Unplayable lie in waste bunker

[Sawgrass]

You went through the trouble of asking him what he meant, in post #47. He replied that they were indeed bunkers, gave you a description, pointed out that a local rule made them waste bunkers, then he added: "I now know they are waste areas". But he insists that they were bunkers that are no longer cared for.

 

 

 

While you correctly quote Augster, I'll point out that IMO the Rules of Golf do not respect a Local Rule which magically changes a bunker into something else. A Water Hazard is a Water Hazard, and a Bunker is a Bunker. Their status is established based on their features, they don't require markings or any other designation. A Local Rule could change a Bunker into Ground Under Repair, but that's a different thing. You can't change a Bunker into a Water Hazard just because you say so, and you can't change it into Through the Green either. (But a shovel and/or some grass can.)

 

Why can't you change a bunker into through the green? DJ got penalized when they changed a waste area into a bunker. I assume they changed it back to a waste area once the PGA tour left town.

 

A Bunker has a specific Definition. Here it is:

 

bunker" is a hazard consisting of a prepared area of ground, often a hollow, from which turf or soil has been removed and replaced with sand or the like.

 

Grass-covered ground bordering or within a bunker, including a stacked turf face (whether grass-covered or earthen), is not part of the bunker. A wall or lip of the bunker not covered with grass is part of the bunker. The margin of a bunker extends vertically downwards, but not upwards.

 

A ball is in a bunker when it lies in or any part of it touches the bunker.

 

The Committee is prohibited from making up un-authorized Local Rules:

 

33-8. Local Rules

 

a. Policy

 

 

The Committee may establish Local Rules for local abnormal conditions if they are consistent with the policy set forth in Appendix I.

 

Appendix I says nothing about declaring a bunker as something else.

 

Nevertheless, Committees are certainly free to clarify what the various features of a course are (which could be important if there's a waste area that looks something like a Bunker).

 

In DJ's case, the Tournament Committee went to the trouble to remind players in writing that everything out there that looks like a Bunker is in fact a Bunker. DJ did not take notice. AFAIK there never was nor has been a change in status regarding these bunkers.

[LeoLeo99]

You went through the trouble of asking him what he meant, in post #47. He replied that they were indeed bunkers, gave you a description, pointed out that a local rule made them waste bunkers, then he added: "I now know they are waste areas". But he insists that they were bunkers that are no longer cared for.

 

 

 

While you correctly quote Augster, I'll point out that IMO the Rules of Golf do not respect a Local Rule which magically changes a bunker into something else. A Water Hazard is a Water Hazard, and a Bunker is a Bunker. Their status is established based on their features, they don't require markings or any other designation. A Local Rule could change a Bunker into Ground Under Repair, but that's a different thing. You can't change a Bunker into a Water Hazard just because you say so, and you can't change it into Through the Green either. (But a shovel and/or some grass can.)

 

Why can't you change a bunker into through the green? DJ got penalized when they changed a waste area into a bunker. I assume they changed it back to a waste area once the PGA tour left town.

 

A Bunker has a specific Definition. Here it is:

 

bunker" is a hazard consisting of a prepared area of ground, often a hollow, from which turf or soil has been removed and replaced with sand or the like.

 

Grass-covered ground bordering or within a bunker, including a stacked turf face (whether grass-covered or earthen), is not part of the bunker. A wall or lip of the bunker not covered with grass is part of the bunker. The margin of a bunker extends vertically downwards, but not upwards.

 

A ball is in a bunker when it lies in or any part of it touches the bunker.

 

The Committee is prohibited from making up un-authorized Local Rules:

 

33-8. Local Rules

 

a. Policy

 

 

The Committee may establish Local Rules for local abnormal conditions if they are consistent with the policy set forth in Appendix I.

 

Appendix I says nothing about declaring a bunker as something else.

 

Nevertheless, Committees are certainly free to clarify what the various features of a course are (which could be important if there's a waste area that looks something like a Bunker).

 

In DJ's case, the Tournament Committee went to the trouble to remind players in writing that everything out there that looks like a Bunker is in fact a Bunker. DJ did not take notice. AFAIK there never was nor has been a change in status regarding these bunkers.

