Rules question on sod walls

[ian]

Had a strange incident recently, a ball was plugged in the wall of a sod wall bunker. What is the rule?

Is it a drop, an unplayable lie (do you then drop in the bunker?)? Stroke and drop out of the bunker? ......?

Looking forward to a reply.

Ian

[David Wigler]

Ian,

What a small world.  This exact situation happened in my club's Ryder Cup Style match against another club.  The ball plugged in a newly sodded wall just above the bunker.  My oponents claimed a drop above the bunker, making it a very easy shot into the green.  I felt that they needed to drop into the bunker (Nearest point of relief from the situation) but given that it was the 10th hole and my partner and I were already up 5, I never pressed the argument.  I will also look forward to a response.

One more part to my situation, the newly sodded wall was clearly roped off.  As such, there was no question that they were intitled to a drop, the question was where the drop should take place.

[THuckaby2]

As I read the rules and decisions, it seems to depend on the presence or lack thereof of a local rule, and it's an odd situation where the local rule seems to make things WORSE for the player...  The relevant decisions are:

"25-2/5  Ball Embedded in Grass Bank or Face of Bunker  
Q. Are grass banks or faces of bunkers considered to be "closely mown areas" under Rule 25-2 (Embedded Ball) and may relief be taken from them under that Rule?
 
A. No, not unless they are cut to fairway height or less."

which is further clarified by:

"33-8/39  Local Rule for Bunker Faces Consisting of Stacked Turf
 
Q. The face of a bunker which consists of stacked turf may be grass-covered or earthen. May a Committee make a Local Rule (a) clarifying that any face of a bunker which consists of stacked turf is not part of the bunker, and (b) deeming that such faces are not "closely-mown areas" (Rule 25-2)?
 
A. Yes. "

So if the local rule is NOT posted, then one would assume that the free drop granted under Rule 25-2 is allowable, since sod areas would by their nature be "cut to fairway height or less."  One's options there are listed under Rule 25-2, and could get very interesting because one is supposed to drop as near as possible to the previous spot, no nearer to the hole.  It's hard to believe one could find a spot to drop that was not in the bunker.

25-2 states:

"25-2. Embedded Ball
 
A ball embedded in its own pitch-mark in the ground in any closely-mown area through the green may be lifted, cleaned and dropped, without penalty, as near as possible to the spot where it lay but not nearer the hole. The ball when dropped must first strike a part of the course through the green. “Closely-mown area” means any area of the course, including paths through the rough, cut to fairway height or less. "

I'd have to guess though that most courses with stacked-sod-face bunkers WOULD have this local rule in place, and if so, then no free drop is allowable... because the ball is definitely not in the bunker, it's also not in a closely mown area (which would mean one gets a free drop, under Rule 25-2) since the local rule is posted.  So the only relief is indeed taking it as an unplayable, and the options there are defined below:

"Rule 28. Ball Unplayable
The player may declare his ball unplayable at any place on the course except when the ball is in a water hazard. The player is the sole judge as to whether his ball is unplayable.
If the player deems his ball to be unplayable, he shall, under penalty of one stroke:


Play a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule 20-5);

or
Drop a ball within two club-lengths of the spot where the ball lay, but not nearer the hole;

or
Drop a ball behind the point where the ball lay, keeping that point directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped, with no limit to how far behind that point the ball may be dropped.
If the unplayable ball is in a bunker, the player may proceed under Clause a, b or c. If he elects to proceed under Clause b or c, a ball must be dropped in the bunker.

The ball may be cleaned when lifted under this Rule."

Remember, the ball is NOT in the bunker, so the drop absolutely need not be in the bunker.

I think this is all correct.... but it's far from certain!

TH

[David Wigler]

Tom - I do not think this covered my situation.  The sod was newly planted and clearly marked as unplayable (It had a rope around it).  As such, there is no question that they were entitled to a drop.  The entire area above the bunker was roped off, so there is no question that if they took the drop, they must leave the roped area.  The nearest point outside the roped area was the bunker.  Do they need to take nearest point of relief (ie. drop in the bunker) or can they go to the top of the bunker, where there is grass?

