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

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Started to read this and was about to reply then noticed we'd racked up 8 pages so guess there might be some sub-discussion going on now (God I do hope so for 8 pages - but apologies as I haven't the time or inclination to read 'em all )

So purely in answer to the OP - Yes, I think you were completely right and that you handled it very diplomatically - he's the numpty for having copped the hump.

Yes - that was indeed what my OP was about - pulling up a FC on what he did with a rake in a 'major' club competition.

 

[YandaB]

That's a pretty good idea for one rake...most of our bunkers have 2 or 3 rakes.

But you are presumably encouraged to enter and exit the bunker using the steps so as to avoid damage?

 

[clubchamp98]

That's a pretty good idea for one rake...most of our bunkers have 2 or 3 rakes.

Should have put more steps in .
So a big bunker only has one entry point if steps are used , you don’t need more than one rake.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Should have put more steps in .
So a big bunker only has one entry point if steps are used , you don’t need more than one rake.

That is true and worth some thought and deliberation - especially for the bunkers where we have steps in - and that is going to be most if not all by the time we've finished. However it does mean that players could be wandering all over the bunker if the rake is not around where their ball is - and tidying up all those footprints...but yes - do we need more than one

 

[garyinderry]

Before moving the rake and incurring a 2 shot penalty i would be taking a thrash at it with my 60 wedge.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Before moving the rake and incurring a 2 shot penalty i would be taking a thrash at it with my 60 wedge.

You'd be going backwards or sideways - and in all cases away from the green. Good news is that the revetted faces of the bunkers are layered astroturf - and so would not get damaged if your club whacked into it - though the club might bend or bounce off the bunker face

 

[rulefan]

And that is two shots these days?

Back on Line is 2 strokes or S&D is 1 stroke.

 

[clubchamp98]

You'd be going backwards or sideways - and in all cases away from the green. Good news is that the revetted faces of the bunkers are layered astroturf - and so would not get damaged if your club whacked into it - though the club might bend or bounce off the bunker face

AstroTurf is artificial!
Do you still get relief from artificial structures?
If so anytime you will hit or are standing on them you should be entitled to free relief.

 

[KenL]

I know there was a "fad" a few years ago and a lot of courses were putting little stands on their rakes so unless the ball hit the head or very top there as a chance it would roll underneath either in the bunker or outside depending on where it was left. I don't seem to see that anymore. Does/did it make any difference?

My club still has these on its 100 bunkers. Perfect solution for placing them outside the bunker where they should be ;-)

 

[rulefan]

AstroTurf is artificial!
Do you still get relief from artificial structures?
If so anytime you will hit or are standing on them you should be entitled to free relief.

Such faces are often deemed to be Integral Objects.

 

[clubchamp98]

Such faces are often deemed to be Integral Objects.

“often” would mean that some are not.
Is this a local rule ?

 

[rulefan]

“often” would mean that some are not.
Is this a local rule ?

Those that I have seen have been but I haven't been to all courses in the world.
In effect, yes. It has to be defined as such by the Committee.

 

[Marshy77]

My club still has these on its 100 bunkers. Perfect solution for placing them outside the bunker where they should be ;-)

Seems like the most sensible, logical and least disruptive

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Those that I have seen have been but I haven't been to all courses in the world.
In effect, yes. It has to be defined as such by the Committee.

I will check - the revetted face is a constituent part of the bunker - though of course if the bunker is defined as being delimited by the sand, then the face would be outside of the bunker. I am as certain as I can be that the bunker face is not an artificial structure as it is a designed element of the bunker and not something extraneous to the course design.

 

[rulefan]

Such a face is by definition an Immovable Obstruction if it contains artificial elements. It is not an Integral Object unless declared to be by the Committee.
By definition, it is not part of the bunker whether the revetted face consists only of turf or includes artificial material.

 

[sunshine]

Haha, was tongue in cheek but I would be downright furious. Am now fully on board with SILH's rake-moving malarky.

129 posts before you finally understood this thread

 

[Italian outcast]

Would be far simpler if players carried their own rakes

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Such a face is by definition an Immovable Obstruction if it contains artificial elements. It is not an Integral Object unless declared to be by the Committee.
By definition, it is not part of the bunker whether the revetted face consists only of turf or includes artificial material.

The advice that I received from the Golfing Manager at the club this afternoon is that: as the revetted faces of the bunkers are not specifically identified as Immovable Obstructions (from which free relief is given) they are therefore an integral part of the course.

And of course on the rake placement question - if players put them where they are asked - and if not sure just used their common sense (i.e. don't place it where a ball might be trapped and subsequently be, at best virtually, unplayable) - there would be less risk of their being an issue.

 

[clubchamp98]

The advice that I received from the Golfing Manager at the club this afternoon is that: as the revetted faces of the bunkers are not specifically identified as Immovable Obstructions (from which free relief is given) they are therefore an integral part of the course.

And of course on the rake placement question - if players put them where they are asked - and if not sure just used their common sense (i.e. don't place it where a ball might be trapped and subsequently be, at best virtually, unplayable) - there would be less risk of their being an issue.

These two statements seem to be at odds.
It’s ok putting an artificial bunker face in that could damage someone’s clubs or break his wrist but they don’t want to inconvenience someone with a badly placed rake.

Imo if your going to put artificial obstructions on the course you should get relief if it interferes with your playing of the game.
Just my opinion though.

Also I would have thought they would have to be deemed immovable obstructions to deny relief.

 

[rulefan]

The advice that I received from the Golfing Manager at the club this afternoon is that: as the revetted faces of the bunkers are not specifically identified as Immovable Obstructions (from which free relief is given) they are therefore an integral part of the course.
.

A revetted bunker face is not an immovable obstruction if it constructed from turf(s) or other natural substance (although I have only seen turf used).
However, if it is constructed from or includes artificial material then it is an immovable obstruction.

Incidentally, an Obstruction is Any artificial object . An Integral Object is an artificial object defined by the Committee (as such).
Integral Part of the Course is no longer a defined term and does not appear in the rules.