 

With all due respect, I think you're wrong on this unless I'm misunderstanding you. As in Auguster's initial question, what used to be bunkers on his course are now waste areas through the green. Are you arguing his course can't do this?

 

The rule Johnson broke—and that cost him his first major victory—was even younger than he was. Six years earlier, before the 2004 PGA Championship at Whistling Straits, PGA officials decided to classify the roughly 1,000 sandy areas on the course as bunkers, even though some resembled patches of dirt no bigger than the seat of a chair. The local rule was clearly posted in the locker room and elsewhere.

 

Therefore, these sandy patches don't meet the definition of bunker you posted.

[Sawgrass]

You went through the trouble of asking him what he meant, in post #47. He replied that they were indeed bunkers, gave you a description, pointed out that a local rule made them waste bunkers, then he added: "I now know they are waste areas". But he insists that they were bunkers that are no longer cared for.

 

 

 

While you correctly quote Augster, I'll point out that IMO the Rules of Golf do not respect a Local Rule which magically changes a bunker into something else. A Water Hazard is a Water Hazard, and a Bunker is a Bunker. Their status is established based on their features, they don't require markings or any other designation. A Local Rule could change a Bunker into Ground Under Repair, but that's a different thing. You can't change a Bunker into a Water Hazard just because you say so, and you can't change it into Through the Green either. (But a shovel and/or some grass can.)

 

Why can't you change a bunker into through the green? DJ got penalized when they changed a waste area into a bunker. I assume they changed it back to a waste area once the PGA tour left town.

 

A Bunker has a specific Definition. Here it is:

 

bunker" is a hazard consisting of a prepared area of ground, often a hollow, from which turf or soil has been removed and replaced with sand or the like.

 

Grass-covered ground bordering or within a bunker, including a stacked turf face (whether grass-covered or earthen), is not part of the bunker. A wall or lip of the bunker not covered with grass is part of the bunker. The margin of a bunker extends vertically downwards, but not upwards.

 

A ball is in a bunker when it lies in or any part of it touches the bunker.

 

The Committee is prohibited from making up un-authorized Local Rules:

 

33-8. Local Rules

 

a. Policy

 

 

The Committee may establish Local Rules for local abnormal conditions if they are consistent with the policy set forth in Appendix I.

 

Appendix I says nothing about declaring a bunker as something else.

 

Nevertheless, Committees are certainly free to clarify what the various features of a course are (which could be important if there's a waste area that looks something like a Bunker).

 

In DJ's case, the Tournament Committee went to the trouble to remind players in writing that everything out there that looks like a Bunker is in fact a Bunker. DJ did not take notice. AFAIK there never was nor has been a change in status regarding these bunkers.

 

With all due respect, I think you're wrong on this unless I'm misunderstanding you. As in Auguster's initial question, what used to be bunkers on his course are now waste areas through the green. Are you arguing his course can't do this?

 

The rule Johnson broke—and that cost him his first major victory—was even younger than he was. Six years earlier, before the 2004 PGA Championship at Whistling Straits, PGA officials decided to classify the roughly 1,000 sandy areas on the course as bunkers, even though some resembled patches of dirt no bigger than the seat of a chair. The local rule was clearly posted in the locker room and elsewhere.

 

Therefore, these sandy patches don't meet the definition of bunker you posted.

 

I acknowledge that there can be confusion as to what's a Bunker and what's a waste area. And I applaud any Committee on making the proper understanding clear. Nevertheless I'm saying that a Committee may not simply declare that which meets the definition of a Bunker to be something other than a Bunker. That's what seems to have taken place at Augster's course, and over which thousands of electrons have lost their lives in the course of this thread.

 

"Oh, the Electricity!"

[Sawgrass]

You went through the trouble of asking him what he meant, in post #47. He replied that they were indeed bunkers, gave you a description, pointed out that a local rule made them waste bunkers, then he added: "I now know they are waste areas". But he insists that they were bunkers that are no longer cared for.

