Rog’s Blog: Casual Water in Bunkers

 This is, arguably, the most iniquitous rule in golf!

First:

It is clear that someone has to accept responsibility for presenting the course in such a condition that the game can be played as designed and that conditions are equitable for all competitors.

While the Rules are not precise on this issue, it seems abundantly clear from the provisions of Rule 33-2 that for each competition, this body is ‘the committee’.

When it comes to the question of design, the Rules require, for example that: The putting green is an area of the course ‘… specially prepared for putting …’. In practice this means, for instance, that the surface does not have holes dug in it or is not covered by water such that the ball will not roll on the surface.  Similarly, a bunker is: ‘a prepared area of ground, often a hollow, from which turf or soil has been removed and replaced with sand or the like.’

It is the responsibility of ‘the committee’ that each of these course features comply with these requirements.

Second:

Causal water does, from time-to-time, find its way into bunkers; hence there must be relief options available.

There are two problems with the current relief provisions.

·      When a bunker contains casual water its sand is, ipso facto, wet and we all know what happens when a ball is dropped into wet sand: it becomes indented into the surface (plugged). This is a penal outcome from a ‘free drop’.

This problem would be solved by adopting the proposal to eliminate ‘dropping’ in favour of ‘placing’ (see Rog’s Blog: Time to Drop the ‘drop’).

·      When a bunker is completely full of casual water there is no place at which relief can be taken.  The bunker is no longer a ‘bunker’ as defined.

In this case, in order to continue play, the player must accept a penalty and drop outside of the bunker.

We witnessed an excellent example of these circumstances in a recent major tournament when the event descended into farce while those in charge sat on their hands and took no action to protect the integrity of the game.

So many of the bunkers became ‘unplayable’ as they were filled with water and it was painful to watch players wrestling with the prospect of dropping into, and playing from, mud or taking a penalty stroke because there was no place in the bunker to drop the ball.

This made the game look very foolish indeed.

It is clearly incumbent on ‘the committee’ to ensure that the course can be played within the Rules.  It is also clear that on this occasion this responsibility could be met by doing nothing.

Rule 25-1.b(ii)  provides a method of relief from a bunker rendered ‘unplayable’ through the presence of causal water.

This Rule states:

(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.

Why should long-suffering players be faced with no equitable relief from a course condition which does not comply with the structure or definitions of the game?

It such circumstances, the option available to a player faced with a water-filled bunker in which there is no prospect of placing in ‘maximum possible relief’ would be to either:

·      Take relief, without penalty, outside of the bunker at the nearest point of relief behind where the ball lay; or

·      Re-play the ball from the point where it was last played, without penalty.