Unplayable lie in bunker

[Sven Nilsen]

This is from the golfchannel.com article linked below.

"Bunkers are considered hazards, so Bradley's only other options were to take a drop from casual water no closer to the hole – this would have taken him to the back edge of the sand and hit a shot with his feet outside the bunker – or take full relief on the grass short of the bunker with a one-shot penalty."

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/doug-ferguson/standing-water-in-bunkers-problem-for-players/

Just looking for clarification on this.  Full relief is allowed with a one-shot penalty when there is standing water, but not when declaring an unplayable lie?

[mike_beene]

You are correct.My mistake.

[Wayne_Kozun]

I too was shocked.  Azinger should certainly know that you can only drop it out of the bunker when there are "abnormal ground conditions" which in this case is casual water.  There were clearly no abnormal conditions in that bunker.

[Scott Stearns]

Sven nails it--think this is why Zinger was confused.  Wish a rules official was in the truck and Zinger could have just let the expert deal with rules.  

[Mark Smolens]

Azinger also said he had checked with an official this morning and been told you could drop out but now we are getting conflicting reports.Do you believe that?Would love to have heard the back story as they tried to find a story to get them out of the mess.We used to call that blame storming.I would from now on get agreements with Azinger in writing.

And Azinger also whiffed on his early call about Scott possibly incurring a penalty when his ball rolled behind a green.

Given Azinger's own rules issues in the past,I'd think ESPN would have found somebody else to provide comment.

I don't think he whiffed on that call at all -- if Adam's practice swing in the rough next to his ball caused it to move, that's a penalty. I've watched it several times now in slow motion, and it's very close imo that his swing indeed caused enough movement in the nearby ground to cause the ball to move. It's no longer enough that the ball moves after address -- that rule was changed this year (the Webb Simpson situation at NO last year), but if Scott "caused" the ball to move with that practice swing -- and I don't believe he has to make conact to "cause" the ball to move -- he is in violation of the rule.

[Jim Nelson]

It seemed like the rules issues were coming hot and heavy.  Another one was on Snedeker's drive.  Don't remember the hole and wasn't recorded, but he pulled it left into the trees.  He then hit a provisional which ended up in a fairway bunker.  The announcer (Strange?) said they found it in the trees but he apparently decided to hit the bunker shot    Between this and the bunker rules talk and actually started to think the R & A and USGA might diverge on these rules.  Then reality set in.  The announcers did not have a clue as to what was actually going on.  Snedekers first drive was not found or he did not call a provisional.  Did I hear all this right?

[Wayne_Kozun]

Snedekers first drive was not found or he did not call a provisional.  Did I hear all this right?

I was wondering about this as well.  Didn't they even say that Snedeker's caddie saw the ball?  If that is the case then he is back on the tee hitting another drive - which he would have wanted to do anyhow since the "provisional" ended up in the bunker, not that he had any chance since his provisional is no longer an option once his ball is found.

Another similar question is why didn't GMac hit a provisional when he snap hooked that shot into the gorse?  There is no way that ball was ever going to be found.

[Wayne_Kozun]

I don't think he whiffed on that call at all -- if Adam's practice swing in the rough next to his ball caused it to move, that's a penalty. I've watched it several times now in slow motion, and it's very close imo that his swing indeed caused enough movement in the nearby ground to cause the ball to move.

But it was still a good 10 seconds between his practice shot and when the ball moved.  I don't think Scott did cause this ball to move.  He hit his practice swings, walked up to the green, walked back and as he got near his ball it moved.  If his practice swing caused the ball to move then it would have moved well before it did.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne,

I'd agree.

I think the time differential between cause and effect was too long to draw a direct relationship between cause and effect.

[Jon Nolan]

There must have been 4+ minutes that passed with that ball sitting still.  Scott comes up, makes a few practice swings, walks up on the green and comes back with a half trot down that bank.  The ball, after sitting still that long, moved within the 20 seconds or so of the practice swings and within 2-3 seconds of the (my opinion) heavy footed return.  Coincidence?  I think not but the referee saw it differently so there we go.  I do think he made his decision VERY quickly and possibly without as firm a grasp of the facts as we millions of viewers. 

