What if Rule 13-4 was removed from golf?

[TEPaul]

I'm not even going to bother mention what it is; everyone (who's not a Rules expert) will figure it out soon enough.

When anyone on here, purist and non-purist alike, realizes what such a suggestion entails I'm sure they will consider such a suggestion heretical, and perhaps it is---I admit it upfront.

But if Rule 13-4 was abolished and balls in a so-called "hazard" were treated no different from balls elsewhere (Rule 13-2 and its basic REQUIREMENT----eg do not improve your lie) just think what it could mean vis-a-vis lack of distinction and definition in golf and architecture and perhaps even a massive cost saving via a massively altered psychology.

Of course with most of what I say and do on here this observation comes from one Max Behr and his analysis of the way golf once was and the way it became and most importantly WHY!

[Rich Goodale]

Maybe I'm being slow this morning, Tom, but I don't see much difference, particularly if 13-2 is adhered to.  Maybe it would allow practice swings in bunkers and other hazards, but I can't see how that would affect architecture and/or maintenance or how the game is played.  What am I missing?

Richard the obviously not particularly magnificent at 5am...

[TEPaul]

Don't worry about it Richard---I'll give you a few more hours to wake up but I'm not going to hold my breath! 

Well, you really are a good guy and a friend and so I should cut you some slack particuarly since you just admitted you have some of Mr. Sandman's sand in your eyes and mind at this time. Or better yet, one of these days I'll just send you a full packet of Max Behr's writing and maybe you might figure out some of this ultra fundamental stuff on your own!

If one could ground one's club anywhere in golf as it once was very long ago when golf was pretty pure perhaps MAN wouldn't feel the need to make distinctions and require definitions about where one's ball was, and then there wouldn't even be a perception about bad or good or penal areas and other areas via the Rules of Golf and all areas of a golf course would be considered the same thing----ie your lie would just be what your lie was naturally, and the only operative RULE would be to not improve your lie thereby. In other words, touching the ground in a hazard would have no RULE consequence at all. And if that were the case, what really would be the natural difference where your ball lay? 

By the way Richard, the Sleepyhead Magnificent, that last sentence is not a rhetorical question, it's a real one!   

[Rich Goodale]

Tommy

If there were no 13-4 and you adhere to 13-2 you can't ground your club in a bunker when taking a stance as it will de facto improve (or at least change) your lie.  Same for many if not most situations regarding water hazards.

Feel free to send me the Behr material--I'm always on the lookout for cures to insomnia....

Rich

[Ken Moum]

Hmmmm...

One could only hope that the silly practice of maintaining hazards as if they were putting greens could somehow be abandoned.

But probably not.

K

[Peter Pallotta]

TE -
Maybe this: that the  removal of any legalistic/ theoretical/philosophical distinctions would eventually lead to the end of any practical/physical distinctions, and with that end to a dramatic break from the traditional forms/formulas  through which architects  over that last seven decades or so have manifested  strategic and shot testing challenges--  resulting in a new-found freedom of expression that would excite some and terrify many others,that would usher in a period of unparalled flux and experimentation (as well as, in reaction, a clamped down conservatism), and that just might lead to the creation of one or more golf courses that were both perfectly strategic and perfectly natural, the only kind of so-called 'ideal' golf course that is actually worthy of the name.
OR - someone will simply invent another rule to take its place, and everything will just carry on as always before.

Yeah - one of those two things would happen, I think.

Peter         

[Rich Goodale]

K and Peter

I think you are getting close to how Tommy might be channelling Maxie these days.  The next step after the non-maintenance of bunkers would be the elimination of all unnatural ones, which would leave most courses bunkerless, and even those where some sort of sand blowouts naturally occur with only a few.  What you would get, eventually, are a lot of areas which attract golf shots and eventually get so hacked up that they might as well be bunkers.  In fact, that's how many of today's bunkers began their life.  I get all this freedom stuff, but I'm not sure too many golfers would really want to play a lot of shots out of divot marks.  Golf as it is today is hard enough already.

I await Mr. Paul's awakening....

Rich

[Ian_L]

So a ball lost in a pond would always have to be re-hit?

[TEPaul]

kmoum:

That's the gist. At the very least the dilineation between a bunker and Through the Green would be of no importance.

[JESII]

Tom,

How would this rule change effect anything?

Maintenance expenses would still fall to the clubs decisions and the "pretty" courses would remain "pretty" and at the same expense...

[Peter Wagner]

Tom,
I'm not sure that design would change if 13-4 were removed.  Bunker conditions would certainly be worse with the 3 or 4 practice blasts before each shot.  You might as well remove all the rakes as it would be hopeless to maintain current policy.  You would have 3-4 times the sand spray on green and you would have to add replacement sand 3-4 times more often.

