Not allowing relief from ball embedded on face of bunker

SwingsitlikeHogan

Major Champion
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
32,456
Visit site
Surely it’s simply to maintain the integrity of the bunker plus its faces as a hazard, and prevent damage to it.

Without the LR I might well be able to take relief and drop my ball outside the bunker area, possibly back on the fairway or any mown green surround. And given that if I was close to the face of a bunker with little or no shot (see for example Tony Finau among many @Hoylake nudging his ball away from the face when his ball was right up against it) might well simply blast my ball into the face to try and embed it and then take free relief from the hazard. Damaging to the hazard and wrong.
 

jim8flog

Journeyman Pro
Joined
May 20, 2017
Messages
14,925
Location
Yeovil
Visit site
Played Gullane 3 yesterday and noticed that they have a local rule not allowing free relief from stacked turf above a bunker.
Surprised to see this. What is the reason for allowing this local rule and why would a club want to use this?
Thanks.View attachment 48736


In response to your your question my opinion would be it is about the construction of bunkers on courses which have sand based soils.
Having revetted faces is the best way of maintaining the structure and size of the bunker else the the sides just wear away (which is what happens where I play on our sandstone based soil).

If the bunkers did not have revetted faces you would not get relief so it is just a way of having the whole of the bunker as a hazard which is what you get on most courses.
 

Colin L

Tour Winner
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
5,292
Location
Edinburgh
Visit site
In response to your your question my opinion would be it is about the construction of bunkers on courses which have sand based soils.
Having revetted faces is the best way of maintaining the structure and size of the bunker else the the sides just wear away (which is what happens where I play on our sandstone based soil).

If the bunkers did not have revetted faces you would not get relief so it is just a way of having the whole of the bunker as a hazard which is what you get on most courses.
The face of a bunker is not in the bunker but in the general area and as such, you do get relief for a ball embedded in the face [Rule 16.3]. A revetted face is no different. The purpose of this local rule is to deny players the relief they would normally be entitled to for a ball embedded in the revetted face.
 
Last edited:

rulefan

Tour Winner
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
14,665
Visit site
The face of a bunker is not in the bunker but in the general area
If the sand forming the 'floor' of a bunker curves into a sand 'face/wall' how do you distinguish just where the transition occurs?
 

Attachments

  • Bunker.jpg
    Bunker.jpg
    43.8 KB · Views: 3

jim8flog

Journeyman Pro
Joined
May 20, 2017
Messages
14,925
Location
Yeovil
Visit site
The face of a bunker is not in the bunker but in the general area and as such, you do get relief for a ball embedded in the face [Rule 16.3]. A revetted face is no different. The purpose of this local rule is to deny players the relief they would normally be entitled to for a ball embedded in the revetted face.
I think you are mis interpreting what I am a saying.

The question posed by the OP was "why does the club have such a rule"
 

Colin L

Tour Winner
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
5,292
Location
Edinburgh
Visit site
I think you are mis interpreting what I am a saying.

The question posed by the OP was "why does the club have such a rule"
Apologies if I was, but when you said, If the bunkers did not have revetted faces you would not get relief so it is just a way of having the whole of the bunker as a hazard which is what you get on most courses, what did you you mean?
 

jim8flog

Journeyman Pro
Joined
May 20, 2017
Messages
14,925
Location
Yeovil
Visit site
Apologies if I was, but when you said, If the bunkers did not have revetted faces you would not get relief so it is just a way of having the whole of the bunker as a hazard which is what you get on most courses, what did you you mean?
so if we take the take the OPs question

" Why does a club a LR which denies relief for a ball embedded in a revetted face?"

and then compare it to a bunker with a sand face with a ball embedded in the face

It equalises the allowable actions between the two.
 

Jigger

Club Champion
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
1,836
Visit site
Seems an absolutely bonkers rule. Riveted bunkers are hard enough to get out of, alone taking at least an extra shot to dislodge it. Just for it to drop straight down and leave another impossible shot. Far too penal for the average golfer.
 