[Mike Benham]

Tom - I do not think this covered my situation.  The sod was newly planted and clearly marked as unplayable (It had a rope around it).  As such, there is no question that they were entitled to a drop.  The entire area above the bunker was roped off, so there is no question that if they took the drop, they must leave the roped area.  The nearest point outside the roped area was the bunker.  Do they need to take nearest point of relief (ie. drop in the bunker) or can they go to the top of the bunker, where there is grass?

The nearest point of relief can not be in a hazard so dropping in the bunker is not the answer ... and no nearer the hole (it can be farther away from the hole) means it would either be left of, right of or behind the bunker.

[THuckaby2]

Damn, all that work and the question is moot.  

In your situation, it's marked as ground under repair, correct?  One way or the other, it's definitely not in the bunker... so the drop goes as such:

"Through the Green: If the ball lies through the green, the nearest point of relief shall be determined which is not in a hazard or on a putting green. The player shall lift the ball and drop it without penalty within one club-length of and not nearer the hole than the nearest point of relief, on a part of the course which avoids interference (as defined) by the condition and is not in a hazard or on a putting green."

So by definition they CAN'T drop in the bunker... they have to find some grass that works for all the other parts of the above.  If one club-length from nearest point of relief finds a spot of grass on top of the bunker, then voila, they can drop there.  Key will be determining nearest point of relief... that spot also can't be in the bunker...

TH

[Dave_Miller]

So by definition they CAN'T drop in the bunker... they have to find some grass that works for all the other parts of the above.  If one club-length from nearest point of relief finds a spot of grass on top of the bunker, then voila, they can drop there.  Key will be determining nearest point of relief... that spot also can't be in the bunker...

TH

Tom,
Also can't be nearer the hole.  Which may not be on top but might be behind
Best
Dave

[TEPaul]

TomH:

It looks like the situation in Ian's question would be handled under rule 25-2 (embedded ball) and the situation in David Wigler's question would be handled under rule 25-1 (abnormal ground condition). Although it looks to me like free relief would be granted in both situations the procedure for dropping would be or could be different and also it's possible that dec 33-8/39 might be a bit hazy or confusing in this situation when it comes to the embedded ball rule and its accompanying local rule application.

Dec. 33-8/39 is an interesting one as it basically uses a decision to make a sod walled bunker face the same status as grass covered ground bordering or with a "bunker" cited in the "definition" of a "bunker" in rule 13. ("Grass covered ground bordering or within a bunker is not part of the bunker. The margin of a bunker extends vertically downward but not upward. A ball is in a bunker when it lies in or any part of it touches the bunker.").

However, although Dec. 33-8/39 is an interesting one and fortunately covers Ian's situation pretty specifically, the second part of the question (b) in the decsion seems a bit confusing to me. It's unclear to me whether or not (b) indicates in this decision which essentially creates a "local rule" requires that the grass in the face be mandatorily considered "Not closely mown"?

That's important because if it does require that the grass (or the sod wall which has the same status as the grass under dec 33-8/39) NOT be considered "closely mown" that would seem to preclude the operation of the local rule (app.1-3a) for an embedded ball "through the green". The reason for that is as dec. 33-8/39 is written it seems only to grant relief for the regular embedded ball rule (25-2).

Of course all that is very important to know since it would determine whether free relief is granted (in Ian's situation) or whether the ball must be considered unplayable from which relief costs a stroke.

And furthermore the procedure for relief under rules 25 and 28 would be different. Certainly under rule 28 the player can drop the ball in the bunker but under rule 25-1 and apparently 25-2 it would appear he cannot and would need to use the relief procedures perscibed by that rule which appears to not allow dropping within a bunker. The dropping procedure for free relief from an embedded ball is "as near as possible". The dropping procedure for an unplayable ball is what we know it to be under rule 28 a,b,c and the relief procedure for the situation in David Wigler's situation is within one club length once the nearest point of relief has been established.

This is an odd and interesting set of questions and there actually may be some confusion within the rules on these ones (although it's far more likely I'm condused) and perhaps we need to consult with either of those two world class rules experts--Lew Blakey or John Morrissett!

[THuckaby2]

TEP:

My confusion was likely greater than yours, so I just tried to make this as simple as it could be made... which still isn't very simple!  I too think that Decision 33 8/39 hurts the situation more than helps...

But your summation is a good one by me, anyway - this might be a time to bring in the real heavy hitters!