Bunker scoring might be worse.  The practice swings would most likely help but the 4x footprints would hurt.  Maybe a push or maybe worse.

Red-stake hazard play would be unchanged.  13-4 is completely disregarded by most golfers while in red-staked areas.  I wish I had a dollar for every time I saw a rock moved, a leaf picked up, a club grounded or a practice blast from a red-staked creek.  Most amateur players are completely unaware of 13-4 in these areas and yet even non-golfers understand it in a bunker.

- Peter

[Jason Topp]

We have many real life experiences regarding the effect of this proposed change.  Harbour Town and Kiawah are two examples where this already takes place because they designate the sand as waste areas rather than hazards.   Similarly, every desert course features areas that are not considered hazards but play similar to bunkers.  

I don't think it makes much difference in the way the game is played other than to slow it down due to a lot of practice swings and time spent removing loose impediments (Stuart Cink at Harbour Town).

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim, Peter - I must be misunderstanding the rule and/or TE's question about changing that rule.  What struck me was the potential 'symbolic' value or impact of easing/erasing an artifical line of demarcation.  Do you think I reading too much into it, or flat out getting it wrong?

Dave - I don't think I understand what you're referring to, but if you felt like riffing for a half page on the "treat like as like" idea in this context, I'd appreciate it.

Peter

[Peter Wagner]

Jim, Peter - I must be misunderstanding the rule and/or TE's question about changing that rule.  What struck me was the potential 'symbolic' value or impact of easing/erasing an artifical line of demarcation.  Do you think I reading too much into it, or flat out getting it wrong?

Dave - I don't think I understand what you're referring to, but if you felt like riffing for a half page on the "treat like as like" idea in this context, I'd appreciate it.

Peter

Peter,
No you're not getting this wrong, you are taking the longer view and you might be right.  I'm generally in agreement but my point was that this rules change would not impact design with regards to creeks, ponds, etc because for most the rule is currently ignored.  Bunker designs might be affected but I don't think greatly.

I think this idea is interesting from a psychological standpoint:  the spirit of this proposal is closer to the 'walk in the park and hit it again' mindset.  A little more natural feeling perhaps.

- Peter

[Peter Pallotta]

Peter - thanks. That's always the debate that goes on in my head on topics like these, one between the long view/theoretical idea that occurs naturally to me and the practical, on the ground, day-to-day experience of gents like you. The push-pull, chicken-and-the-egg of all that is interesting...

Peter

[Mark Bourgeois]

If I get this right, the idea is to change the gestalt of golf by removing a rule.

Fortunately for me and a legion of would-be clients who are freed to get competent counsel, I am not a lawyer but it seems to me the real problem is that the rules have altered the gestalt.

Is it fair to say that the rules system or philosophy somewhere down the line changed from a civil or code type of system (HCEG list) to more like a common law or case system, such that we've lost the forest for the trees, the branches and - G-d, to have to wade through that interminal Decisions book - all the way down to the sticks, it seems sometimes.

If so, to change / restore the gestalt, wouldn't it be necessary to change the system not a rule bound within that system?

Mark

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

We have many real life experiences regarding the effect of this proposed change.  Harbour Town and Kiawah are two examples where this already takes place because they designate the sand as waste areas rather than hazards.   Similarly, every desert course features areas that are not considered hazards but play similar to bunkers.  

I don't think it makes much difference in the way the game is played other than to slow it down due to a lot of practice swings and time spent removing loose impediments (Stuart Cink at Harbour Town).

I have to differ with you on that point.  With practice swings, the chance of hitting a better shot out of hazard than one would get out of a bunker without practice swings.  While some leave shots in the hazards, you don't get as many skulls over the greens.  And fairway hazards generally are played much better after a few swings to get prepaired.  As for loose impeds., I don't think that's much of a problem unless you get a real wanker.  The folks who spend a lot of time on that would be the ones who just about pull out a dust/vac on greens, picking up every grain of sand they see.  They're slow either way...

[TEPaul]

Peter Wagner:

I agree, if anything would be effected by the removal of 13-4 (and the ability to ground a club anywhere on a golf course) it would logically be the bunker hazard and not so much the water hazard.

Frankly, it has always sort of amused me (and confounded me) how the two "hazard" areas in golf----ie water hazards and bunkers are covered in the Rules of Golf. In other words, Water Hazards have their own Rule (#26) but bunkers technically do not have their own Rule, they just sort of piggyback along with #26 to some extent and the definition in the "Definition" section of the Rule Book as to what a "Hazard" is and also what a "Bunker" is. 

[Dave_Miller]

I'm not even going to bother mention what it is; everyone (who's not a Rules expert) will figure it out soon enough.

