Drop from a flooded bunker - unfair rule?

[rulefan]

Surely the issue 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.

The issue is that you are in a bunker. You are not entitled to free relief from a bunker. Within the constraint of staying in the bunker, you are entitled to free relief from the casual water itself.
There is in fact a concession that, if you can't find full relief (as is required in all other situations), you may take partial (maximum available) relief. If there is literally nowhere in the bunker that is not under water, then the committee may declare that bunker to be all GUR and thereby removing its classification as a bunker. Free relief is then available.

 

[delc]

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

Even tour pros, who are the best golfers on the planet, seem to hit their golf balls into bunkers from time to time!

 

[delc]

The issue is that you are in a bunker. You are not entitled to free relief from a bunker. Within the constraint of staying in the bunker, you are entitled to free relief from the casual water itself.
There is in fact a concession that, if you can't find full relief (as is required in all other situations), you may take partial (maximum available) relief. If there is literally nowhere in the bunker that is not under water, then the committee may declare that bunker to be all GUR and thereby removing its classification as a bunker. Free relief is then available.

The issue in the case that I described was that I could have taken full or maximum relief within the bunker, but nearer to the hole, so not possible under the current rules. I wondered if this requirement could be relaxed for relief from casual water?

 

[rulefan]

Even tour pros, who are the best golfers on the planet, seem to hit their golf balls into bunkers from time to time!

As they are the best golfers on the planet, they have no difficulty in playing out.
Hitting into a fairway bunker is a 'risk/reward' situation. Play short or take a chance on getting extra distance.
Taking a chance on missing a green into a bunker is often better than missing into the surrounding unpredictable rough.

 

[rulefan]

I wondered if this requirement could be relaxed for relief from casual water?

I have known it to be done if there is nowhere to drop not nearer the hole. This should be decided during the pre comp course inspection by the committee.

 

[chrisd]

The issue in the case that I described was that I could have taken full or maximum relief within the bunker, but nearer to the hole, so not possible under the current rules. I wondered if this requirement could be relaxed for relief from casual water?

There's no need, the rules adequately cover the situation of water in a bunker and everyone does, or should, know the rule before they tee off. You have also to remember that the level of water in a bunker can vary during the play of a comp and your suggestion could give a greater advantage/ disadvantage to someone who plays, say 3 hours different when the water level has changed!

The current rules are fair in every respect to all competitors

 

[rulefan]

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

The situation is that CONGU decided that the individual national unions give guidance (!!!!???).

EG have decided that it will approve situations where no more than 50% of bunkers are out of action.

 

[Colin L]

Thanks for that. I must find out what the SGU guidance is.

As I thought, "some" bunkers should certainly not mean more than 50%. Any number over half would have to be referred to as "most" bunkers.


As a postscript, I find that the SGu guidance on running competitions in adverse weather includes this:

If the Local Rule is applied as intended by Decision 33-8/27, ie the “GUR, Through the Green” status is limited to a few selected and identified fully-flooded bunkers, then a competition may be played as a Qualifying Competition for handicap purposes.

"A few" certainly doesn't cover up to a half. Anyway, I'll post what the SGU says when I get a reply.

 

[duncan mackie]

The situation is that CONGU decided that the individual national unions give guidance (!!!!???).

EG have decided that it will approve situations where no more than 50% of bunkers are out of action.

that is what YOU posted here on the 20th Oct at 1339h

it would help with such snippets of guidance if there was some consistency

which of your two EG decisions stands?

 

[rulefan]

that is what YOU posted here on the 20th Oct at 1339h

it would help with such snippets of guidance if there was some consistency

which of your two EG decisions stands?

Note the highlights

My original posting was

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.

That was refering to a ruling made at the time when the EGU was the EGU (ie over 12 months ago).

Since the EGU and the EWGA merged, the relevant committee of EG has updated its position to the following.

CONGU decided that the individual national unions give guidance. EG have decided that it will approve situations where no more than 50% of bunkers are out of action.

I had only recently become aware of a change and saw no reason to trawl through looking for an old thread. This thread prompted me to check the minutes.

Incidentally, I posted this yesterday suggesting there had been a change. So today I posted the change.

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

 

[rulefan]

I had only recently become aware of a change and saw no reason to trawl through looking for an old thread.

Sorry, I should have written I had only recently become aware of a change and thought I had posted an update but saw .................

 

[delc]

There's no need, the rules adequately cover the situation of water in a bunker and everyone does, or should, know the rule before they tee off. You have also to remember that the level of water in a bunker can vary during the play of a comp and your suggestion could give a greater advantage/ disadvantage to someone who plays, say 3 hours different when the water level has changed!

