Water in bunkers

[woofers]

The problem here is that it seems none of the other unions actually has a policy to publish.


Incidentally, have you checked on the EG website for announcements they have made in recent months (or years)? Club and Comp secs are continually reminded to check.

Yes, the EG website news seems mainly to concentrate on players and competitions, the latest article I can find pertaining to rules, handicapping, qualifiers etc is regarding preferred lies and specifically the wording to be used now that the terminology has changed for 2019.
As I said earlier, can't find anything regarding water in bunkers hence my earlier request to see if anyone had a link.
Appreciate all the points you have been making by the way, having been a committee member at both a proprietary club where the members have to run the competitions (the owners provide IG but NO staff or personnel to assist comps and handicaps) and a members club with a golf manager and secretary, I have first hand experience of the different operating models.

 

[DickInShorts]

One of my bugbears is that in my experience people who volunteer for roles at clubs don’t seem to bother to find out what they are supposed to do to discharge the role correctly. I’m sure many handicap secretaries have never looked at the CONGU manual.

Surely it is incumbent upon office holders to investigate what their responsibilities are - rather than just seming to want the kudos of ‘ being on the committee’

Having said that I do have an enormous respect for people who are prepared to volunteer but just wish they’d find out what the job entails
Rant over

 

[duncan mackie]

Despite my quick comment previously I'm firmly on the camp of there being a pretty fundamental failure in the communications by (not from) EG on handicapping.
They have fired off many guidance notes, some of which are almost filed and findable, but they cannot be relied upon to maintain decisions made relevant to handicapping - as this single example makes abundantly clear.
The equation should be -
1. Reference to the latest copy of the appropriate manual
2. Exceptions, clarifications and guidance either over and above, or subsequent to the issue of, that manual.
It's even more critical at this point to be able to reference such a structure going forwards.
Whilst it may be true to say that many don't reference the existing material; there's a very good reason for that - it's unreliable and, in some cases, close to illegible.

But I still don't want loads of repetitive emails! 😐

 

[rulefan]

in some cases, close to illegible.

Duncan
I would be interested in examples

 

[duncan mackie]

Duncan
I would be interested in examples

The one that sprung to mind related to the use of non q cards for review purposes - the context was a sequence of evolving guidance notes around the principle of not using any single score - but always using every available piece of information including performance in team nq events.
Given the other active principle of not being formulaic about any use of nq scores it was always going to be a challenge to draft anything in a meaningful way.

 

[Swango1980]

One of my bugbears is that in my experience people who volunteer for roles at clubs don’t seem to bother to find out what they are supposed to do to discharge the role correctly. I’m sure many handicap secretaries have never looked at the CONGU manual.

Surely it is incumbent upon office holders to investigate what their responsibilities are - rather than just seming to want the kudos of ‘ being on the committee’

Having said that I do have an enormous respect for people who are prepared to volunteer but just wish they’d find out what the job entails
Rant over

Quite an accusation and probably very unfair. I don't imagine many people volunteer for such roles just for the "kudos", given the grief that comes with them (your post a fine example).

In my experience, many volunteers at Committee do their best, but there are always likely to be holes in their knowledge. They are volunteers, not professionals, and so they may not always grasp all the details of what is expected. Also, you will find many of these volunteers do so simply because no one else is willing to step up, and so they put themselves forward to at least help the club as best they can.

If you feel that anything they do is wrong, then I am sure you could always raise this with them, and then the Committee if not resolved. Perhaps you could even volunteer for the role yourself?

I appreciate I don't know your own experiences, and the individuals in charge at your club(s). But as a general point, I think your comment would be unfair if applied to volunteers as a whole, people who have at least offered their time to help run the club

 

[AaronMoore]

I play a course where the bunkers are big. Most are at present flooded big time. I mean you could almost swim in them.!
Seriously,, they are big enough to lose your ball in them.
This is what has happened a few times recently when playing a friendly.

------------------
Kia Sportage

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

An old thread but what came up when I searched (apologies if covered under more recent threads).

Just a quick check of I may. Player is in a flooded bunker. I advised that he could not take free relief from the water dropping out of the bunker - his ball had to remain within the bounds of the bunker. A potential nearest point of relief would require the player to stand in the water. I advised the player that he couldn't do that as he had to take full relief from the water and therefore could not stand in the water. So as a point of relief that position did not qualify. The only place he could drop the ball within the bunker without standing in water, would mean he would have to stand out of the bunker.

Was I correct?

I note that I did not mention that under the new rule he could have dropped outside of the bunker - but that would cost him two shots.

Fortunately he played an excellent bunker shot

 

[Swango1980]

An old thread but what came up when I searched (apologies if covered under more recent threads).

Just a quick check of I may. Player is in a flooded bunker. I advised that he could not take free relief from the water dropping out of the bunker - his ball had to remain within the bounds of the bunker. A potential nearest point of relief would require the player to stand in the water. I advised the player that he couldn't do that as he had to take full relief from the water and therefore could not stand in the water. So as a point of relief that position did not qualify. The only place he could drop the ball within the bunker without standing in water, would mean he would have to stand out of the bunker.

Was I correct?

I note that I did not mention that under the new rule he could have dropped outside of the bunker - but that would cost him two shots.

Fortunately he played an excellent bunker shot

Unfortunately you were incorrect. There is a caveat for free relief when a ball is in the bunker.

