[Matt_Cohn]

That one that Charley Hoffman just got on #12...uh, really?


He claimed he couldn't dig his heels as far as he wanted to into the bunker because he was hitting the Billy Bunker liner with his heels. He got relief.


BTW, he also had an all-time fried egg lie before dropping.


Forgetting the rules for a minute — I'm not questioning the official — 5 out of 5 dentists would agree that ruling seems like BS.


To make this more GCA relevant...how is the foundation of a bunker not just a part of the bunker? It's like getting relief from dirt because it's under the grass, no? 

[jeffwarne]

That one that Charley Hoffman just got on #12...uh, really?


He claimed he couldn't dig his heels as far as he wanted to into the bunker because he was hitting the Billy Bunker liner with his heels. He got relief.


BTW, he also had an all-time fried egg lie before dropping.


Forgetting the rules for a minute — I'm not questioning the official — 5 out of 5 dentists would agree that ruling seems like BS.


To make this more GCA relevant...how is the foundation of a bunker not just a part of the bunker? It's like getting relief from dirt because it's under the grass, no? 

strange.
If it were a clay liner he wouldn't get relief

[JESII]

Didn't see it...and I like Charley...but that has to be a dead wrong ruling on a couple fronts.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ah, yes, what used to be called the Canadian Open, run for almost 115 years by what used to be called the Royal Canadian Golf Association -- and older than any other championship in the world save for the British and US Opens.
Hagen, Snead, Nelson, Palmer, Trevino, Norman, Price, and Woods were among its winners.
Made Glen Abbey its (nearly) permanent home and took on a title sponsor as part of its name -- and it's been languishing in its spot immediately after the Open Championship ever since, with perfectly manicured conditions and ultra low scores and first time tour winners galore.
Beware the so-called "smart move": here, a string of them -- the re-branding to the more populist "Golf Canada", the focus on the crowd-pleasing natural amphitheaters, the easy money of a corporate/banking logo plastered everywhere -- has sucked all specialness and history and style out of the once-grand Canadian Open.
It's now just another run of the mill tour stop; it's feels almost inevitable that someone would get a drop out of a hazard because his feet were a little uncomfortable.       

[Mike_Clayton]

Peter,


More than a few parallels with the Australian Open.

[David_Tepper]

Bunkers liners of a man-made material are treated as an immovable obstruction. It is a simple as that.

http://lindamillergolf.blogspot.com/2015/05/ask-linda-1063-exposed-lining-in-bunker.html

P.S. I did not see this particular ruling or defending it. Just offering basis for it.

[Sean_A]

Ah, yes, what used to be called the Canadian Open, run for almost 115 years by what used to be called the Royal Canadian Golf Association -- and older than any other championship in the world save for the British and US Opens.
Hagen, Snead, Nelson, Palmer, Trevino, Norman, Price, and Woods were among its winners.
Made Glen Abbey its (nearly) permanent home and took on a title sponsor as part of its name -- and it's been languishing in its spot immediately after the Open Championship ever since, with perfectly manicured conditions and ultra low scores and first time tour winners galore.
Beware the so-called "smart move": here, a string of them -- the re-branding to the more populist "Golf Canada", the focus on the crowd-pleasing natural amphitheaters, the easy money of a corporate/banking logo plastered everywhere -- has sucked all specialness and history and style out of the once-grand Canadian Open.
It's now just another run of the mill tour stop; it's feels almost inevitable that someone would get a drop out of a hazard because his feet were a little uncomfortable.     

It doesn't help when the major tours (US PGA) create stupid world events when that have perfectly good national opens (Canadian, French, Australian, S African, etc) that could have been revived with that money.  The  concept was already in place...just needed a boost to promote high level golf throughout the world.  Instead we have these crap world events...what a great idea.  And to make matters worse, golf still doesn't have an event which can touch Wimbledon for sure interest of players across the spectrum...its just plain stupid not to.

Ciao

[Marty Bonnar]

Yet another dreadful snoozefest. No wonder young people hate Golf.


F.

[Mike_Clayton]

The Canadian Open should be a European Tour event played the week before the US Open? It'd work if all their best players supported it.

[JESII]

Bunkers liners of a man-made material are treated as an immovable obstruction. It is a simple as that.

http://lindamillergolf.blogspot.com/2015/05/ask-linda-1063-exposed-lining-in-bunker.html

Wonder how this contrasts with a bridge crossing a creek...

[David_Tepper]

Wonder how this contrasts with a bridge crossing a creek...

