New Rules w.e.f. January 2023

I must confess that I have grown to be happy with rakes placed in the bunker as earlier described - to the side with the head on the flatter part of the bunker and the very tip of the handle resting on the edge. But there is a universal problem with any solution to the problem. No matter how sensible and unobtrusive a method is, it will fail because of one common factor - people.
 
If you are in a bunker, just expect to be heavily penalised. If you are not, and have a nice lie and shot out of the bunker, count yourself lucky.

If you expect a horrible lie, maybe you will try a bit harder to avoid the bunker in the first place :)
 
mikejohnchapman said:
Really!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
Yes, really. At least for your own mental sanity.

I'm not saying you shouldn't have a lie made in heaven every time you go in a bunker, but sometimes you won't. Sometimes you'll be plugged, in a shallow or deep footprint, on a downslope or close to the face. And, sometimes a rake might result in you having a less than ideal lie.

In all honesty, I probably play golf at least 150 times a year, and I'd be surprised if a rake has resulted in me having a bad lie in a bunker even once a year. Since 2005, I reckon I could count the number of times I have been this unfortunate on the fingers of one hand. Add to that, many of us are probably awful out of bunkers anyway, even with the best possible lie, so a rake forcing the ball into a bad position is probably not as big a disadvantage to some of us as we think it is.

So, if you hit a ball in the bunker, you can hope for the best, but plan for the worst. It is what golf is all about, negotiating any lie you come across, deal with it (physically and mentally) and get on with things.

Or, you could just request there are no rakes in bunkers, and every player must carry a rake. Then you don't need to worry about them at all.
 
Steven Rules said:
Committee Procedures 2D - Position of Rakes

There is not a perfect answer for the position of rakes and it is a matter for each Committee to decide whether it has rakes placed in or out of bunkers.

It may be argued that there is more likelihood of a ball being deflected into or kept out of a bunker if the rake is placed outside the bunker. It could also be argued that if the rake is in the bunker it is most unlikely that the ball will be deflected out of the bunker.

However, in practice, players who leave rakes in bunkers frequently leave them at the side of the bunker which tends to stop a ball rolling into the flat part of the bunker resulting in a much more difficult shot than would otherwise have been the case. When the ball comes to rest on or against a rake in the bunker and the player must proceed under Rule 15.2, it may not be possible to replace the ball on the same spot or find a spot in the bunker which is not nearer the hole.

If rakes are left in the middle of the bunker, the only way to position them is to throw them into the bunker and this causes indentations in the sand. Also, if a rake is in the middle of a large bunker, it is either not used or the player is obliged to rake a large area of the bunker when retrieving the rake, resulting in unnecessary delay.

Therefore, after considering all these aspects, and while recognising that the positioning of rakes is at the Committee's discretion, it is recommended that rakes should be left outside bunkers in areas where they are least likely to affect the movement of the ball.

However, a Committee may decide to position rakes inside bunkers to make it easier for maintenance staff to cut fairways and bunker surrounds.
Click to expand...

They could have just said 'do what you want' - it would have been much quicker. There is no perfect answer to this. The best solution I've seen (short of every group having a man with a rake following them around!) is the pipes driven into the ground that then hold the rakes vertically by the handle.
 
Colin L said:
What alternative does it have? How, for example, are the greens "defended"?
Click to expand...

Most greens have quite severe run-offs if you miss on the wrong side, and of course there are a few trees to contend with.

It's a very enjoyable course to play and has a great outdoor seating area to watch the sun go down as you savour your beverage of choice.
 
Colin L said:
What alternative does it have? How, for example, are the greens "defended"?
Click to expand...
They don't have any alternatives and no need to "defend" the greens. They merely have a superior course design. The Course Rating is 1.5 shots over par.
Perhaps bunkers are a requirement on a less well designed course.
 
It is highly questionable, I'd suggest, that a course with no bunkers is of a superior design. It is, after all, removing one of the skill challenges that goes right back to the origins of the game and which is not presented by a grassed hollow. Some might go as far to say that a course with no bunkers is of inferior design as it lacks a fundamental feature of a golf course.

But I'm sure sitting with the beverage of my choice, watching the sun go down would be some compensation. Slainte mhath! ?
 
Last edited:
Colin L said:
It is highly questionable, I'd suggest, that a course with no bunkers is of a superior design. It is, after all, removing one of the skill challenges that goes right back to the origins of the game and which is not presented by a grassed hollow. Some might go as far to say that a course with no bunkers is of inferior design as it lacks a fundamental feature of a golf course.
Click to expand...

Better let Royal Ashdown Forest know that their's is an inferior course then. Featured many times in "top 100 courses" lists.
 
Voyager EMH said:
I wrote, "less well designed" you wrote, "of inferior design".

I wonder what is the best designed course in the world.
Will all the others will be of inferior design?
Click to expand...
Mean the same thing. If something is less well designed, by definition it is inferior to how it could potentially have been designed.

There can be no isolated answer, as every course has different challenges. Including the geography you are working with. There is also individual preferences. Some love links golf, others love a beautiful woodland course. You could go on.

But, I guess the debate is all related to the context you used "superior". I read it as it being superior to any course with bunkers, and therefore didn't need them. Which I don't agree with. If you just meant it to be it has an excellent course design generally, then fair enough. Not played there, but take your word for it.

There was a course near me with no bunkers. It's defence was the dinner table sized greens, and the dandelions that grew on the greens :)
 
No.
I said Charnwood Forest had no need for bunkers as it has a superior design.
I did not say Charnwood Forest has a superior design than all courses with bunkers, as I would not believe this to be true.
 
Voyager EMH said:
No.
I said Charnwood Forest had no need for bunkers as it has a superior design.
I did not say Charnwood Forest has a superior design than all courses with bunkers, as I would not believe this to be true.
Click to expand...
Superior to what then? The word superior is used to rank something against something of lesser standard
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Cash prizes for 2's
2
Replies
37
Views
962
SwingsitlikeHogan
SwingsitlikeHogan
Beedee
Courses near Lisbon
Replies
2
Views
344
YandaB
Y
inc0gnito
Over the green unplayable rule
Replies
13
Views
1K
jim8flog
jim8flog
Mandofred
Virgin 360
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
RichA
R
M
Casual Golf Rules
Replies
10
Views
392
MUAbb
M
Top