 

 

 

While you correctly quote Augster, I'll point out that IMO the Rules of Golf do not respect a Local Rule which magically changes a bunker into something else. A Water Hazard is a Water Hazard, and a Bunker is a Bunker. Their status is established based on their features, they don't require markings or any other designation. A Local Rule could change a Bunker into Ground Under Repair, but that's a different thing. You can't change a Bunker into a Water Hazard just because you say so, and you can't change it into Through the Green either. (But a shovel and/or some grass can.)

 

Why can't you change a bunker into through the green? DJ got penalized when they changed a waste area into a bunker. I assume they changed it back to a waste area once the PGA tour left town.

 

A Bunker has a specific Definition. Here it is:

 

bunker" is a hazard consisting of a prepared area of ground, often a hollow, from which turf or soil has been removed and replaced with sand or the like.

 

Grass-covered ground bordering or within a bunker, including a stacked turf face (whether grass-covered or earthen), is not part of the bunker. A wall or lip of the bunker not covered with grass is part of the bunker. The margin of a bunker extends vertically downwards, but not upwards.

 

A ball is in a bunker when it lies in or any part of it touches the bunker.

 

The Committee is prohibited from making up un-authorized Local Rules:

 

33-8. Local Rules

 

a. Policy

 

 

The Committee may establish Local Rules for local abnormal conditions if they are consistent with the policy set forth in Appendix I.

 

Appendix I says nothing about declaring a bunker as something else.

 

Nevertheless, Committees are certainly free to clarify what the various features of a course are (which could be important if there's a waste area that looks something like a Bunker).

 

In DJ's case, the Tournament Committee went to the trouble to remind players in writing that everything out there that looks like a Bunker is in fact a Bunker. DJ did not take notice. AFAIK there never was nor has been a change in status regarding these bunkers.

 

With all due respect, I think you're wrong on this unless I'm misunderstanding you. As in Auguster's initial question, what used to be bunkers on his course are now waste areas through the green. Are you arguing his course can't do this?

 

The rule Johnson broke—and that cost him his first major victory—was even younger than he was. Six years earlier, before the 2004 PGA Championship at Whistling Straits, PGA officials decided to classify the roughly 1,000 sandy areas on the course as bunkers, even though some resembled patches of dirt no bigger than the seat of a chair. The local rule was clearly posted in the locker room and elsewhere.

 

Therefore, these sandy patches don't meet the definition of bunker you posted.

 

Also, I'm interested in better understanding why you think the features on that course don't meet the definition of a Bunker. The size ("no bigger than the seat of a chair") certainly isn't at issue.

[LeoLeo99]

bunker" is a hazard consisting of a prepared area of ground, often a hollow, from which turf or soil has been removed and replaced with sand or the like.

 

I've never played Whistling Straits but from what I understand, the areas declared by local rule to be bunkers were not prepared or had any soil removed. They were just natural areas that lacked grass. Therefore, I concluded they don't meet the prima facie definition of a bunker. Also, I read that these areas are treated as through the green at Whistling Staits except for when the PGA is played there.

[Sawgrass]

bunker" is a hazard consisting of a prepared area of ground, often a hollow, from which turf or soil has been removed and replaced with sand or the like.

 

I've never played Whistling Straits but from what I understand, the areas declared by local rule to be bunkers were not prepared or had any soil removed. They were just natural areas that lacked grass. Therefore, I concluded they don't meet the prima facie definition of a bunker. Also, I read that these areas are treated as through the green at Whistling Staits except for when the PGA is played there.

Thank you. While I can't claim any credible knowledge about this, I'm stumped (and skeptical) as to how a Committee can define an area that's not a bunker as being a bunker. Taken to the extreme, could they therefore declare anything to be a Bunker? A patch of grass (which by Bunker definition is clearly not)? IMO, if "sand or the like" was never placed there, it should not be a Bunker.

[Colin L]

bunker" is a hazard consisting of a prepared area of ground, often a hollow, from which turf or soil has been removed and replaced with sand or the like.

 

I've never played Whistling Straits but from what I understand, the areas declared by local rule to be bunkers were not prepared or had any soil removed. They were just natural areas that lacked grass. Therefore, I concluded they don't meet the prima facie definition of a bunker. Also, I read that these areas are treated as through the green at Whistling Staits except for when the PGA is played there.