When anyone on here, purist and non-purist alike, realizes what such a suggestion entails I'm sure they will consider such a suggestion heretical, and perhaps it is---I admit it upfront.

But if Rule 13-4 was abolished and balls in a so-called "hazard" were treated no different from balls elsewhere (Rule 13-2 and its basic REQUIREMENT----eg do not improve your lie) just think what it could mean vis-a-vis lack of distinction and definition in golf and architecture and perhaps even a massive cost saving via a massively altered psychology.

Of course with most of what I say and do on here this observation comes from one Max Behr and his analysis of the way golf once was and the way it became and most importantly WHY!

Tommy:
Maybe I am still missing something but I don't see how the architecture would be affected. In all liklihood there would still be bunkers and at a lot of courses the members would still want them maintained.
Best
Dave

[TEPaul]

Dave:

The basic thinking is if Rule 13-4 was removed (and there would no longer be a prohibition on grounding one's club and that like everwhere else the operative prohibition (Rule 13-2) would simply be one cannot improve one's lie ) there would no longer be such a demand that the sand in bunkers be so immaculately maintained AND defined. The thinking is that it has gotten that way over time simply because one cannot touch the sand in a bunker. We certainly do know there are other areas of golf courses where one can ground one's club that are not very immaculately maintained to essentially produce a consistent lie.

[JESII]

Who's doing this thinking, Tom? I say it still comes down to a club deciding whether or not they want a finely manicured course or not...do you think Philadelphia Country Club would remove the rakes from their bunkers if rule 13-4 went away?

[TEPaul]

Dave:

For your information, in the history of the Rules of Golf it was not until 1842 (at least with the R&A) that the first prohibition against touching the sand in bunkers appeared. Before that obvously all areas of a course were treated the same in this particular context. At that time (1842) the prohibition was not that one could not touch the sand but that 'no impression' could be made.

[Dave_Miller]

Dave:

For your information, in the history of the Rules of Golf it was not until 1842 (at least with the R&A) that the first prohibition against touching the sand in bunkers appeared. Before that obvously all areas of a course were treated the same in this particular context. At that time (1842) the prohibition was not that one could not touch the sand but that 'no impression' could be made.

Tommy:
Doesn't it seem pretty clear that touching the sand in most instances would make an impression.  Regarless of the Rule I know for a fact at my Club in Florida the members would still demand the bunkers be maintained and manicured.
Best
Dave

[JohnV]

I’ve previously replied at least twice to Tom and on this site regarding his question about what would happen if bunkers were no longer considered hazards.  This thread is an attempt to eliminate the special prohibitions that bunkers and water hazards have, while not necessarily eliminating them from the rules entirely.  To me this is more of a half-baked idea than just getting rid of them entirely.

First let’s look at Rule 13-4:

13-4. Ball in Hazard; Prohibited Actions
Except as provided in the Rules, before making a stroke at a ball that is in a hazard (whether a bunker or a water hazard) or that, having been lifted from a hazard, may be dropped or placed in the hazard, the player must not:
a. Test the condition of the hazard or any similar hazard;
b. Touch the ground in the hazard or water in the water hazard with his hand or a club; or
c. Touch or move a loose impediment lying in or touching the hazard.

I didn’t show the exceptions as they would not be relevant if the rule was removed.

If you get rid of the rule what could you do that you can’t do now?
1)   Test the hazard. 
       a.   You could take a practice swing and touch the sand. 
       b.   You could rake the sand at any time if rakes were available (side note, there is some discussion that this might be allowed in 2012).
      c.   You could stick a tee in the sand right behind the ball to see how deep it was as long as you didn’t improve the lie.  (See Decision 13-2/27)

2)   Touch ground, sand or water in a bunker or water hazard as long as the lie of the ball or area of intended swing is not improved.

3)   Remove loose impediments including stones, leaves, branches etc.

4)   You could brush away a clump of sand behind your ball in making the backswing for a stroke that was completed.

5)   If the definition of addressing the ball was also changed, you could ground your club lightly behind the ball.

6)   Rule 26 would still be on the books so you would still get relief from a ball in a water hazard.

7)   If bunkers still were defined as they are today, you would not be able to escape them using obstruction relief or unplayable in any way that you couldn’t today.  If they were removed, you can get a get out of jail free (or almost free) card.

As to what it would do for architecture, I doubt much would happen.  Today’s golfers are spoiled enough to still want perfectly maintained bunkers, therefore they would still want rakes.  The one thing that might happen is that the boundaries between bunkers and the areas that are through the green could be less well defined, leading to more transition areas such as you see to the right of the 13th green at Pacific Dunes.