Bunkers: A call for new local rules.

[Thomas Dai]

From the wonderful web -


atb

[Kyle Harris]

Sean,

I get the sense you don't actually like playing golf, but simply a golf-like game. Okay, fair enough. I would suggest you could save yourself a considerable amount of money by simply hitting shots on the range and nattering around a putting green for a few hours.

Let's take your consistency to the next level, shall we? Why stop at bunker maintenance? I'll stop mowing grass, and hand you a pair of scissors on the tee. If you find the grass too deep because I haven't cut it, simply shorten it to your liking.

That would be the consistency you seek, would it not? We can extend the idea to trees, shrubs, and anything else on the golf course that isn't maintained to your satisfaction. That will save a ton of money on the operations end, for sure.

The difference between a bunker and a water hazard is as old as the game itself. This has been made clear time and time again and is rather simple if you explain the idea that the ball shall be played as it lies. The complexity derives from the diversion in that principle.

Under no circumstances are you compelled to take relief, and follow the "complex" rules that govern that action. If you want a simpler game, simply play the ball down always.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

I get the sense you don't actually like playing golf, but simply a golf-like game. Okay, fair enough. I would suggest you could save yourself a considerable amount of money by simply hitting shots on the range and nattering around a putting green for a few hours.

Let's take your consistency to the next level, shall we? Why stop at bunker maintenance? I'll stop mowing grass, and hand you a pair of scissors on the tee. If you find the grass too deep because I haven't cut it, simply shorten it to your liking.

That would be the consistency you seek, would it not? We can extend the idea to trees, shrubs, and anything else on the golf course that isn't maintained to your satisfaction. That will save a ton of money on the operations end, for sure.

The difference between a bunker and a water hazard is as old as the game itself. This has been made clear time and time again and is rather simple if you explain the idea that the ball shall be played as it lies. The complexity derives from the diversion in that principle.

Under no circumstances are you compelled to take relief, and follow the "complex" rules that govern that action. If you want a simpler game, simply play the ball down always.

Kyle

I feel like I am reading something from the USGA.  As I am advocating a completely fresh look at the rules which doesn't click with you, its best if we agree to disagree.

Ciao

[Jay Mickle]

Where does the term "rub of the green" come from? We can fix ball marks, clean balls, replace balls moved by wind, etc.

[Rich Goodale]

I'm fully with you, Jay.


Some people on this thread do not understand the essence of "Etiquette" in the Rules.  It is idiotic for a player finding his ball at rest in a man-made "hazard" (whether it be a pitch mark on the green, a footprint in a bunker or a freshly made divot in the fairway) to be penalized by the absence of etiquette by his fellow competitors.


The recent USGA/R&A bombshell is dragging golf into the 21st century.  For those of us who want to stay in the world of Old Tom Morris, play it as it lies, regardless.  For those of us who want to enjoy the game rather than endure its inherent pain. play the ball as you like in friendly games and play by the rules only in competitions.


Rich

[jeffwarne]

This thread is important as it points out the slippery slope between golfers who don't show proper etiquette followed by the an unsustainable level of grooming that clearly benefits the better golfer which then becomes the only acceptable solution. It appears the notion "rub of the green" is an antiquated one.

+1




A perfect lie in a hazard....hmmmm


Why not courtesy cars to take you to your muni as well?
I mean the pros get them-so why not you?


Or...how about way less hazards(bunkers) that one actually has to thoughtfully consider and avoid. and an actual consequence for entering one....

[Thomas Dai]

I recall reading that many moons ago playing the Postage Stamp 8th in The Open at Troon, Roberto De Vincenzo hit his tee shot into a greenside bunker. The ball was plugged so he deemed it unplayable, went back to the tee and promptly holed his next shot for a 2 as there was no stroke and distance penalty at the time, just a distance penalty.
Atb

[Brent Gremillion]

I've always viewed footprints in bunkers or my ball coming to rest in a previous players divot in the bunker the same as if it happened in the rough.  I've been in footprints, cart tracks, etc. that created a little more penalty than normal.  Big deal.  I play by the rules...all of them! 

[Pete_Pittock]

Sean,
water vs sand - why is relief different. Most times, if the ball is in a water hazard, the ball cannot be found, or likely played. It can be found and likely played in a water hazard. If relief in the area of the point of entry into the water hazard, relief of one club-length would create disparity between right-handed and left-handed golfers. Depending on the situation, one or the other would likely have to stand in the hazard to continue. Making the relief two club-lengths eliminates most of the disparity. Above, I am talking about relief from a red marked hazard. 
Further, unplayable lies are allowable in bunkers and through the green but not in water hazards. I believe the difference is that water hazards are sometimes dry. Since the penalty scenarios presume you are in the hazard, being able to take an unplayable lie
90% of the way across the water hazard, when it is dry in summer, or when the tide is lower, again creates a disparity.