Thank you. While I can't claim any credible knowledge about this, I'm stumped (and skeptical) as to how a Committee can define an area that's not a bunker as being a bunker. Taken to the extreme, could they therefore declare anything to be a Bunker? A patch of grass (which by Bunker definition is clearly not)? IMO, if "sand or the like" was never placed there, it should not be a Bunker.

 

Just a wee quibble. On many links courses you just have to dig out a hollow and you have a bunker, there being sand under the (often thin) grass cover.

[North Butte]

One of the clubs of which I am a member has them everywhere. Thing Pinehurst #2 but less manicured.

 

Our preferred term for those areas is "The S---".

[Argonne69]

bunker" is a hazard consisting of a prepared area of ground, often a hollow, from which turf or soil has been removed and replaced with sand or the like.

 

I've never played Whistling Straits but from what I understand, the areas declared by local rule to be bunkers were not prepared or had any soil removed. They were just natural areas that lacked grass. Therefore, I concluded they don't meet the prima facie definition of a bunker. Also, I read that these areas are treated as through the green at Whistling Staits except for when the PGA is played there.

 

Whistling Straits is 100% man-made. It was a flat cow pasture before they trucked in the sand. 'Nothing natural about it.

[mdgboxx]

I went back in the thread, and found that I did reply on page two, post #52.

 

 

What you haven't done is comment on the fact that the articles do not identify 'abandoned bunkers' specifically or separately from waste areas in general and more significantly that the words are generally and mistakenly interchangeable .

 

 

"A waste bunker, also called a waste area, is ...."

 

"Some of the top golfers in the world have been unable to distinguish between sand (sic) bunkers and waste areas, also known as waste bunkers."

 

 

The last one is of course very confusing. If they are not designed to match the definition, the word bunker is simply wrong.

 

"Waste bunkers are a very common feature with Donald Ross designs and many desert courses in the Southwest United States"

 

That's my whole point from the very beginning.

 

You prefer abandoned while I suggest waste. No argument there, since we agree that it is still a Bunker. A precise location on the course that was dug out to a certain predetermined depth, partially filled with sand.

 

A waste area, however is said to be a natural phenomenon to which anything else of a natural nature could be added. I'll go as far as suggest that some Donald Ross' waste area are tended to by the grounds crew. I could be wrong, but judging by some of the pictures that I've seen of them, they seem to be manicured, unless of course, they are not at the mercy of the elements and/or patrons.

 

It is also said in the links that you provided, that a waste area is usually a wide surface, which brings up my next question. Is a small waste area larger than a, what is considered to be, a large bunker? Interesting indeed!

 

IMHO, that is where the difference lies. A bunker is hand made, where a waste area is not...Groomed to perfection, maybe, but not hand made where it meets the strict definition and restrictions of the RoG.

 

The Bunker is defined in RoG because it is covered by a specific Rule. R13-4

 

Through the Green, is anywhere on the course in general, where the Committee may apply a, not so temporary, Local Rule, providing it doesn't conflict with those of RoG.

 

My goal, in this discussion, is to suggest that a Waste Bunker becomes a/the reference to a Bunker, defined in RoG and covered by R13-4, when the Rule is no longer applied. In the same manner as Fairway and Rough, which are played as/under the definition of Through the Green.

 

The Bunker by definition, loses it's identity when R13-4 is substituted by Through the Green.

 

When we see yellow stakes, we all know that we must keep the Hazard between our ball and the intended target on your next stroke. I've heard the term "Carry Over" used with surprising regularity...Yet, it could also refer to clearing a canyon. There's no confusion there, is there? I'm not absolutely positive, but I think I've seen the Term "Carry Over" in the form of a question in the Decisions Bible (See? A Bible is less negotiable than a book) ...I know: DECISIONS on the Rules of Golf.

[North Butte]

In the end, the difference between a hazard and a similar-looking area that is not a hazard comes down to designation by the committee. The Ocean Course at Kiawah has certain areas that have been treated as hazards (bunkers) or not in various tournaments at the whim of the organization putting on the tournament.