TH

[John_Cullum]

First, do not get off track on local rules or decisions regarding them if they are not adopted. 33-8/39 refers to a local rule and is placed in the annotations following rule 33 "the committee." So forget that. Lets stick to the rules that are in play for this particular game. This distraction appears to happen frequently. People get flustered dealing with all of the decisions, and the appendix specimen rules.

The area is roped off, with no further instruction provided by the committee, unfortunately. We know there will be free relief, but where.

Look inside the front cover of the rules book. It suggests one of the first questions to be resolved is where is the situation happening. Therefor,  the first question is "is the ball in the bunker?" Bunker is a defined term. Grass covered ground in the lip is not part of the bunker. (see definition of bunker) A lip with no grass is part of the bunker. (See dec. 13/4). I do not believe stacked sod is adequately addressed by the rules or decisions. (remember we don't have the local rule in play) I believe you are hard pressed to call a non grass "covered" wall of sod a "lip." So I tell the player his ball is not in the bunker.

Now the relief optionS are clear. Drop within one club length of the nearset point of relief, not in a hazard, not nearer the hole, etc. (see definition of nearest point of relief). I say within one club length because the area is marked as GUR. The player can take relief under 25-1 if he so elects.
-or-
The player could elect to take relief under 25-2, embedded ball, and drop as near as possible to the spot. Re dropping if it rolls into the bunker, and then placing where it struck the course first, or as close as possible thereto. (see 20-2c and 20-3d). If after placing the ball , it is in the area marked GUR, then the player can proceed to take relief under 25-1, determining his nearest point of relief, and going one club length.

A player always has the right to pick which condition he wants relief from. And he takes relief from conditions one by one as they arise.

If the ball were deemed to be in the bunker, he would only have the option of dropping in the bunker under 25-1(b)(ii) if he wants free relief.

This situation is confused beacause the committee or management has not adopted any local rule and has not adequately addressed the abnormal condition for the players. Paint should be used for marking, not strings or ropes, or those little wire hoops. With paint you clearly define the boundary of the GUR. I am of the opinion that this aspect of maintenance falls on the shoulders of the professional staff, who are invariably slack about things like marking the course properly, and writing and posting local rules.

[THuckaby2]

Great summation, Sarge - thanks.  That oughtta cover all possiblities.

Note that I answered how I did - referring to the decisions - because the first question was GENERAL, giving no specifics as to anything being roped off.  In that case, well... the decisions matter.

In Dave W.'s case, with the area roped off, we have a specific situation, with a different set of answers....

One thing's for sure - players need to be prepared for places NOT to be marked, roped off, etc. and local rules NOT to be adopted.  So much golf gets played outside of the competitive situations where the type of care needed to get this done correctly is taken....

TH

[John_Cullum]

I confuse my self sometimes. The player cannot take relief under the embedded ball rule (25-2) unless it is in a closely mown area. The sod wall is not likely closely mown (although it might be possible). In this case the committee has not adopted the embedded ball through the green rule.

[John_Cullum]

Shivas
Since it is marked as ground under repair, the player gets relief regardless of embedding in soil in long grass.

[John_Cullum]

Shivas'
If it is newly sodded, a player would probably get relief if he requested it from a rules official. if one is not around employ rule 3-3 and seek a decision later.

[ian]

Thank-you all for the answers, I have waited to reply to see if anything else would come forward. It makes me realize that I should know the rules better than I do.

Ian

[TEPaul]

Sarge:

Firstly, there're two separate "situations" in this thread consisting of the situation that Ian Andrews cites and the situation David Wigler cites. In that they are different they'll very likely be handled differently under the rules.

Frankly, it's not great policy to suggest that local rules should be forgotten about. Local rules and decisions are there for a purpose and that purpose is definitely not to confuse but to clarify. Furthermore there're a number of rules, local rules and decisions that are there as much to guide golf clubs, committees, set-up people and officials in how to best arrange things to make playing a course for golfers as understandable and manageable within the rules as possible.

Ian Andrews is an architect and is probably asking his initial question as much to understand how to best define an area for play as he may be in asking how a golfer will play that area under certain rules definitions.

Rule 33 (The Committee) is every bit as much of a rule of golf as the other 33 rules are. It may not be as interesting to the player as the others but it certainly is to those responsible for the golf course.

