I said I would post my analysis of what getting rid of bunkers would mean and here it is. This isn't the first time that Tom Paul has brought this up.:
If Bunkers were not hazards
The rules of golf define a hazard as a bunker or a water hazard. Recently Tom Paul postulated how golf would be different if a bunker was not considered a hazard. I thought I’d take a look through the Rules of Golf and try to get an idea of what the implications of that would be.
A bunker is defined as “a hazard consisting of a prepared area of ground often a hollow, from which turf or soil has been removed and replaced with sand or the like.” Sand dunes are not generally considered as bunkers and are played as through the green. If the current bunkers were considered through the green the rule book would get shorter and simpler, but would it be advantageous or disadvantageous to the player who finds himself in or near a bunker?
Let’s look at the various rules and what limitations they put on a player when his ball is in a bunker.
Addressing the ball
The definition of addressing the ball says you have addressed it in a hazard when you have taken your stance. Through the green, you have not addressed it until you have taken your stance and grounded your club. Since the bunker is now through the green, you would be able to ground your club and it would not be addressed until you had done that.
The ball
Rule 5 covers the ball. One thing a player can always do is lift his ball to see if it has been cut. There is no difference if the ball is in a bunker or through the green. You can lift it, determine if it is damaged without cleaning it and replace it.
Practice
Rule 7 allow a player to make a practice swing at any time, but when you are in a bunker, you may not touch the sand. If you are in a sandy area that is not marked as a bunker you can. So, if bunker became “through the green” you could now take practice swings and touch the sand, as long as you weren’t improving the lie of your ball.
Identifying your ball
Under Rule 12, you are currently prohibited from lifting your ball for identification if it lies in a hazard. But, Rule 15 says you are also exempt from playing a wrong ball from a hazard. If a bunker were no longer a hazard, you would be allowed to lift the ball and clean it as necessary for identification, but you would also be liable for playing a wrong ball from the bunker. This would eliminate the need for the equity decision 1-4/6.
Play the ball as it lies
Rule 13-4 is the most specific rule regarding bunkers. The rule says that before playing a shot at a ball in a hazard or dropping a ball in a hazard that has been lifted, you may not test the condition of the hazard or any similar hazard. You also may not touch the ground in the hazard with your hand or club and you may not touch or move a loose impediment lying in the hazard. All these things would become allowed if the bunker was not a hazard. One of the most important advantageous that a player would get is that you could knock down piles of sand behind your ball in your backswing, which you currently may not do. Another advantage would be the opportunity to remove loose impediments in a bunker. This leads to a possible debate about what is a loose impediment and what is sand or loose soil. We saw an example of that this past year with Stewart Cink at Harbour Town where the area was deemed to not be a bunker and the crushed shell became loose impediments that he could move. In 2006, a new decision (33-8/40) was introduced allowing the Committee to declare material such as this the same as sand.
Ball at rest moved
Since the definition of when a ball is addressed would have change for the bunker, the timing of a penalty under Rule 18-2b would also change.
Lifting, Dropping, and Placing
Lifting a ball would be unchanged.
Dropping would change, as it would not be required to drop in a bunker when taking relief from things like casual water, Ground Under Repair, obstructions and for unplayable lies. Likewise, a dropped ball that rolls into a bunker would be in play as would one that rolls out of one. Therefore a player who was taking relief from something like casual water in a bunker could now drop it in the grass next to the bunker if it was within the correct dropping area and whether it rolled into the bunker or stayed out, he would play it. This might be a big advantage versus the current rule where you have to drop it in the bunker and hope it doesn’t plug.
Currently if a player is required to replace a ball in a bunker and the lie has been altered, he is required to re-create it as nearly as possible. With the change, he would do the same thing as anywhere else through the green and place it in the nearest lie that is most similar within one club-length of the original lie. Also, if the spot was not determinable he would be required to drop it as near as possible to where it lay, but the restriction on it being in the bunker would be removed. When the ball fails to come to rest on the spot it was being placed, he could now go outside the bunker if required without penalty, removing the equity decision 20-3d/2.
Loose impediments
As stated above, it would now be allowed for the player remove loose impediments, but that would also mean that if a loose impediment is moved and it causes the ball to move there would be a one-stroke penalty and the ball would need to be replaced.
Obstructions and Abnormal Ground Conditions
The need for the special relief conditions in both of these rules for bunkers would be gone. Therefore, the player would go the nearest point of complete relief that was through the green, whether it was in the bunker or not, and drop within one club length of this. But, it would also mean that a player taking relief from one of these situations outside a bunker might find that his nearest point of relief was in the bunker.
The special situations for balls lost in these conditions in hazards would also be removed.
Also, a player taking relief from a wrong putting green might have to deal with a hazard the he currently wouldn’t.
Embedded Ball
Since the normal embedded ball rule in the rule book only covers balls in closely mown areas, it would be unchanged. If the local rule found in Appendix I was in place, there would be no change is it explicitly prohibits relief for a ball embedded in sand.
Ball Unplayable
Rule 28 would eliminate all the wording about how to deal with options 28-b and c for a ball in a bunker. The player could now drop anywhere allowed in the rule for areas through the green.
Conclusion
I believe that making bunkers a part of the area defined as through the green would simplify the rules of golf and in most cases give the player an advantage over the current rules. The question to ask is, would it be too much of an advantage? With the exception of the ability to knock down sand on the backswing and getting out a bunker at times for little or no cost, I think it wouldn’t be a big deal.