advice and help.

 

[Homer]

What needs to be asked? The Rules are quite clear aren’t they?

 

[rulefan]

Obviously not every scenario is shown, and maybe it was my wording Duncan, I was asking about this one particular change and as far as I’m aware this “change” for whatever reason is not mentioned.

A change (to the rule) has not been mentioned because the rule has not changed.
As the current local rule is not in the list of model local rules from 2019 onward, this clearly means there isn't an authorised local rule available.

In my experience of officiating at many courses around the country, the local rule was by no means universally used. I think you will find that most counties and England Golf have it on the hard card so there was uniformity, regardless of what the host club decided. My county has removed it.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

A change (to the rule) has not been mentioned because the rule has not changed.
But the local rule is not in the list of model local rules. This clearly means there isn't an authorised local rule available.

Which is a different answer to what you gave in post #5 and I answered in post #10