The current rules are fair in every respect to all competitors

Are they though? Suppose my ball had landed in casual water in a different bunker where the water was lying in a part of the bunker that was closer to the hole. Then I would be entitled to a free drop within the bunker. So it's not the same for everybody!

 

[rulefan]

Are they though? Suppose my ball had landed in casual water in a different bunker where the water was lying in a part of the bunker that was closer to the hole. Then I would be entitled to a free drop within the bunker. So it's not the same for everybody!

If they had been in the same bunker it is the same. But it is not about the situation, it is the rule that is the same.

You and your fellow competitor play two decent drives. Yours hits a bird and drops in a fairway bunker, his hits another bird and drops on the fairway. Is that fair? Perhaps, perhaps not. But the rule is the same for both of you. Play it as it lies.

 

[chrisd]

Are they though? Suppose my ball had landed in casual water in a different bunker where the water was lying in a part of the bunker that was closer to the hole. Then I would be entitled to a free drop within the bunker. So it's not the same for everybody!

But arnt the rules made to cover eventualities that will happen in the future, so, every competitor who lands in a wet bunker knows the consequence of going in the bunkers before he/she tees off. As with all the rules, as far as I can recall, forearmed is forewarned. You could use the same argument for most golf rules, say for a free drop, but sometimes the rules help and some times they hurt, that's the rub of the green but you can't write rules that aid the unlucky golfer

 

[doublebogey7]

Are they though? Suppose my ball had landed in casual water in a different bunker where the water was lying in a part of the bunker that was closer to the hole. Then I would be entitled to a free drop within the bunker. So it's not the same for everybody!

But then no rule "is the same for everyone" when applied to different situations.

 

[MashieNiblick]

Interesting thread, and an issue worth discussing especially with the weather as it is!

I think it it is good fun occasionally to look at the Rules in a critical way but the Rules guys are very thorough and the Rules are very carefully written. They consider all the relevant issues, including fairness, when writing and reviewing them. However the Rules do get changed from time to time so we mustn't assume they are perfect.

I do see the argument that the penalty may be incurred through no real fault of the player, and that usually the option to drop in the bunker nearer the hole would confer no advantage in such situations. I have thought about how you could re-write the Rule to allow a drop nearer the hole in a way that is workable and compatible with the underlying principles of the game. It isn't impossible but it isn't easy without jumping through a lot of hoops about when the NPR may be nearer the hole. I guess that's because it requires exceptions to some fundamental principles. The current arrangement allows the maximum latitude whilst retaining the key principles that you don't drop the ball nearer the hole and you don't drop out of a hazard without a penalty.

Personally I see no need to change the rule. Golf is played in a natural environment subject to variations of terrain and weather. This can result in "unfair" outcomes (ball in divot, ball in casual water on fairway but NPR is in the rough, etc), these little quirks are part of the game. Looking for perfectly "fair" outcomes for every situation is I feel asking too much. The Rules are complicated enough as they are!

 

[delc]

If they had been in the same bunker it is the same. But it is not about the situation, it is the rule that is the same.

You and your fellow competitor play two decent drives. Yours hits a bird and drops in a fairway bunker, his hits another bird and drops on the fairway. Is that fair? Perhaps, perhaps not. But the rule is the same for both of you. Play it as it lies.

I once hit a seagull in flight with my golf ball and the ball dropped into a water hazard that it would have otherwise comfortably cleared. However it was much worse for the seagull who was killed by the impact!

 

[rulefan]

I once hit a seagull in flight with my golf ball and the ball dropped into a water hazard that it would have otherwise comfortably cleared. However it was worse for the seagull who was killed!

At least you got your birdie

 

[duncan mackie]

Sorry, I should have written I had only recently become aware of a change and thought I had posted an update but saw .................

my apologies for being a little brisk with my previous post but I did trawl through to pock up your previous comment and then ended up getting a !!!!!!????? response!

have a great 2014 (and Colin can have one too )

 

[duncan mackie]

I do see the argument that the penalty may be incurred through no real fault of the player, and that usually the option to drop in the bunker nearer the hole would confer no advantage in such situations. I have thought about how you could re-write the Rule to allow a drop nearer the hole in a way that is workable and compatible with the underlying principles of the game. It isn't impossible but it isn't easy without jumping through a lot of hoops about when the NPR may be nearer the hole. I guess that's because it requires exceptions to some fundamental principles. The current arrangement allows the maximum latitude whilst retaining the key principles that you don't drop the ball nearer the hole and you don't drop out of a hazard without a penalty.

I have previously posted my support for providing a nearer the pin but still in the bunker option, but have now concluded that this would have to be at the cost of the 'less than full relief option'.

as such I think it's best as it is - accepting that it's one of those that fails any 'fair to all' test.