[Halebopp]

Then I chimed in, wondering why the term "Waste Bunker" wasn't mentioned anywhere in the Golf literature, even though in is a widely used expression, since for ever, all over the planet.

 

 

That's a bold statement. I for one hadn't heard of a "waste bunker" before this thread. I had heard of waste areas before though.

 

In case a course has old bunkers that are now waste areas, why can't they make them bunkers again, state such areas on the scorecard/local rules, mark the areas as GUR or cover the areas with grass and be done with it? If the course isn't bothered to do any of those things, it doesn't seem like it's the Rules of Golf that should be accommodating them creating new problems with terminology and adding new rules for everyone else.

 

That's a mistake on my part. We did our best to keep it from you, specifically. Wait, you're here since 2012 with 1500+ posts to your credit...Allow me to cast a shadow of doubt over your bolder statement.

 

FWIW, I suggested earlier in this thread that they (such Bunkers) would be marked as GUR, but that didn't go over so well either. But, it seems that they, whomever "they" are, actually want you to play from them. So, I suggested that it is given a name/term. Waste Bunker

 

Where do you get the notion that it would create a problem with terminology? IMHO, it would eliminate most of it's confusion.

 

EDITED TO ADD:

Please disregard my casting a shadow of a doubt. In post #29, you clearly contradict yourself.

 

Posted 05 February 2017 - 08:56 AM

 

Stuart G., on 05 February 2017 - 08:42 AM, said:

 

It doesn't appear to be on their site any more, but back in 2009, the USGA put out an article on the "Top 10 Misused Terms in Golf". I believe "Waste Bunker" was #7.

Here you go: http://www.barryrhod...ms-in-golf.html

 

I can only assume you base your claim of contradiction on me posting that link (as there isn't much else to it). I googled it as I got curious about the subject of mis-used terms.

 

As for GUR, I would agree it shouldn't be one but it's still an option. I can't recall what they've said but an "abandoned" bunker isn't under repair or just momentarily in a bad shape, thus it shouldn't be marked as one.

 

If you call it waste bunker, people will make a connection with the defined term bunker and go with that. It is much easier for the course to do something about it than to create a new definition, the name of which overlaps with another definition and rules wise isn't any different from through the green. One example of confusion are water hazards and lateral water hazards. Actually it's exactly the same as both of their names end with "water hazard" but they're different. Pretty much every course has both of them yet people are quite often confused about what they can or can't do. My opinion is that a big reason for that is the fact that LWHs have more relief options available and people think they have the two club lengths even with WHs or can play from the green side if the ball rolled back into the WH.

 

As for how much waste bunkers are discussed here, according to Google, it has seen very little use since 2012, mostly on some travel and course review threads - which I don't visit for obvious reasons. :)

 

https://www.google.fi/search?q=%22waste+bunker%22+site%3Agolfwrx.com&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=638&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A2012%2Ccd_max%3A&tbm=#q=%22waste+bunker%22+site:golfwrx.com&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:2012&start=0

[QEight]

So how long does it take for a "prepared area" to turn into waste?

[LeoLeo99]

So how long does it take for a "prepared area" to turn into waste?

 

As soon as the committee issues their edict.

[North Butte]

There are plenty of courses with water "hazards" marked out, especially of the lateral red-stake variety, in areas which have actual water in them approximately as often as the fairways have puddles and the bunkers are flooded. My home course has some washed out areas that carry rivulets of water during heavy downpours but are dry by the next day. They are red-staked and treated as hazards.

 

Just like a low area that tends to flood is or isn't a water "hazard" on an entirely arbitrary basis, the same is true of prepared sandy areas that are or aren't bunker "hazards".

 

I don't know of any reason in principle that a disused sand trap which has been grassed over could not continue to be designated as a bunker "hazard" just as it was when filled with sand.

[Sawgrass]

bunker" is a hazard consisting of a prepared area of ground, often a hollow, from which turf or soil has been removed and replaced with sand or the like.

 

I've never played Whistling Straits but from what I understand, the areas declared by local rule to be bunkers were not prepared or had any soil removed. They were just natural areas that lacked grass. Therefore, I concluded they don't meet the prima facie definition of a bunker. Also, I read that these areas are treated as through the green at Whistling Staits except for when the PGA is played there.