Rule 16.1c Relief for Ball in Bunker, bullet point 2:

"If there is no such nearest point of complete relief in the bunker, the player may still take this relief by using the point of maximum available relief in the bunker as the reference point"

 

[Old Skier]

Under the new rules the bunkers could be deemed GUR by the relevant committee and qualifiers can still be played. With the amount of rain this week sounds like the best option.

 

[rulefan]

Under the new rules the bunkers could be deemed GUR by the relevant committee and qualifiers can still be played. With the amount of rain this week sounds like the best option.

In certain circumstances it could be done under the old (pre 2019) rules

This option has been available under CONGU for many years.

 

[Old Skier]

In certain circumstances it could be done under the old (pre 2019) rules

This option has been available under CONGU for many years.

But before weren’t we always concerned about numbers out of use

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Unfortunately you were incorrect. There is a caveat for free relief when a ball is in the bunker.

Rule 16.1c Relief for Ball in Bunker, bullet point 2:

"If there is no such nearest point of complete relief in the bunker, the player may still take this relief by using the point of maximum available relief in the bunker as the reference point"

But there was - just meant that he had to stand outside of the bounds of the bunker? Or does that not count as complete relief?

I hit a ball into a bunker - I have to stand outside the bunker to play my shot - well that's just how it is. And that's the basis for saying he could do a valid drop in the bunker - but that he had to stand out of the bunker to play the shot was just tough...as he would have had to do if in the first instance his ball had ended up in the bunker where he dropped it and not in the water.

As it happens I wasn't 100% sure - hence me asking...

 

[rulefan]

But before weren’t we always concerned about numbers out of use

I am led to understand the EG 'rules' for qualifiers will apply to 'acceptable scores'. I don't know exactly what that amounts to.

 

[Old Skier]

I am led to understand the EG 'rules' for qualifiers will apply to 'acceptable scores'. I don't know exactly what that amounts to.

Ours and county’s take is that under the COVID local rules put in for bunkers all bunkers could be GUR and comps could still be counted as qualifiers.

 

[Swango1980]

Ours and county’s take is that under the COVID local rules put in for bunkers all bunkers could be GUR and comps could still be counted as qualifiers.

Having all bunkers as GUR would be extreme in my opinion. Our bunkers are a mess, but it is still possible to take preferred lies within them. Having all bunkers as GUR could have a significant impact on scores. Not just the fact that players can take free relief outside of them, BUT also the fact the player does not need to worry about going in them in the first place. There are a number of holes at my course, where if I didn't have to worry about ending up in the bunker, I could just get the driver out and give it a smack, rather than a 5 or 6 iron off the tee.

So, if a Committee declares all bunkers as GUR because it interferes with the proper playing of the game, they need to consider that by doing so, that action itself can interfere with the proper playing of the game.

 

[rulefan]

F-16 Bunker Filled with Temporary Water
Purpose. If a bunker is flooded, free relief under Rule 16.1c may not be sufficient to allow for fair play. A Committee can choose to treat that bunker as ground under repair in the general area from which free relief is allowed outside the bunker.

The Committee should only use this Local Rule on a case-by-case basis and is not authorized to make a Local Rule providing generally that all flooded bunkers are ground under repair.

 

[Swango1980]

F-16 Bunker Filled with Temporary Water
Purpose. If a bunker is flooded, free relief under Rule 16.1c may not be sufficient to allow for fair play. A Committee can choose to treat that bunker as ground under repair in the general area from which free relief is allowed outside the bunker.

The Committee should only use this Local Rule on a case-by-case basis and is not authorized to make a Local Rule providing generally that all flooded bunkers are ground under repair.

True. However, in the CONGU advice about bunkers during this COVID period, it states:

"As an alternative (but not combined with preferred lies detailed above) if the condition of the bunkers is so poor that it interferes with the proper playing of the game, a club Committee may declare all bunkers to be Ground Under Repair, scores will be acceptable for competition or supplementary score purposes"

So contrary to F-16, CONGU presumed that some clubs may need to take ALL bunkers out of play due to their state. So, as Old Skier suggested, making all bunkers as GUR has been anticipated by CONGU during Covid. However, my take on it is that it would have to be a pretty severe situation to make them all GUR, if preferred lies cannot be applied. Also, I'm surprised that CONGU allow these scores to count as qualifying, given that it would significantly change the way players approach their round. Perhaps with WHS approaching, they were concerned clubs would make all bunkers GUR and then golfers from specific clubs would not record any scores before its launch?

 

[jim8flog]

. The only place he could drop the ball within the bunker without standing in water, would mean he would have to stand out of the bunker.

Was I correct?

Not sure if anybody else said it

It is the ball that must remain in the bunker for relief without penalty. Nothing wrong with standing outside the bunker to play a ball that is in the bunker.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

But there was - just meant that he had to stand outside of the bounds of the bunker? Or does that not count as complete relief?

I hit a ball into a bunker - I have to stand outside the bunker to play my shot - well that's just how it is. And that's the basis for saying he could do a valid drop in the bunker - but that he had to stand out of the bunker to play the shot was just tough...as he would have had to do if in the first instance his ball had ended up in the bunker where he dropped it and not in the water.

As it happens I wasn't 100% sure - hence me asking...

I think I am correct in saying that a bunker is the one area where you don't have to take total relief from the AGC. Thus you could drop the ball on "dry" sand but still stand in water to play it. This might avoid having to stand outside the bunker.