Either way, I call a penalty on myself under those circumstances 100 out of 100 times.

[Chris DeNigris]

Yep...if Adam's practice swings and movement around the ball weren't the cause....what was?

Should have been a penalty...and he should have called it.

I bet he was thinking about it in the back of his mind on the way in. Guilty conscience.

The Primary official got it right though...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Yep...if Adam's practice swings and movement around the ball weren't the cause....what was?


The prolonged weight of the ball on the grass on the slope and the effect of the shade of the ball on the grass.

Should have been a penalty...and he should have called it.

Disagree

I bet he was thinking about it in the back of his mind on the way in. Guilty conscience.

I don't think so.

The Primary official got it right though...

The reason that the rule was changed is that a lot of balls hanging on the edge of the cup eventually fell in after long delays without any outside influence, although some golfers tried to shade the ball to accelerate the process.

Just because a ball moves on a slope or the edge of the cup doesn't mean that the player influenced the movement.

Natural forces often produce the movement

[archie_struthers]

 

How about standing water in bunker and no where to drop that isn't closer to the hole.  Isn't that the one instance where the relief gets you out of the hazard?

[Jon Wiggett]

How about standing water in bunker and no where to drop that isn't closer to the hole.  Isn't that the one instance where the relief gets you out of the hazard?

Yes, with a stroke penalty I believe. With Snedecker's drive. If he does not formally identify the ball (which I do not believe he did) then it would not be deemed to be found so the provisional becomes the ball in play.

Jon

[Carl Nichols]

[1] The prolonged weight of the ball on the grass on the slope and [2] the effect of the shade of the ball on the grass.

Agree that [1] is definitely a possibility.  But [2]?

[Howard Riefs]

The related article from Golf Digest rules guru Ron Kaspriske on Tiger's options if he would have taken an unplayable from the bunker:

Woods had three options under the unplayable-ball rule (Rule 28). He could have taken a two-club-lengths drop, no closer to the hole, in the bunker. He could have also dropped in the bunker behind a line between where his ball lay and the hole, with no limit to how far back provided the ball was dropped in the sand. His third option would have been to replay the shot that put him in the bunker in the first place. All three options come with a one-stroke penalty.

http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/blogs/local-knowledge/2012/07/should-adam-scott-have-received-a-penalty-stroke-when-his-ba.html

[Jim Nelson]

 With Snedecker's drive. If he does not formally identify the ball (which I do not believe he did) then it would not be deemed to be found so the provisional becomes the ball in play.

Jon
[/quote]
I don't think that is right.  There is a famous instance with Phil at a tournament (Torrey Pines?) where he drove it into a small canyon, then blasted a perfect provisional.  He asked that no one find his ball, but someone did anyway.  He then had to abandon the provisional and was steamed.  How is this different?  If his ball was found, then he also would have to abandon his provisional which, in this case, he would want to do.  It was in a bunker.  Overall, the announcing regarding the rules was pretty poor during this stretch.  Why do they have a rules official standing by if they don't use him to get clarification?  Maybe as players, they always used their caddies and rules officials?  The bang, bang, bang of rules questions was a rules geek's dream.

[Charlie_Bell]

A couple of points:

1)  Regarding the original post, after the round Tiger said he was trying to bank the bunker shot off the face of the bunker and onto the fairway.  He planned to bounce it to the right, but it bounced left.  A reasonable choice, with an unlucky result -- except, I suppose, to Dan Jenkins.

2)  Regarding the Snedeker drive (and the Phil ancient-history situation), would someone here please clarify the sequence under which a player may invoke the unplayable rule  and replay the shot from the original point. To wit...