Thank you. While I can't claim any credible knowledge about this, I'm stumped (and skeptical) as to how a Committee can define an area that's not a bunker as being a bunker. Taken to the extreme, could they therefore declare anything to be a Bunker? A patch of grass (which by Bunker definition is clearly not)? IMO, if "sand or the like" was never placed there, it should not be a Bunker.

 

Just a wee quibble. On many links courses you just have to dig out a hollow and you have a bunker, there being sand under the (often thin) grass cover.

Your point certainly makes sense. After all, how are we to know whether the sand was there to begin with or applied. But oddly, the Definition of Bunker seems to suggest it must be applied in this segment:

 

A "bunker" is a hazard consisting of a prepared area of ground, often a hollow, from which turf or soil has been removed and replaced with sand or the like.

[Sawgrass]

 

 

I don't know of any reason in principle that a disused sand trap which has been grassed over could not continue to be designated as a bunker "hazard" just as it was when filled with sand.

 

This segment of the definition of Bunker tells us that grass within a bunker is not part of a bunker, so a bunker grassed over can not be a bunker:

 

Grass-covered ground bordering or within a bunker, including a stacked turf face (whether grass-covered or earthen), is not part of the bunker. A wall or lip of the bunker not covered with grass is part of the bunker. The margin of a bunker extends vertically downwards, but not upwards.

[North Butte]

Yeah, I guess it would never fly even if someone was bloody-minded enough to want to deem a grassed-over bunker a hazard.

 

The course I learned to play golf on 20+ years ago has suffered greatly over the years. Last time I was there, only one bunker on the entire 27 holes still had "prepared" sand in it. It was kind of funny that dozens of bunkers all over the property were hardpan that has volunteer grass and weeds growing through the cracks but on the 9th hole there's this one lovely bunker full of white sand. Sort of sticks out oddly but it's a downhill theoretically drivable Par 4 so they probably keep sand in the fronting bunker just to keep people from trying to run the ball up on the green.

 

Back when I played there the sand was often missing from quite a few of the bunkers and they used to put it on the rules sheet for the club championship something to the effect of "A bunker is still a bunker even if the sand is mostly gone". Oh well, it was all the golf I could play for 60 bucks a month!

[mdgboxx]

You went through the trouble of asking him what he meant, in post #47. He replied that they were indeed bunkers, gave you a description, pointed out that a local rule made them waste bunkers, then he added: "I now know they are waste areas". But he insists that they were bunkers that are no longer cared for.

 

 

 

While you correctly quote Augster, I'll point out that IMO the Rules of Golf do not respect a Local Rule which magically changes a bunker into something else. A Water Hazard is a Water Hazard, and a Bunker is a Bunker. Their status is established based on their features, they don't require markings or any other designation. A Local Rule could change a Bunker into Ground Under Repair, but that's a different thing. You can't change a Bunker into a Water Hazard just because you say so, and you can't change it into Through the Green either. (But a shovel and/or some grass can.)

 

Agreed

 

My intention is not, and never was to change the RoG definition a Bunker. I'm actually defending it's status, this one specifically, BECAUSE it retains all of it's features. But, R13-4 is not applied, as decided by the Committee, when the front office interrupted it's daily upkeep.

[DavePelz4]

Per the rules of golf, it's impossible to make a birdie from a waste bunker as neither of those exist in the terms and definitions.

[Sawgrass]

You went through the trouble of asking him what he meant, in post #47. He replied that they were indeed bunkers, gave you a description, pointed out that a local rule made them waste bunkers, then he added: "I now know they are waste areas". But he insists that they were bunkers that are no longer cared for.

 

 

 

While you correctly quote Augster, I'll point out that IMO the Rules of Golf do not respect a Local Rule which magically changes a bunker into something else. A Water Hazard is a Water Hazard, and a Bunker is a Bunker. Their status is established based on their features, they don't require markings or any other designation. A Local Rule could change a Bunker into Ground Under Repair, but that's a different thing. You can't change a Bunker into a Water Hazard just because you say so, and you can't change it into Through the Green either. (But a shovel and/or some grass can.)