Jim S. -

If you are asking if one could get relief from a bridge if you ball is in a creek, I think here is your answer:

If your ball is in the hazard then you are not entitled to relief from the immovable obstruction, therefore you can play the ball as it lies or take relief under the Lateral Water Hazard (or Water Hazard) Rule (Rule 26-1).

DT

[Tom_Doak]

Wonder how this contrasts with a bridge crossing a creek...

Jim S. -

If you are asking if one could get relief from a bridge if you ball is in a creek, I think here is your answer:

If your ball is in the hazard then you are not entitled to relief from the immovable obstruction, therefore you can play the ball as it lies or take relief under the Lateral Water Hazard (or Water Hazard) Rule (Rule 26-1).

Yes, and there was a day, long ago, when a bunker was considered to be a hazard.


Sometimes I think it won't be long before I have to explain this fact to my interns, the same way I have to explain why a metal club is called a "wood".

[David_Tepper]

"Yes, and there was a day, long ago, when a bunker was considered to be a hazard."

Tom D. -

I don't even pretend to be a rules expert, but aren't there some differences between how the rules treat bunkers vs. red- or yellow-staked hazards?

I think that accounts for why you get relief from an immovable obstruction in a bunker and not in a red- or yellow-staked hazard.

DT

[David_Tepper]

Here is the full quotation from usga.org:

b. Relief

Except when the ball is in a water hazard or a lateral water hazard, a player may take relief from interference by an immovable obstruction as follows:

 (ii) In a Bunker: If the ball is in a bunker, the player must lift the ball and drop it either:
 (a) Without penalty, in accordance with Clause (i) above, except that the nearest point of relief must be in the bunker and the ball must be dropped in the bunker; or
(b) Under penalty of one stroke, outside the bunker keeping the point where the ball lay directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped, with no limit to how far behind the bunker the ball may be dropped.

Note 1: If a ball is in a water hazard (including a lateral water hazard), the player may not take relief from interference by an immovable obstruction. The player must play the ball as it lies or proceed under Rule 26-1.


As Jordan Spieth (and Charley Hoffman) can attest, some times the rules can help you.



 

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike C - yes, as you probably know there's been talk over the last few years about the Canadian Open being played as part of the European Tour -- especially since a Canadian now runs that tour.
Sadly, this year - for what I think may be the  15th or 20th year in a row - Golf Canada officials have confirmed that they are 'in ongoing and substantive talks' with the PGA Tour about a better spot in the schedule for the tournament, and have once again assured us that 'the PGA Tour greatly values and appreciates the Canadian Open's (sorry, The RBC Canadian Open's) rich history and tradition.'
So, there's that...
I don't blame Americans/the PGA Tour for trying to create ever-more wealth for the wealthy or to squeeze every last possible penny out of whatever initiative they have going -- that's among the things Americans do better than anyone else in the world! No, I blame eager but ill-suited Canadian (and Australian) golf officials for wanting to play that American game/in that American ball park when any bit of common sense, let alone even a bit of loyalty as former colonists to the R&A, would've suggested a different path.

[Kyle Harris]

This is an interesting case because it seems to be more geared toward "fairly taking a stance" than it is about "immovable obstructions." To wit: does the player have a right to dig in as deep as desired? There is a story told by Tom Paul about Davis Love III refusing to take relief from an irrigation head in the middle of a fairway during the 1999 Ryder Cup because he could play a shot without the head interfering with his stance. I'd suggest the story is apocryphal except for the fact that Tom has a thank you note from Davis referencing the incident and the fact that Tom was the only person to notice!

That being said, Charley's subsequent shot after that drop wasn't exactly great. I feel like he probably would have played a better shot playing from the original lie more aggressively.

[David_Tepper]

Video, write-up and analysis of Hoffman's drop here:

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2017/7/30/another-bunker-liner-ruling-hoffman-gets-out-of-plugged-lie.html

[Paul Jones]

From the USGA Website - http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-and-decisions.html#!rule-24


Immovable Obstruction.
Interference
Interference by an immovable obstruction occurs when a ball lies in or on the obstruction, or when the obstruction interferes with the player's stance or the area of his intended swing. If the player's ball lies on the putting green, interference also occurs if an immovable obstruction on the putting green intervenes on his line of putt. Otherwise, intervention on the line of play is not, of itself, interference under this Rule..