Dec. 33-8/39 should not be dismissed either in the context of these two questions, particularly Ian Andrews.

Both Ian and David have cited certain "facts" and that's the place to start any rules question. Any good rules official will arrive on the scene of a rules question and the first thing he will ask is; "What are the facts" or alternatively "What are you trying to do?" This procedure leads everyone to the proper rule or rules, sticks strictly to the situation at hand and steers clear of time-wasting confusion or needless philosophizing about rules or other things that aren't relevant to the situation at hand.

In David Wigler's situation since the area apparently was roped off that's pretty clear where the rules resolution needs to start. I've never seen a roped off area on a golf course that does not indicate an "abnormal ground condition" which is a definition under the rules of golf. The definition of "abnormal ground condition" includes "ground under repair".

Relief from those conditions is very clear and found in rule 25-1.

In Ian Andrews's situation there is no roped off area and therefore there is no "abnormal ground condition" or "ground under repair".

However, since the ball in Ian's situation is apparently embedded some definition of where the ball is is needed. Is it in the bunker in the sod-wall or isn't it?

It would very much appear that dec. 33-8/39 can help the club, committee, set-up people or officials determine what is best for that area to make it clearer and more understandable to golfers. The operation of a local rule as spelled out in dec. 33-8/39 (The Committee) can accomplish that. That local rule can be used on the scorecard or the "conditions of competition" or both and make rules resolutions in that area a whole lot simpler for all involved.

And if that was done, as it appears it should be in Ian's situation and question, the relief procedure will be different (rule 25-2) than it would be in David Wigler's situation.

However, it still seems somewhat unclear, to me anyway, what the meaning or necessity of (b) is in the question in dec. 33-8/39. The reason I say that is it seems to confuse whether or not the local rule for an embedded ball "through the green" (Appendix 1, 3a) (local rules and conditions of competition) can be used which basically expands and liberalizes the more restrictive rule (25-2) which only allows relief from an embedded ball in "closely mown areas". "closely mown areas" certainly do not cover what the "through the green" local embedded ball rule does!

To be honest, I fully expect the R&A and the USGA to adopt the local rule of relief for an embedded ball "through the green" in place of the more restrictive rule 25-2 (closely mown areas). The reason I believe that will happen is that local rule has become so prevalently adopted already. I can't think of a single recent instance in a tournament or otherwise where or when that local embedded ball rule has not been adopted, so it only makes sense that it would replace rule 25-2 and become a regular rule of golf and no longer a local rule. And if and when that happens the distinction of "closely mown area" will likely no longer be needed or exist in the rules of golf.

[Doug_Feeney]

TEPaul

I feel I have a solid understanding of the Rules, and must say that is a very well written response.  Most people who criticize and suggest we forget local rules in general are the same ones who lift and drop an embedded ball in the rough without realizing their action would be contrary to the Rules if no local rule was in place.

As regards 25-2 (Embedded Ball) being changed to allow relief through the green rather than in closely mown areas, friends of mine at the USGA indicate the R&A will never go for it!  It seems they are so opposed to it that they didn't even like the inclusion of the local rule, but were appeased by the inclusion of Local Rule 5 (Line of play relief for fixed sprinkler heads around the green.)  While I agree completely with you that 25-2 needs to be changed, I am told it likely will not happen.

[John_Cullum]

TE and Doug
Please understand that I do not advocate ignoring local rules. I was responding to a certain factual scenario and no local rule had been posted for sod walls (per dec. 33-8/9.) Certainly that was the appropriate thing to do.

But since there was no local rule, you must resolve the question resorting only to the definitions and rules 1 thru 33. In this case that decision(33-8/9) is of no help. Or to  use your phrase, a discussion of that decision here would be "needless philosophhizing."

You each are very mistaken as to the intent of my suggestion to ignore the local rule. Please reread the final paragraph of my initial reply. Perhaps you mistook my phrase of "this particular game" in my post. By that I meant the particular competition being played between the players.

I do not know Ian or his chosen profession. But I believe I addressed the appropriate manner for marking the area and adopting a rule for it, if that was his concern.

I note that you do not seem to disagree with my analysis of the matter, or do you?

