DingleBerry
Assistant Pro
Come on that's a bit harsh!! But rules are rules and u can impose them but the friendlier way is to point out to him and if happens again penalty 
Touching Sand in Bunker
- Thread starter 3offTheTee
- Start date
chrisd
Major Champion
[/QUOTE]
He could not have denied what happened.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry about being pedantic (but then the rules are pedantic) It isn't whether he denied it, it's whether he broke a rule and, having done the same thing myself I am sure that no rule was broken, so, if he accepted he touched the sand there is still no problem, and, as I said earlier, proving that someone is "testing" the sand is damn near impossible and I doubt if a real argument was to take place the Golf Committee wouldn't (couldn't) come down one way or another.
Then we haven't even queried someone who concedes a gimmee and roll his opponents ball back on the green before playing his own??? aaaaaaaaggggghhhhhh!!
He could not have denied what happened.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry about being pedantic (but then the rules are pedantic) It isn't whether he denied it, it's whether he broke a rule and, having done the same thing myself I am sure that no rule was broken, so, if he accepted he touched the sand there is still no problem, and, as I said earlier, proving that someone is "testing" the sand is damn near impossible and I doubt if a real argument was to take place the Golf Committee wouldn't (couldn't) come down one way or another.
Then we haven't even queried someone who concedes a gimmee and roll his opponents ball back on the green before playing his own??? aaaaaaaaggggghhhhhh!!
I'm not sure intent is really the issue here as 'testing' and 'touching' are covered by two distinct sub-clauses of Rule 13-4
13-4a says you must not test the condition of the hazard or any similar hazard
13-4b says you must not touch the ground in a hazard with hand or club which the player has clearly done in the OP.
When you look this up in Decision 13-4/0.5 there is a list of things that would not constitute testing, one of which says the following:
"touching the hazard with an object (other than a club) such as a towel (touching with a club would be a breach of Rule 13-4b)"
As others have said, you can take several clubs into a bunker and lay or place them down, but I believe the actions in the OP would constitute a breach of Rule 13-4.
Whether you'd choose to enforce them or not may indeed be up to the individuals concerned, but then of course we're into Rule 1-3 'Agreement to waive Rules' and all that...!
viscount17
Money List Winner
Jezz that's all fine but it's still a careless rule.
what are you testing for?
where is the standard, against which you are testing, defined?
what are you testing for?
where is the standard, against which you are testing, defined?
USER1999
Grand Slam Winner
This is golf. The rules don't have to make sense.
Any way, for the pros, this rule is stupid, because where ever they play, the sand depth and consistency are exactly the same. Why would they need to test anything?
For us, it would make sense to be able to test the conditions, as smacking a buried brick can wreck your expensive wedge.
Any way, for the pros, this rule is stupid, because where ever they play, the sand depth and consistency are exactly the same. Why would they need to test anything?
For us, it would make sense to be able to test the conditions, as smacking a buried brick can wreck your expensive wedge.
Steve,
Here is the complete list from that Decision for your delight:-
"The term covers all actions by which the player could gain more information about the hazard than could be gained from taking his stance for the stroke to be made, bearing in mind that a certain amount of digging in with the feet in the sand or soil is permitted when taking the stance for a stroke.
Examples of actions that would not constitute testing the condition of the hazard include the following:
• digging in with the feet for a stance, including for a practice swing, anywhere in the hazard or in a similar hazard;
• placing an object, such as clubs or a rake, in the hazard;
• leaning on an object (other than a club) such as a rake while it is touching the ground in the hazard or water in a water hazard;
• touching the hazard with an object (other than a club) such as a towel (touching with a club would be a breach of Rule 13-4b); or
• marking the position of the ball with a tee or otherwise when proceeding under a Rule.
Examples of actions that would constitute testing the condition of the hazard in breach of Rule 13-4a include the following:
• digging in with the feet in excess of what would be done for a stance for a stroke or a practice swing;
• filling in footprints from a previous stance (e.g., when changing stance to make a different type of stroke);
• intentionally sticking an object, such as a rake, into sand or soil in the hazard or water in a water hazard (but see Rule 12-1);
• smoothing a bunker with a rake, a club or otherwise (but see Exception 2 to Rule 13-4);
• kicking the ground in the hazard or water in a water hazard; or
• touching the sand with a club when making a practice swing in the hazard or in a similar hazard (but see Exception 3 to Rule 13-4)."
Complicated, of course. But the R&A's response to queries about Rules like this is that there has to be a clear cut-off point somewhere. The Rules book would be twice the size of the Decisions book if there was a sub-clause for every conceivable scenario, and we all know it's big enough as it is.