Relief
Except when the ball is in a water hazard or a lateral water hazard, a player may take relief from interference by an immovable obstruction as follows:

Through the Green: If the ball lies through the green, the player must lift the ball and drop it, without penalty, within one club-length of and not nearer the hole than the nearest point of relief. The nearest point of relief must not be in a hazard or on a putting green. When the ball is dropped within one club-length of the nearest point of relief, the ball must first strike a part of the course at a spot that avoids interference by the immovable obstruction and is not in a hazard and not on a putting green.

In a Bunker: If the ball is in a bunker, the player must lift the ball and drop it either:
(a) Without penalty, in accordance with Clause (i) above, except that the nearest point of relief must be in the bunker and the ball must be dropped in the bunker; or
(b) Under penalty of one stroke, outside the bunker keeping the point where the ball lay directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped, with no limit to how far behind the bunker the ball may be dropped.

[Michael Whitaker]

Yes, and there was a day, long ago, when a bunker was considered to be a hazard.

Isn't this just a continuation of the fixation by some players on "fairness"?


I often hear players complain that bunkers on a given course are not "fair" because the bunkers are not CONSISTENT in their firmness, or texture, or depth of sand throughout the course. They think every bunker should play exactly the same and push the super in that direction as much as they can.

[Joe Hancock]

Yes, and there was a day, long ago, when a bunker was considered to be a hazard.

Isn't this just a continuation of the fixation by some players on "fairness"?


I often hear players complain that bunkers on a given course are not "fair" because the bunkers are not CONSISTENT in their firmness, or texture, or depth of sand throughout the course. They think every bunker should play exactly the same and push the super in that direction as much as they can.

And this is part of what is different about the game of golf today; the ability to outhink an opponent who might otherwise be a technically more sound golfer. The homogenization of the golf course features makes the game more one of execution, and less one of intellect. Not good, IMO.

[Peter Pallotta]

Well put, Joe.
I wonder if one of the reasons for this is that many of us don't *want* to think any more than we have to -- and certainly not on the golf course.
As golf has gotten more and more accessible -- from a pastime for people of leisure to a game for the harried working class -- there may be a real if underlying desire to keep it simple: pretty surroundings, straightforward shots, no deep thinking required.
After all, most people spend a lot of time these days 'thinking' -- how to keep their jobs, how to raise their children, how to manage their debt, how to solve the problems and challenges of life. Do we really need a game that requires even more thinking?
Is it a coincidence that the developer of some of the coolest and most thought provoking courses of the last 20 years - Mike K - is himself a man of leisure, surrounded by friends and marketing to acquaintances who themselves are on the leisure-class side of the spectrum?
In short: maybe the homogenization of golf courses is due in part to the democratization of the game?

[Jim Hoak]

As has been pointed out, the ruling was correct--it was an immovable obstruction and the drop was proper.  It would be the same as if he were standing on a cart path.
But to me the questionable part of the rule is that moving a ball in a bunker requires a drop, not a placement.  That usually results in a partially plugged lie.  In this case, he went from a fried egg to another fried egg, so it seems fair.  But what if his lie had ben perfect, except for his footing?  His option would have been to drop into a radically less-good lie.  Is that fair and right?

[Jeff Evagues]

As has been pointed out, the ruling was correct--it was an immovable obstruction and the drop was proper.  It would be the same as if he were standing on a cart path.
But to me the questionable part of the rule is that moving a ball in a bunker requires a drop, not a placement.  That usually results in a partially plugged lie.  In this case, he went from a fried egg to another fried egg, so it seems fair.  But what if his lie had ben perfect, except for his footing?  His option would have been to drop into a radically less-good lie.  Is that fair and right?

I'm guessing if his lie was perfect he would have just played the shot. He knew if he got a free drop it still wouldn't be as bad as the original lie.

[MClutterbuck]

As has been pointed out, the ruling was correct--it was an immovable obstruction and the drop was proper.  It would be the same as if he were standing on a cart path.
But to me the questionable part of the rule is that moving a ball in a bunker requires a drop, not a placement.  That usually results in a partially plugged lie.  In this case, he went from a fried egg to another fried egg, so it seems fair.  But what if his lie had ben perfect, except for his footing?  His option would have been to drop into a radically less-good lie.  Is that fair and right?

What is not clear is how far one can dig... at certain point you will always hit a liner, provided there is one. I am not so sure the ruling is 100% correct, and I question course setup or architecture if Hoffman did not dig beyond normal. 

[Bob Montle]

How about:
Play it as it lies .... unless you declare it unplayable.

If you hit the ball behind an obstruction - whose fault is that?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()