[TEPaul]

"As regards 25-2 (Embedded Ball) being changed to allow relief through the green rather than in closely mown areas, friends of mine at the USGA indicate the R&A will never go for it!  It seems they are so opposed to it that they didn't even like the inclusion of the local rule, but were appeased by the inclusion of Local Rule 5 (Line of play relief for fixed sprinkler heads around the green.)  While I agree completely with you that 25-2 needs to be changed, I am told it likely will not happen."

DougF:

I've heard the exact same thing about the R&A's feeling about the local embedded ball rule but I recall the R&A also said they'd never agree to a cap on COR too!  

[TEPaul]

Sarge;

Again, there were two different situations cited by Ian Andrews and David Wigler. I didn't see any roped off area mentioned in Ian's post as there was in David's. The roped off area, again, means to me that situation will be handled under rule 25-1 and the relief procedure there is very clear cut.

Ian, on the other hand, is citing a situation that clearly needs some clarification within the rules. That's the reason to go to the rules book, rule 33 (the Committee) and also the appendix of local rules to deal best with that particular situation.

People who just play golf are never particularly concerned with things that a committee that sets up a golf course or a tournament is concerned with. Why would they be? But that by no means indicates that rule 33 is not a most important rule of golf and certainly the local rules appendix is much of the meat of what a committee has to work with to set up a course as effectively as possible.

Frankly, it's quite remarkable that Dec. 33-8/39 so specifically countenances Ian Andrews's question.

[John_Cullum]

TE
I mistakenly thought Ian had encountered a roped off area. Without some marking, the appropriate thing for the competitor is to request relief from GUR. If no official is available, play 2 balls under rule 3-3 in stroke play. In match play, duke it out if no referee is present.

[Dennis_Harwood]

Guess I can not avoid posting any longer--

First-- Wait until Jan 1st, 2004-- Status of sod faces of bunkers will be a lot clearer--

Second-- If the area is marked as GUR, then you have stated the relief procedure correctly--

Third-- The R&A has long felt that its grass conditions are such that the embedded ball Rule will only be used in closely mown areas, almost all USGA jurisdictions use the local Rule, but that has been true so long neither side is unconfortable nor is going to attempt to change the mind of the other--

Fourth-- In the USGA jurisdictions, if the ball is embedded in the sod face, and the local rule for "through the green" is in effect, the relief is as follows:

(a) The player lifts(and may clean) his ball and drops the ball as near as possible, but no nearer the hole, than the place it was embedded(25-2 + local Rule)-- That is dropping on that steep sodded face(13/4 tells us that spot).  

(b) If the ball, after striking the face, rolls into the bunker, drop again.

(c) If it again rolls into the bunker try to place the ball at the spot where it first contacted the ground on the second drop(Rule 20-2c).  

(d) If the ball, when placed, will not remain at rest, then the player must "work his way along the face of the sod" attempting to place the ball where it will remain at rest, no nearer the hole and when he finds that spot where it will remain at rest(closest to the spot he originally tried to place the ball) the ball is then in play(Rule 20-3d)

[TEPaul]

Dennis;

Thanks for listing the relief procedures--but that's all very identifiable in the rule book and real clear, in my opinion. It seems to me that much of this question and discussion was about the status of the areas involved in those two situation questions and why, or let's say what it should be. That's pretty interesting and the existence and wording of Dec. 33-8/39 makes it more so, in my opinion.

Sarge:

I've been officiating for many years now and on a pretty regular basis in the season. I'm one of those who knows the rules pretty well by heart and so I guess I've probably memorized most of them and all the decisions too. All of us are always going to one form of rules school after another too.

There're quite a few people like me but there's a real difference between that and those who are really good on-course officials. Those are the guys I most respect. No matter how well you think you know the rules of golf there's just no substitute for being out there all the time under the heat of "on-course" situation decision making and rules applications. There's an adage amongst rules officials that if you've never made a mistake you've never really officiated.

There're some procedures for on-course officiating that aren't very well known by those who just philosophize about rules without officiating. I do a lot of officiating but I'm always impressed by those who are really good at on-course officiating--the essence and identification of it all seems to come to them so naturally when under the heat!

It's sort of ironic but one who these days is considered one of the very most accomplished in the world of golf rules and officiating is Ran's brother John Morrissett!