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

[clubchamp98]

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

Bunker face is not in the bunker it’s in the general area.
Anything artificial you can claim relief for immovable obstruction.
Unless the committee says otherwise.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

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.?

Not according to definitions - and not made of material from old paths - but good try

Members meeting on Thursday looking at proposals for course development. If it isn't on the agenda I shall raise it or have it raised.

 

[clubchamp98]

Not according to definitions - and not made of material from old paths - but good try

Members meeting on Thursday looking at proposals for course development. If it isn't on the agenda I shall raise it or have it raised.

Out of interest what are they made of?
Most I have seen are old range mats or paths.
Have you heard of any members claiming relief yet for this?.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Out of interest what are they made of?
Most I have seen are old range mats or paths.
Have you heard of any members claiming relief yet for this?.

They are made of old astroturf - layered to make a revetted 360* surround to the bunker. I think that we buy the astrotuf in from the company holding the licencing - it is not our own.

I have not heard of anyone claiming relief - though as things stands I am sure that you should be able to do so...That would be absurd but Nicklaus always said 'know the rules well and save a couple of shots a round'

Unfortunately I got the date of the course evening wrong - it was last Thursday and I was in London all week...

Anyway - I had raised it with the club's Business Manager and Pro a few weeks ago so maybe it was covered. I will ask.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Well - the considered view of the club is that:

The bunker faces are, as far as we are concerned, an ‘integral object’ with no relief option.

...it is commonly accepted among golfers that the revetted ‘artificial turf’ faces of our Eco-Bunkers are integral parts of the course, much like a revetted face built from real turf. They are designed to act and affect play in the same way as a face constructed with real turf, it would seem blatantly unfair to assume them as otherwise.

The club is not aware of anyone raising the question or seeking relief - but they will monitor things.

 

[rulefan]

If the club considers them to be an integral object they need to be declared/deemed to be so by Local Rule

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

If the club considers them to be an integral object they need to be declared/deemed to be so by Local Rule

I said as much - they do not agree.

Their view is simply that they are no different from grass revetting...it would seem blatantly unfair to assume them as otherwise.

The club (quite rightly) want to keep the number of LRs to a minimum - but if I could point them to something that supports what you (and I) say then they will reconsider - they are monitoring just in case someone claims relief.

I quote below more fully form the response I got (I am sure the club will not be upset at me doing so as I am only seeking clarifications to avoid a potential issue).

####

The bunker faces are, as far as we are concerned, an ‘integral object’ with no relief option. They are not technically part of the bunker either (as per the definition you cited)

The definition from the rules below suggest what should typically be regarded as obstructions. Rule 2.3 covers the relief options which again refers to Integral objects.

Any artificial object except for integral objects and boundary objects.

Examples of obstructions:

• Artificially surfaced roads and paths, including their artificial borders.
• Buildings and rain shelters.
• Sprinkler heads, drains and irrigation or control boxes.
• Stakes, walls, railings and fences (but not when they are boundary objects that define or show the boundary edge of the course).
• Golf carts, mowers, cars and other vehicles.
• Waste containers, signposts and benches.
• Player equipment, flagsticks and rakes.

2.3

Objects or Conditions That Can Interfere with Play

Certain Rules may give free relief (relief with no penalty) from interference by certain defined objects or conditions, such as:

· Loose impediments (Rule 15.1),

· Movable obstructions (Rule 15.2), and

· Abnormal course conditions, which are animal holes, ground under repair, immovable obstructions and temporary water (Rule 16.1).

But there is no free relief from boundary objects or integral objects that interfere with play.

 

[rulefan]

The definition from the rules below suggest what should typically be regarded as obstructions. Rule 2.3 covers the relief options which again refers to Integral objects.

Any artificial object except for integral objects and boundary objects.

May I suggest you refer the committee to the Definition of Integral Object. If they are not defined as such by the committee, they are not Integral Objects


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.
.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

May I suggest you refer the committee to the Definition of Integral Object. If they are not defined as such by the committee, they are not Integral Objects


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.
.

Thanks @rulefan - that seems obvious and pretty conclusive to me. An artifical object is not an Integral Object unless the Committee has specifically defines it as being one.

I can hear the response - 'revetted bunker surrounds are not an object, they are part of the construction of the course'...

 

[clubchamp98]

Thanks @rulefan - that seems obvious and pretty conclusive to me. An artifical object is not an Integral Object unless the Committee has specifically defines it as being one.

I can hear the response - 'revetted bunker surrounds are not an object, they are part of the construction of the course'...

The obvious answer to that is “ can you show me where you grew the turfs”
Sounds like your committee is just being awkward, it may take someone taking relief to wake them up.!

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

The obvious answer to that is “ can you show me where you grew the turfs”
Sounds like your committee is just being awkward, it may take someone taking relief to wake them up.!