I hit a terrible drive into the gorse.  Assuming the ball won't be found, I hit a provisional. (I gather that I must declare it so.)   If the ball IS found, however, what are my options?  If I choose not to identify my original ball, am I free to play the provisional?  If I identify my original ball, may I (or may I not) play the provisional ball?  If I identify my original ball, may I declare it unplayable?  At this point, am I obliged to return to the tee -- probably to the exact place on the tee from which I drove -- and play another ball, under the unplayable rule?  I assume I may NOT play my provisional under the unplayable rule.

Thanks.

[Will MacEwen]

Charlie, if you hit a provisional and find the original, you can't take an unplayable on the original and play the provisional,  It is a provisional for lost ball, and your ball is not lost.  If you want to take an unplayable, you would have the option of re-teeing (which would be your 3rd).  Other options would be 2 clublengths or straight back on a line to the pin.

[Jim Nelson]

Charlie, if you hit a provisional and find the original, you can't take an unplayable on the original and play the provisional,  It is a provisional for lost ball, and your ball is not lost.  If you want to take an unplayable, you would have the option of re-teeing (which would be your 3rd).  Other options would be 2 clublengths or straight back on a line to the pin.

All true which makes the comments from the announcers booth during this sequence all the more inexplicable.  Maybe they just moved on from Snedeker and found no need to explain.

[Dan_Callahan]

1)  Regarding the original post, after the round Tiger said he was trying to bank the bunker shot off the face of the bunker and onto the fairway.  He planned to bounce it to the right, but it bounced left.  A reasonable choice, with an unlucky result -- except, I suppose, to Dan Jenkins.

I saw this interview. Tiger is full of crap. That's his typical post-round positive spin so he doesn't have to admit he f'ed up.

Watch the shot he played. He was aiming directly at the hole. Had he wanted to bank it to the right, he would have aimed to the right. I know Tiger didn't graduate from college, but he did take classes at Stanford for a little while. At some point during his education he would've had to take a geometry class. If he was really trying to hit that shot into the wall, barring a very weird bounce off the sod, the ball could only have gone straight back at him or to the left.

Also, listen to what his caddies says as Tiger is contemplating hitting out to the left. He very clearly tells Tiger that the dude he was playing with yesterday had the same lie and put it on the green.

[Charlie_Bell]

Thanks, Will.  This affirms what I'd deduced.  As for Tiger's tale, well, I'll have to defer to those with Tivo or the power to peer into Tiger's soul.

[Jon Wiggett]

Jim,

it does not matter if A ball is found unless the player identifies the ball as his ball then the ball would be deemed lost and the provisional would be then in play. I have alsways understood that in strokeplay, if the player decides not to look for his/her ball then it is unsporting for someone else to search for it. Matchplay is however another matter.

If Snedecker did not identify a found ball as his then it is not so I would suggest what happened to be correct.

Jon

[Jim Nelson]

Jim,

it does not matter if A ball is found unless the player identifies the ball as his ball then the ball would be deemed lost and the provisional would be then in play. I have alsways understood that in strokeplay, if the player decides not to look for his/her ball then it is unsporting for someone else to search for it. Matchplay is however another matter.

If Snedecker did not identify a found ball as his then it is not so I would suggest what happened to be correct.

Jon

I guess it would come down to saying "is this your ball?"  I think if asked, one has to respond keeping the spirit of the rules in mind.  As to unsporting, I certainly would not pursue looking for the ball if the opponent asked me not to, but with thousands of spectators, if the ball could have been found within 5 minutes, I'm sure it would, sportsmanship be damned.  But again, what went unexplained was if it truly was not lost, why would he hit it from the bunker and not go back to the tee.

[Patrick_Mucci]

[1] The prolonged weight of the ball on the grass on the slope and [2] the effect of the shade of the ball on the grass.

Agree that [1] is definitely a possibility.  But [2]?

Carl, before the current rule was put into place golfers used to block the sun to get the grass to lie down, allowing the ball to fall into the hole.

I witnessed it on many occasions.

Experiment and try it.