That said, I do agree that leaning on a club to prevent a fall, or laying clubs down in the bunker, do appear to be slight anomalies - especially the latter! The R&A would say the former would be for common-sense reasons and the latter for pace of play reasons.
Here is the complete list from that Decision for your delight:-
"The term covers all actions by which the player could gain more information about the hazard than could be gained from taking his stance for the stroke to be made, bearing in mind that a certain amount of digging in with the feet in the sand or soil is permitted when taking the stance for a stroke.
Examples of actions that would not constitute testing the condition of the hazard include the following:
• digging in with the feet for a stance, including for a practice swing, anywhere in the hazard or in a similar hazard;
• placing an object, such as clubs or a rake, in the hazard;
• leaning on an object (other than a club) such as a rake while it is touching the ground in the hazard or water in a water hazard;
• touching the hazard with an object (other than a club) such as a towel (touching with a club would be a breach of Rule 13-4b); or
• marking the position of the ball with a tee or otherwise when proceeding under a Rule.
Examples of actions that would constitute testing the condition of the hazard in breach of Rule 13-4a include the following:
• digging in with the feet in excess of what would be done for a stance for a stroke or a practice swing;
• filling in footprints from a previous stance (e.g., when changing stance to make a different type of stroke);
• intentionally sticking an object, such as a rake, into sand or soil in the hazard or water in a water hazard (but see Rule 12-1);
• smoothing a bunker with a rake, a club or otherwise (but see Exception 2 to Rule 13-4);
• kicking the ground in the hazard or water in a water hazard; or
• touching the sand with a club when making a practice swing in the hazard or in a similar hazard (but see Exception 3 to Rule 13-4)."
Complicated, of course. But the R&A's response to queries about Rules like this is that there has to be a clear cut-off point somewhere. The Rules book would be twice the size of the Decisions book if there was a sub-clause for every conceivable scenario, and we all know it's big enough as it is.
That said, I do agree that leaning on a club to prevent a fall, or laying clubs down in the bunker, do appear to be slight anomalies - especially the latter! The R&A would say the former would be for common-sense reasons and the latter for pace of play reasons.
USER1999
Grand Slam Winner
Kicking water to test it is going to prove only one thing, it's wet. I would think most would already know that.
viscount17
Money List Winner
thank you Jezz, but the rules book should be bigger than any decisions book. the need for a decision should be the exception.
if the rules are written clearly, simply, concisely and above all unambiguously, then there would be no need for the host of decisions that there are.
of course, it would also mean there would be a lesser need for referees (and the rules committee
).
Steve,
I agree in theory, but the more you read the Decisions book, the more you realise that's just not possible because of the million and one different scenarios that can unfold from the time you hit your ball to the time it's finished its journey.
I suppose you could just revert to a very simple 'wherever you find it just play it' option, but we wouldn't like that too much if our ball were 20ft up a tree, buried in a cowpat or three feet under water
I agree in theory, but the more you read the Decisions book, the more you realise that's just not possible because of the million and one different scenarios that can unfold from the time you hit your ball to the time it's finished its journey.
I suppose you could just revert to a very simple 'wherever you find it just play it' option, but we wouldn't like that too much if our ball were 20ft up a tree, buried in a cowpat or three feet under water
viscount17
Money List Winner
one rule covers all three. Unplayable lie.
see how simple it is,
see how simple it is,
chrisd
Major Champion
I play in lots of club competitions and from time to time see odd rule infringements where pleyers don't "call" themselves and sometimes I would mention it to them if I need to. I would never call one like this where it's a subjective matter - as I said earlier.... your oponent rolls your ball back to you on the green after a concession... it would take some p*att to say that he was deliberately testing the surface of the green! Although all golf clubs have stories of golfers penalising such things, but they are hated for it by everyone when the story gets out.
I had an opponent decide that I was "out of the hole" in a 4BBB competition because I played out of turn - I did have to ask him whether he had his own rule book as it wasn't in the one I had!
I had an opponent decide that I was "out of the hole" in a 4BBB competition because I played out of turn - I did have to ask him whether he had his own rule book as it wasn't in the one I had!
HawkeyeMS
Ryder Cup Winner
I'd say a divot or rabbit scraping is pretty easy to identify but I know what you are saying, people will try to take the pi55. Maybe the rule should be if you hit the fairway, you are entitled to play off of grass? If you land on mud, you can place it within 6 inches. Just a thought.