KenL

Tour Rookie
Joined
Dec 3, 2014
Messages
6,684
Location
East Lothian
Visit site
In response to your your question my opinion would be it is about the construction of bunkers on courses which have sand based soils.
Having revetted faces is the best way of maintaining the structure and size of the bunker else the the sides just wear away (which is what happens where I play on our sandstone based soil).

If the bunkers did not have revetted faces you would not get relief so it is just a way of having the whole of the bunker as a hazard which is what you get on most courses.
You would get relief from an embedded ball.
 

KenL

Tour Rookie
Joined
Dec 3, 2014
Messages
6,684
Location
East Lothian
Visit site
so if we take the take the OPs question

" Why does a club a LR which denies relief for a ball embedded in a revetted face?"

and then compare it to a bunker with a sand face with a ball embedded in the face

It equalises the allowable actions between the two.
What is a "sand face" of a bunker?
Screenshot_20230731_084202_Rules of Golf.jpg
 

Colin L

Tour Winner
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
5,292
Location
Edinburgh
Visit site
so if we take the take the OPs question

" Why does a club a LR which denies relief for a ball embedded in a revetted face?"

and then compare it to a bunker with a sand face with a ball embedded in the face

It equalises the allowable actions between the two.
I think we have a language matter here. I don't (and I see Ken doesn't either) recognise what a sand face is. To me the face of a bunker is the wall or slope above the sand created by the hollowing out of the ground, whether it it's earth, grass or layered sods of turf. That is in the general area. There may be sand sloping up to the edge of the bunker at the fact but I wouldn't call it the face. And given the fluid nature of sand, there will be a limit to the degree of slope. It certainly won't reach the near verticality of the face of a pot bunker.
 

rulefan

Tour Winner
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
14,665
Visit site
I think we have a language matter here. I don't (and I see Ken doesn't either) recognise what a sand face is. To me the face of a bunker is the wall or slope above the sand created by the hollowing out of the ground, whether it it's earth, grass or layered sods of turf. That is in the general area. There may be sand sloping up to the edge of the bunker at the fact but I wouldn't call it the face. And given the fluid nature of sand, there will be a limit to the degree of slope. It certainly won't reach the near verticality of the face of a pot bunker.
Colin
See post #26
When does the 'floor' become the 'face'?
 

louise_a

Money List Winner
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
7,143
Location
salford
Visit site
My thinking is that if the ball is embedded attempting to hit it would be more likely to embed it more than to actually get it back in play, so you would be more likely to take an unplayable ball option and drop either within 2 club lengths if possible or back on line.

This one shot penalty would equate to the shot you would take if the ball lay in the bunker itself.
 

jim8flog

Journeyman Pro
Joined
May 20, 2017
Messages
14,925
Location
Yeovil
Visit site
I think we have a language matter here. I don't (and I see Ken doesn't either) recognise what a sand face is. To me the face of a bunker is the wall or slope above the sand created by the hollowing out of the ground, whether it it's earth, grass or layered sods of turf. That is in the general area. There may be sand sloping up to the edge of the bunker at the fact but I wouldn't call it the face. And given the fluid nature of sand, there will be a limit to the degree of slope. It certainly won't reach the near verticality of the face of a pot bunker.

Yes it is probably a language problem

Where I play the the sand goes all the way up what I would call the face of the bunker until it is then grass. We have several very deep bunkers and on one in particular the grass above can project out over the bunker. (A natural erosion problem caused by flooding) Many of the bunkers once had revetted faces but I presume subsequent head green keepers decided they were too much upkeep.


I and most of my mates would call it the face and use the term 'the ball is buried in the face'.

What would you call it?
 

jim8flog

Journeyman Pro
Joined
May 20, 2017
Messages
14,925
Location
Yeovil
Visit site
You would get relief from an embedded ball.
You only free relief for a ball embedded in the general area
A revetted face of a bunker is part of the general area

AS per my reply to Colin

"what we have here is a language problem not a rules problem"

I and virtually all of my mates would call the steep part of any bunker the face
 
Top