stevelev
Journeyman Pro
That is the USGA site and not the R&A Site, There is a local rule that permits bunkers placed as GUR if they are flooded.
Drop from a flooded bunker - unfair rule?
- Thread starter delc
- Start date
That is the USGA site and not the R&A Site, There is a local rule that permits bunkers placed as GUR if they are flooded.
duncan mackie
Money List Winner
the decision quoted are the same on both sites Steve - the rules are entirely consistent in this. 33-8/27 exist in both with the same words (as do all the the others)
freddielong
Tour Winner
Like the MP's that didn't break the rules and acted within the law people will bend rules and use them to get the best out come for them, I believe that this rule exists in its present form to stop people getting an easy free drop out of a damp bunker.
It is fine as it is
It is fine as it is
stevelev
Journeyman Pro
And did you expect free relief for it landing in a water HAZARD or did you take the penalty in line with the rules.
At the end of the day if YOUR committee has not declared a particular bunker GUR then you can take relief within the bunker from standing water contained within. If not able to take relief within in line with the rules, then take a penalty and drop outside the bunker......................END OF
stevelev
Journeyman Pro
Sorry just saw the name in the link, my error
I don't have a problem with the one stroke penalty if players choose to drop out of a bunker for whatever reason (which they have the right to do). I do however object to it if there is no alternative!
Last edited:
stevelev
Journeyman Pro
There is an alternative, speak to your committee and get them to put such bunkers as GUR for comps prior to comp commencing, if not just deal with the ruling as it is.
MashieNiblick
Tour Winner
Yes after thinking about it I also thought you would have to lose the maximum available relief option, because there will always be such a point even if the ball is still under water! However it might be possible to retain some element of it by allowing relief at a point where interference is only with with the stance. A drop nearer the hole would only be allowed if no such partial relief were available not nearer the hole. I tried writing something and it resulted in quite a complex Rule though and ultimately I feel it is best left as it is and accept it as just one of those things. Another take on "Golf is not a Game of Perfect"!
Colin L
Tour Winner
No perfection indeed. The problem is, is it not, that golf is an outdoor game played over a wide variety of terrain in virtually every kind of weather imaginable and as a consequence, Things Happen. The Rules do a pretty good job of ensuring that when Something Happens there is a procedure for keeping the game going that is as fair and reasonable as possible. Compromise is inevitable and even though a player might not be happy with the apparent "unfairness" of the way out of some situations (like a flooded bunker) the really important thing is that there is a way out. He is not left stuck mid-hole with no way of proceeding.
Couldn't you just have an exception clause stating that if a ball lies in casual water in a bunker, it may be dropped at the nearest point of complete relief or maximum available relief within the bunker without penalty? An exception clause has been added to rule 18-2b for wind moving the ball after address, so there is a precedent.
Last edited:
rulefan
Tour Winner
In a large long bunker that may well give a massive distance advantage.
There is one fundamental theme running through all relief options - the ball must not be nearer the hole.
Last edited:
MashieNiblick
Tour Winner
Yes, the complexity is caused by having the nearer the hole option only available if there isn't an option not nearer the hole. Being able to drop nearer the hole when you could drop not nearer just seems too much against the principles of the game. It would also in my view be unfair if 2 players' balls in the same bunker resulted in one having to drop not nearer the hole but in a bad spot (e.g. on a down slope at the back) and the other, in a different bit of the water, dropping on a nice flat bit nearer the hole. That's always the trouble with trying make things "fair" when the nature of the game doesn't really allow for that.
HawkeyeMS
Ryder Cup Winner
Suppose the bunker wasn't flooded, you and one of you FCs went in it. You were up against the lip with no shot, your FC was in the middle with a perfect lie. That would be unlucky but you'd have to deal with it. It's just the way it goes, it's a hazard.
chrisd
Major Champion
There's a bunker at Chart Hills in Kent that runs about 70% of the length of a par 5. That could be an interesting one if you could drop nearer the hole!
rulefan
Tour Winner
Just seen it on google maps. What a monster.
Yes, but that is a rub of the green with no casual water involved. The rule I proposed would limit you to dropping within one clublength of the nearest point of complete or maximum relief from casual water within the bunker, but would remove the not 'nearer the hole' requirement in bunkers only.
rulefan
Tour Winner
So in the case of the bunker at Chart Hills, if the only dry area was at the putting green end and your ball was at the tee end, you could drop your ball 400 yards closer to the green? I''l buy that.
Colin L
Tour Winner
That's not a bunker; that's a beach.
Perhaps that's it - the design concept was to replicate a links hole running alongside the sea. All in all, the course designer does seem to have been a tad over-enthusiastic about bunkers on that course. Zoom out on google maps and it looks as if it is suffering from a particularly nasty disease.
Bunkers are hazards and difficult to get out of, whatever distance is involved, especially if the sand is wet. Rules should not be based on hard cases, such as the Chart Hills bunker! Most bunkers are much smaller than that.
rulefan
Tour Winner
Rules are based on all potential cases. How do you differentiate between hard and easy cases. What distance would you allow in this case?