Regarding sprinkler heads, etc. the rules have a continuity from the beginnings of golf, when there were virtually no man-made objects on the course. As these were added and when golfers encountered them disputes inevitably arose as one side of the match had a different opinion than the other side.


Many people think that reading Richard Tuft's "The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf" creates a better understanding of the issues. I have a spare copy if you are interested.

[Joe Zucker]

This thread is important as it points out the slippery slope between golfers who don't show proper etiquette followed by the an unsustainable level of grooming that clearly benefits the better golfer which then becomes the only acceptable solution. It appears the notion "rub of the green" is an antiquated one.

+1




A perfect lie in a hazard....hmmmm


Why not courtesy cars to take you to your muni as well?
I mean the pros get them-so why not you?


Or...how about way less hazards(bunkers) that one actually has to thoughtfully consider and avoid. and an actual consequence for entering one....

I think the very last line gets to the heart of the issue.  When the idea of "play it as it lies" came about hundreds of years ago, hazards (including bunkers) were relatively rare.  It was easier to avoid them, so it made sense to punish the player with a potentially less than great lie.  However, modern courses have so many bunkers that it is nearly impossible to avoid them for all 18 holes.  In my mind, the prevalence of bunkers has led to the desire for fairness in this area.


Do more bunkers necessarily mean you should be guaranteed a good lie?  No, but when there are over 100 of them on many courses it becomes an awfully penal course if you're hitting out of footprints.  Ideally, there would be fewer bunkers and they could truly be hazards.  It may not be correct for a player to expect a good lie in the trap every time, but it shouldn't be a surprise why players think this way with how golf courses are presented today.

[Joe Hancock]

This thread is important as it points out the slippery slope between golfers who don't show proper etiquette followed by the an unsustainable level of grooming that clearly benefits the better golfer which then becomes the only acceptable solution. It appears the notion "rub of the green" is an antiquated one.

+1




A perfect lie in a hazard....hmmmm


Why not courtesy cars to take you to your muni as well?
I mean the pros get them-so why not you?


Or...how about way less hazards(bunkers) that one actually has to thoughtfully consider and avoid. and an actual consequence for entering one....

I think the very last line gets to the heart of the issue.  When the idea of "play it as it lies" came about hundreds of years ago, hazards (including bunkers) were relatively rare.  It was easier to avoid them, so it made sense to punish the player with a potentially less than great lie.  However, modern courses have so many bunkers that it is nearly impossible to avoid them for all 18 holes.  In my mind, the prevalence of bunkers has led to the desire for fairness in this area.


Do more bunkers necessarily mean you should be guaranteed a good lie?  No, but when there are over 100 of them on many courses it becomes an awfully penal course if you're hitting out of footprints.  Ideally, there would be fewer bunkers and they could truly be hazards.  It may not be correct for a player to expect a good lie in the trap every time, but it shouldn't be a surprise why players think this way with how golf courses are presented today.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,64236.0.html


No more calls, please...we have a winner!

[Sean_A]

Peter

Thanks...I mostly understand the rules...I just don't think they are as simple or consistent as they could and should be.  There are too many situational rules when many things could be lumped together.  As I say, I am taking about a completely fresh look at the rules and looking at dropping much of the old baggage.  A simplified rule(s) for bunkers VS water VS OOB would itself go along way to eliminating many rule infractions which at heart aren't in and of themselves important.  They are only deemed important because of the baggage. Its similar to the concept of decriminalizing certain crimes and therefore reducing the number of criminals who therefore require state intervention at added tax payer expense without obtaining any real results or bettering society.

I guess I am of the opinion that if a huge percentage of golfers don't follow the rules and/or don't know the rules well enough to follow them them, then the rules are doing a very good job. I actually think its an incredibly small percentage of golfers who don't screw up the rules every single year...and a good percentage of these folks get the help of on course experts. Golf is fundementally different from other sports in that they have refs to enforce and interpet the rules.  Most golfers must enforce and interpret rules without the help of refs so they need to be simple and consistent.   

Ciao

[Keith Grande]

What's next, are we going to change the rule about moving a ball in a divot?  Play it as it lies.