Rake Placement in Bunker - Reader - I pulled up a FC

[clubchamp98]

I'm a bit confused about relief area from the steps if you're in the bunker, where could you drop in that bunker that's not nearer the hole ?.
Great idea about how to rake a bunker

See post #163. We have that problem.
We also had a problem in a comp recently. Guy playing in an open refused to play a shot in the bunker because he could see the fibres of the lining coming through the sand .
Turns out he was correct as the linings are not natural and deemed an IO.
He had to find a lie where the sand is deeper so he would not hit the lining, it’s all getting a bit silly.
Because the lining is in all the bunker how would you know how deep the sand is?

The courses are using more and more artificial things where will it end.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

So what I am getting from this discussion is that - unless the astroturf revetting is declared (under a local rule?) to be an Integral Object under 16.1c (and associated definitions) then a player would be able to claim free relief from the face of a bunker if it interfered with his stance or swing.

 

[Wolf]

Csnt believe this thread still running.

But interesting to see that after all the issues of telling off and take placement the biggest issue to come out of it is the committee have potentially made an oversight cock up with regards to rules meaning free relief anyway 😂

Also on the point of the steps what relief is meant to be taken as we all know we're not allowed to drop nearer the hole, csnt drop out of bunker without a penalty but are entitled to relief because its a man made object .... Unless they've stipulated the exact relief to be taken I'd say the club have made a faux pas

 

[sunshine]

See post #163. We have that problem.
We also had a problem in a comp recently. Guy playing in an open refused to play a shot in the bunker because he could see the fibres of the lining coming through the sand .
Turns out he was correct as the linings are not natural and deemed an IO.
He had to find a lie where the sand is deeper so he would not hit the lining, it’s all getting a bit silly.
Because the lining is in all the bunker how would you know how deep the sand is?

The courses are using more and more artificial things where will it end.

Didn't this happen in a tour event and Branden Grace got relief? Might not be him, but I'm sure it was a South African.

 

[Jacko_G]

So what I am getting from this discussion is that - unless the astroturf revetting is declared (under a local rule?) to be an Integral Object under 16.1c (and associated definitions) then a player would be able to claim free relief from the face of a bunker if it interfered with his stance or swing.

My reading of the rule quoted by rulefan is that he is correct!

Could all come down to where the ball lies in relation to the face.

 

[rulefan]

So what I am getting from this discussion is that - unless the astroturf revetting is declared (under a local rule?) to be an Integral Object under 16.1c (and associated definitions) then a player would be able to claim free relief from the face of a bunker if it interfered with his stance or swing.

Exactly. But his drop would have to be 'not nearer the hole' and in the bunker. Outside the bunker would cost a stroke.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

And so I have been reading Rule 16.c and the definitions.

"If your ball is in a bunker and there is interference by an abnormal course condition ... you may take Free Relief..."

Definition breadcrumb trail...

Abnormal Course Condition>Immovable Obstruction>Obstruction>Integral Object>An artificial object defined by the Committee as part of the challenge of playing the course from which free relief is not allowed.

And this definition is what we want for the revetted faces of our bunkers.

So all clear it would seem. The Committee have to define the faces as Integral Objects - about which the the final question I have is raised. In what context or using what mechanism would the Committee actually make and make known this definition. This is just for my information as our appropriate Committee will know how to do it - I am just interested. Would that be through a Local Rule?

 

[rulefan]

Yes.

 

[clubchamp98]

And so I have been reading Rule 16.c and the definitions.

"If your ball is in a bunker and there is interference by an abnormal course condition ... you may take Free Relief..."

Definition breadcrumb trail...

Abnormal Course Condition>Immovable Obstruction>Obstruction>Integral Object>An artificial object defined by the Committee as part of the challenge of playing the course from which free relief is not allowed.

And this definition is what we want for the revetted faces of our bunkers.

So all clear it would seem. The Committee have to define the faces as Integral Objects - about which the the final question I have is raised. In what context or using what mechanism would the Committee actually make and make known this definition. This is just for my information as our appropriate Committee will know how to do it - I am just interested. Would that be through a Local Rule?

Basically it’s like an artificial path that you don’t get relief from.
You just have to play it.

 

[clubchamp98]

Didn't this happen in a tour event and Branden Grace got relief? Might not be him, but I'm sure it was a South African.

