Drop from a flooded bunker - unfair rule?

[delc]

Yesterday I hit a shot into a partially flooded greenside bunker. My ball came to rest in quite deep water near the front of the bunker, and although there was some dry sand, further back, it was nearer to the hole. Hence I had no option other than taking a penalty drop outside the bunker. This seems to me to be a bit unfair! Perhaps you should be allowed to drop at the nearest point of relief within the bunker. Any views?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Thems the breaks.

What should happen is putting the bunker GUR when they flood

 

[delc]

In normal relief from casual water, you can go as far as you need to go in order to obtain complete relief from this abnormal ground condition, not nearer the hole. In a bunker you are constrained by its size and shape. Dropping nearer to the hole is not necessarily an advantage from sand, so why not allow a drop in the bunker at the nearest point of relief? If a bunker is completely flooded, it should be made GUR so that you can take a free drop out of it.

 

[Colin L]

I'm being a bit fussy about the terminology here. You are allowed to drop at the nearest point of relief in a bunker from casual water. The NPR is by definition not nearer the hole,

Remember you are allowed in a bunker to take partial relief i.e. to find the place (not nearer the hole) which offers the maximum relief from the condition. Elsewhere, you must take full relief from an abnormal ground condition.

 

[chrisd]

In normal relief from casual water, you can go as far as you need to go in order to obtain complete relief from this abnormal ground condition, not nearer the hole. In a bunker you are constrained by its size and shape. Dropping nearer to the hole is not necessarily an advantage from sand, so why not allow a drop in the bunker at the nearest point of relief? If a bunker is completely flooded, it should be made GUR so that you can take a free drop out of it.

Provision can be made for a free drop from fully flooded bunkers, so long as the actual bunker is specified to all on a local rule before they tee off.

 

[JCW]

One of the most unfair rules of golf but a rule it is and its the same for everyone , best way around it is to have a local rule that if any bunker has water in it its a free drop behind the bunker not nearer the hole , otherwise you drop in the bunker if possible if not its outside under a 1 shot penalty

 

[rickg]

Not sure why you feel the constant need to change all the rules and traditions of golf Derek.....just accept them like everyone does......

 

[rulefan]

best way around it is to have a local rule that if any bunker has water in it its a free drop behind the bunker not nearer the hole

The R&A does not permit such a local rule.

http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-33/#33-8/27

 

[Fyldewhite]

Causes a lot of debate this one, and it can seem unfair. I look at it like this.....
A bunker is a hazard, nobody ever questions it when they go in a pond (just another hazard) and have to drop at NPR under penalty. In fact, you could land in that same pond another day, after some dry weather when it's 4 ft shallower than usual and have a relatively unhindered shot. Don't see any threads on here saying how tremendously "fair" that situation is.......funny that

 

[louise_a]

The thing about dropping in a wet bunker that gets me is that the ball will plug deeply in wet sand

 

[rulefan]

The thing about dropping in a wet bunker that gets me is that the ball will plug deeply in wet sand

Why not hit the ball somewhere else? There is more fairway than bunker acreage.

 

[duncan mackie]

The thing about dropping in a wet bunker that gets me is that the ball will plug deeply in wet sand

I find it the other way - the wetter the sand the less the dropped ball will plug

however, I agree that a ball plugged in wet sand has greater limitations on the options for playing it than one dropped in dry sand!

 

[Fish]

In normal relief from casual water, you can go as far as you need to go in order to obtain complete relief from this abnormal ground condition, not nearer the hole.

Casual water isn't a hazard that you've gone into though, is it?

In a bunker you are constrained by its size and shape. Dropping nearer to the hole is not necessarily an advantage from sand, so why not allow a drop in the bunker at the nearest point of relief?

Their should be no 'advantage', you are in a hazard, tough titty.

If a bunker is completely flooded, it should be made GUR so that you can take a free drop out of it.

Complain to your match & comps and ask them to get the greenkeepers to make bunkers that are full of water GUR when discovered first thing in the morning, I think you'll find (I think) that any match's then become NQ though.

The easy remedy is, concentrate on staying out of them :smirk:

 

[chris661]

Complain to your match & comps and ask them to get the greenkeepers to make bunkers that are full of water GUR when discovered first thing in the morning, I think you'll find (I think) that any match's then become NQ though.

Why? No other GUR would result in comps becoming non qualifying would it?

 

[Colin L]

CONGU regulations allow for a Qualifying round to be played when "some" bunkers are GUR. Clearly the Rules prohibit a local rule defining all bunkers GUR and so a round played with an unauthorised local rule to that effect cannot be a Qualifying Round.

I don't know if CONGU has in mind or has stated somewhere what number of GUR bunkers can reasonably be called "some". The word should signify fewer than half but I expect Duncan or Rulefan can clarify that.

 

[rulefan]

Why? No other GUR would result in comps becoming non qualifying would it?

The difference is that bunkers are supposed to be hazardous and therefore possibly punitive. You will note that there is no relief at all from GUR in a water hazard.
The 'limited' relief from GUR in a bunker is intended to make you play from the hazard. If you want to play from outside a hazard you have to pay for it.
Relief from GUR elsewhere will generally put you into a similar situation to that which you would have had if the GUR was not there.

The reason for it being a NQ is that you would in effect be making the course easier.

 

[rulefan]

CONGU regulations allow for a Qualifying round to be played when "some" bunkers are GUR. Clearly the Rules prohibit a local rule defining all bunkers GUR and so a round played with an unauthorised local rule to that effect cannot be a Qualifying Round.

I don't know if CONGU has in mind or has stated somewhere what number of GUR bunkers can reasonably be called "some". The word should signify fewer than half but I expect Duncan or Rulefan can clarify that.

The original advice was 'a few' but this has been increased. I'm sure I have posted the ruling here a while ago but now (a) I can't find the original and (b) can't remember the figures

Perhaps Duncan can help.

 

[duncan mackie]

The original advice was 'a few' but this has been increased. I'm sure I have posted the ruling here a while ago but now (a) I can't find the original and (b) can't remember the figures

Perhaps Duncan can help.

you posted -

"I have had a ruling from the EGU (as was) saying if there were more than a few such bunkers it would be NQ.
Informally, 'three or four' was indicated but it was suggested that advice be taken from the county or national body if more were involved."

happy Christmas

 

[delc]

Surely the issue here is that I am not in a water hazard, I am in 'casual water', which is an 'abnormal ground condition', and from which I should be entitled to free relief.

 

[Fish]

Surely the issue here is that I am not in a water hazard, I am in 'casual water', which is an 'abnormal ground condition', and from which I should be entitled to free relief.

Don't be daft Derek, your just looking for a rise here, your in a hazard first and foremost so your entitled to a drop in the hazard at best, why the hell should you benefit further.

What's up, are they not biting on HDID any more?