Don't think anyone is being awkward - just not quite getting it as it seems (and is) absurd that anyone might think it OK to take free relief from the surrounds of a bunker...and so interpreting things from the 'what is reasonable and sensible' point of view.

What surprises me a lot is that - if we are right - the company the club licences the construction from don't seem to have anything on their website about what clubs have to do to avoid questions such as that I've raised. Seems such an obvious thing for the company to do - to make sure clubs understand. Maybe they think it'll put customers off.

 

[rulefan]

Thanks @rulefan - that seems obvious and pretty conclusive to me. An artifical object is not an Integral Object unless the Committee has specifically defines it as being one.

I can hear the response - 'revetted bunker surrounds are not an object, they are part of the construction of the course'...

For the moment, forget the revetted part. Concentrate on the astroturf. Is astroturf artificial or natural?
The Rules do not define an object but does astroturf or plastic grass satisfy a normal dictionary definition?
A specific, individual, material entity, especially one that is not living or not sentient.
Something material that may be perceived by the senses
Anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

For the moment, forget the revetted part. Concentrate on the astroturf. Is astroturf artificial or natural?
The Rules do not define an object but does astroturf or plastic grass satisfy a normal dictionary definition?
A specific, individual, material entity, especially one that is not living or not sentient.
Something material that may be perceived by the senses
Anything that is visible or tangible and is relatively stable in form.

Agree. View that was verbally expressed to me was the fact that the turf being used is artificial is irrelevant - it's turf being used to construct part of the course and hence by implication an integral object. That's the line, but let's see what I get back.

But as mentioned - we are building the bunkers under licence - and the patent holders do not have anything on their website giving guidance in respect of implications for any local rule. Maybe they just expect clubs to know what's artificial and what is not...

I quote below from Committee Procedures H(2) - does this make it absolutely clear what the committee should do? I think that it must nail it! What you think @rulefan and others

Integral objects are artificial objects from which free relief is not available. Examples of objects that the Committee can choose to designate as integral objects include:

• Objects such as artificial walls or pilings that are inside penalty areas or artificial walls or liners of bunkers. For example, when these are close to the edge of the penalty area, a player whose ball is just outside the penalty area could be standing on the wall and get free relief while the player whose ball is just inside the penalty area does not.

The Committee should define these objects as integral objects in the Local Rules (see Model Local Rule F-1).

 

[clubchamp98]

Yes I think it does ,but they still have to designate them as integral objects.

I think this was challenged originally because a golfer broke his wrist hitting one of these artificial walls .
His complaint was you can take a divot out of natural turf but you can’t out of this AstroTurf it’s to tough,
That is why it’s used it lasts much longer.

 

[Hobbit]

Yes I think it does ,but they still have to designate them as integral objects.

I think this was challenged originally because a golfer broke his wrist hitting one of these artificial walls .
His complaint was you can take a divot out of natural turf but you can’t out of this AstroTurf it’s to tough,
That is why it’s used it lasts much longer.

You could break your wrist on a tree if you're daft enough to try an swing through it... same applies to a bunker face. Sorry but I'm in the play it as it lies where bunker faces are concerned. Next you'll see pros asking can they drop it out of the rough coz its too tough

 

[rulefan]

Sorry but I'm in the play it as it lies where bunker faces are concerned. Next you'll see pros asking can they drop it out of the rough coz its too tough

The play it as it lies concept predates the concept of artificial material being used in the face of a bunker. So making a bunker face artificial (ie an obstruction), a new dimension has been introduced. The simple solution is to declare such faces to be integral objects. The issue has now gone away. Both in respect of 'play it as it lies' and clarifying the situation for members and visitors.

 

[williamalex1]

You could break your wrist on a tree if you're daft enough to try an swing through it... same applies to a bunker face. Sorry but I'm in the play it as it lies where bunker faces are concerned. Next you'll see pros asking can they drop it out of the rough coz its too tough

Who's being a Luddite now

 

[clubchamp98]

You could break your wrist on a tree if you're daft enough to try an swing through it... same applies to a bunker face. Sorry but I'm in the play it as it lies where bunker faces are concerned. Next you'll see pros asking can they drop it out of the rough coz its too tough

Yes you are correct . But you don’t see many plastic trees on golf courses.
The only one I have seen was a phone mast .

 

[rulefan]

I have received confirmation from the R&A that such a face is an immovable obstruction by definition. If the club doesn’t want to give free relief, then the committee would have to declare it an integral object.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I have received confirmation from the R&A that such a face is an immovable obstruction by definition. If the club doesn’t want to give free relief, then the committee would have to declare it an integral object.

brilliant - I will refer the club to this.

Just want to make sure the club does not find itself having to deal with an absurd 'free relief away from bunker surround' situation in any of our comps - especially open ones.