GUR bunker, ball embedded on face, local rule in place.

[wjemather]

Totally re-built. About 30 of the 100 we have on the course.
Absolutely great job they do.

In that case, it seems obvious that the bunker faces should also be GUR.
The club should mark them accordingly or otherwise clearly communicate the fact. Just sticking a little sign in the sand isn't enough.

 

[rulefan]

If they still need protecting shouldn't they be NPZs? O/w players with a nice lie and stance will be taking divots out of the turf.

 

[KenL]

If they still need protecting shouldn't they be NPZs? O/w players with a nice lie and stance will be taking divots out of the turf.

We are using mats on closely mown areas and first cut (except when putting in scores or in monthly medals).

 

[rulie]

If they still need protecting shouldn't they be NPZs? O/w players with a nice lie and stance will be taking divots out of the turf.

What area “needs protecting”?

 

[rulefan]

What area “needs protecting”?

The area above the sand as it is now in the area of GUR. The OP said relief was not allowed but the nature of the ground suggests it it could be a mess after the winter.

 

[backwoodsman]

Question:

If model rule F 2.1 is in place (stacked turf faces above bunkers are not cut to faiway height or less for the purposes of this rule) then what is the status of the face?

My thought is that it's 'general area' but not cut to fairway height. So if F2.1 is in place, tough titty, and play it as it lies.

(Obviously this doesnt address the issue of the vagaries of how far the limit far 'the bunker is GUR' extends

 

[rulie]

Question:

If model rule F 2.1 is in place (stacked turf faces above bunkers are not cut to faiway height or less for the purposes of this rule) then what is the status of the face?

My thought is that it's 'general area' but not cut to fairway height. So if F2.1 is in place, tough titty, and play it as it lies.

(Obviously this doesnt address the issue of the vagaries of how far the limit far 'the bunker is GUR' extends

I think they have F2.2 in place.

 

[Steven Rules]

We have (rightly) transitioned from a question about the impact of a Local Rule on a ball embedded in a stacked turf face of a bunker, to a discussion about the extent of GUR, and the Committee's role in making clear the extent of that GUR.

In the first instance, we need to squash the idea that the sandy area in the photo is a bunker. It isn't. By definition, when the Committee defines the entire bunker as ground under repair, it is treated as part of the general area (which means it is not a bunker).

Therefore the ball is not embedded in a stacked face above a bunker, it is embedded in a stacked face above a bit of sandy soil in the general area.

Rule 16.1c is therefore irrelevant to the discussion, as is the Club’s Local Rule 4.d.b. (As an aside, in my opinion, the Club’s Local Rule 4.d.a is totally unnecessary and, indeed, causes confusion in relation to the first exception to 16.3a(1), but that can be a discussion for another day. Local Rule 5 is also unnecessary but at least it doesn’t seem to conflict with anything else.)

16.1b and 16.3 are relevant, as is Clarification 16.1/3 (Player May Choose to Take Relief from Either Condition When Interference by Two Conditions Exists)

We (and, more importantly, the Club’s members) also need clarity and clear articulation from the Committee on whether the area of stacked turf is part of the area of GUR.

 

[KenL]

We have (rightly) transitioned from a question about the impact of a Local Rule on a ball embedded in a stacked turf face of a bunker, to a discussion about the extent of GUR, and the Committee's role in making clear the extent of that GUR.

In the first instance, we need to squash the idea that the sandy area in the photo is a bunker. It isn't. By definition, when the Committee defines the entire bunker as ground under repair, it is treated as part of the general area (which means it is not a bunker).

Therefore the ball is not embedded in a stacked face above a bunker, it is embedded in a stacked face above a bit of sandy soil in the general area.

Rule 16.1c is therefore irrelevant to the discussion, as is the Club’s Local Rule 4.d.b. (As an aside, in my opinion, the Club’s Local Rule 4.d.a is totally unnecessary and, indeed, causes confusion in relation to the first exception to 16.3a(1), but that can be a discussion for another day. Local Rule 5 is also unnecessary but at least it doesn’t seem to conflict with anything else.)

16.1b and 16.3 are relevant, as is Clarification 16.1/3 (Player May Choose to Take Relief from Either Condition When Interference by Two Conditions Exists)

We (and, more importantly, the Club’s members) also need clarity and clear articulation from the Committee on whether the area of stacked turf is part of the area of GUR.

The exact reply I was after.
Thank you.

 

[salfordlad]

And in case it hasn't been abundantly clear for those that have worked through this thread, the course marking is currently inadequate if there is no published wording advising that those above-sand revetted faces are intended to also be GUR.