A lad at my place played his shot and ripped a hole in the lining.
Stopped his club stone dead!
He badly sprained his wrist and didn’t play for weeks.
Clubs must be careful with all this artificial stuff on the course as it’s only a matter of time before someone sues them for an injury.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Basically it’s like an artificial path that you don’t get relief from.
You just have to play it.

Agreed - where would a player find put that artificial paths have been identified and declared to be Integral Objects. Would it be stated on the scorecard?

 

[clubchamp98]

Agreed - where would a player find put that artificial paths have been identified and declared to be Integral Objects. Would it be stated on the scorecard?

Yes on the card , but on the noticeboards as well with a reference on the card.
With all the local rules we will need bigger cards.
The problem is some courses you get relief from artificial IO.
But some you don’t ,there’s no consistency.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Yes on the card , but on the noticeboards as well with a reference on the card.
With all the local rules we will need bigger cards.
The problem is some courses you get relief from artificial IO.
But some you don’t ,there’s no consistency.

In that case (I didn't realise that) I guess that it is possible that at my place there is a general 'cover-all' rule that states there is no relief from artificial Integral Objects - and if that were the case then we wouldn't have to have anything specifically stated about the revetted faces.

This has been a useful discussion for me so thanks all. I'll check with the club and I can now state the exact rule and definitions

 

[rulefan]

I guess that it is possible that at my place there is a general 'cover-all' rule that states there is no relief from artificial Integral Objects - and if that were the case then we wouldn't have to have anything specifically stated about the revetted faces.

It would be very unusual for a club to declare all Immovable Obstructions (which is what such things are) as Integral Objects. In fact I have never seen such a Local Rule.
It is more common for structures which predate the course (eg stone barns or internal walls) to be identified individually. The most well known one is probably the track on the 17th 'Road Hole' at St Andrews

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Ah well - into one of our new bunkers yesterday I went - and found my ball not 15" from the sheer 18" artificial turf revetted rear face of the bunker - with absolutely no shot towards the green - and the one direction I could hit out sideways had me heading towards bushes not 4yds from the edge of the bunker. Not great - I could see my ball disappearing deep in the shrubbery.

And so I said to my 3 playing colleagues - I will take a free drop in the bunker not nearer the hole due to my swing being impeded by an immovable artificial obstruction (in the case yesterday I could do that and I could drop it in a place that I would have a shot to the flag - never mind the green - so very beneficial). The looks were rather incredulous. I took out our scorecard and on the back was a paragraph called Immovable Obstructions. No mention in that paragraph of our artificial revetted bunker faces - and no mention on the card of the revetted faces being Integral Objects.

As it happens I didn't take relief as my round had by then gone for a burton - and I fancied just having a go getting it out as if I did not know the ruling I could have used - I didn't get it out - and only just got it out next go.

We have a course update forum this coming week. I think I shall bring it up.

 

[rulefan]

I took out our scorecard and on the back was a paragraph called Immovable Obstructions.

What does it say?

No mention in that paragraph of our artificial revetted bunker faces - and no mention on the card of the revetted faces being Integral Objects.

That's good

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Relief from Immovable Obstructions (Rule 16.1b)

a) Sprinkler heads, bunker drainage plugs, hydrant boxes, wooden steps and grass collection pits as marked by black and white stakes.
b) Young trees, if staked, the ball MUST be lifted.
c) All access roads through the course (including behind the 9th green) and all paths with artificial surfaces, are immovable obstructions

All other paths and tracks are integral parts of the course.

 

[clubchamp98]

Relief from Immovable Obstructions (Rule 16.1b)

a) Sprinkler heads, bunker drainage plugs, hydrant boxes, wooden steps and grass collection pits as marked by black and white stakes.
b) Young trees, if staked, the ball MUST be lifted.
c) All access roads through the course (including behind the 9th green) and all paths with artificial surfaces, are immovable obstructions

All other paths and tracks are integral parts of the course.

Your reverted faces are just like vertical paths!
Probably made of the material from the old paths.

Have the committee made a decision yet for relief or not.?

 

[Bunkermagnet]

How can you claim relief from a bunker face, natural or not.....its the bunker face and therefore part of the hazard. Surely?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

How can you claim relief from a bunker face, natural or not.....its the bunker face and therefore part of the hazard. Surely?

Nope - bunker is defined by the sand. See Definitions.

Bunker

A specially prepared area of sand....These are not part of a bunker:

• A lip, wall or face at the edge of the prepared area and consisting of soil, grass, stacked turf or artificial materials

The steps into our bunkers are covered. The face defining the edge of the bunker currently is not.