 

Agreed

 

My intention is not, and never was to change the RoG definition a Bunker. I'm actually defending it's status, this one specifically, BECAUSE it retains all of it's features. But, R13-4 is not applied, as decided by the Committee, when the front office interrupted it's daily upkeep.

 

We don't need anything more than a Committee which follows the Rules of Golf. They need to do something way more dramatic than interrupt upkeep to legally distract a player from applying 13-4.

[North Butte]

Per the rules of golf, it's impossible to make a birdie from a waste bunker as neither of those exist in the terms and definitions.

 

Well looking on the bright side, the Rules of Golf don't say you CAN'T make a birdie from a waste bunker. If it's not explicitly allowed then it's OK, right?

 

There's a fairway bunker on an uphill long Par 4 at my home course. The green is pretty fundamentally unreachable because the bunker's pretty deep (maybe 4-5 feet?) and over 200 yards uphill to the green. Then there's another bunker in front of the green. So unless you can hit it off sand, get it up quickly and fly it effectively nearly 200 yards up a 20-foot hill then you gotta just lay up.

 

One time I was in there and my partner said "Think you can make Birdie from there?". I said, "I sure hope so, I've never birdied this hole in my life".

[mdgboxx]

You went through the trouble of asking him what he meant, in post #47. He replied that they were indeed bunkers, gave you a description, pointed out that a local rule made them waste bunkers, then he added: "I now know they are waste areas". But he insists that they were bunkers that are no longer cared for.

 

 

 

While you correctly quote Augster, I'll point out that IMO the Rules of Golf do not respect a Local Rule which magically changes a bunker into something else. A Water Hazard is a Water Hazard, and a Bunker is a Bunker. Their status is established based on their features, they don't require markings or any other designation. A Local Rule could change a Bunker into Ground Under Repair, but that's a different thing. You can't change a Bunker into a Water Hazard just because you say so, and you can't change it into Through the Green either. (But a shovel and/or some grass can.)

 

I think we're all just being had! It's cold and dark in Montreal and ESL isn't helping either. :swoon:

 

A troller ( :fishing1: ) would have run out of breath long before I will...So, no.

[DavePelz4]

Per the rules of golf, it's impossible to make a birdie from a waste bunker as neither of those exist in the terms and definitions.

 

Well looking on the bright side, the Rules of Golf don't say you CAN'T make a birdie from a waste bunker. If it's not explicitly allowed then it's OK, right?

 

There's a fairway bunker on an uphill long Par 4 at my home course. The green is pretty fundamentally unreachable because the bunker's pretty deep (maybe 4-5 feet?) and over 200 yards uphill to the green. Then there's another bunker in front of the green. So unless you can hit it off sand, get it up quickly and fly it effectively nearly 200 yards up a 20-foot hill then you gotta just lay up.

 

One time I was in there and my partner said "Think you can make Birdie from there?". I said, "I sure hope so, I've never birdied this hole in my life".

 

Since neither term is in the rules of golf, such a result does not exist. You can make 1 less than par from an area considered through the green...or 1 under par from a bunker in the fairway, etc.

[mdgboxx]

If nobody responds, maybe this dead horse will be carted off to the glue factory.

 

I made that suggestion last night, (#77) today I regret it. Although I have this yucky feeling that we're close. :cheesy:

[mdgboxx]

 

 

Why can't you change a bunker into through the green? DJ got penalized when they changed a waste area into a bunker. I assume they changed it back to a waste area once the PGA tour left town.

 

A Bunker has a specific Definition. Here it is:

 

bunker" is a hazard consisting of a prepared area of ground, often a hollow, from which turf or soil has been removed and replaced with sand or the like.

 

Grass-covered ground bordering or within a bunker, including a stacked turf face (whether grass-covered or earthen), is not part of the bunker. A wall or lip of the bunker not covered with grass is part of the bunker. The margin of a bunker extends vertically downwards, but not upwards.

 

A ball is in a bunker when it lies in or any part of it touches the bunker.

 

The Committee is prohibited from making up un-authorized Local Rules:

 

33-8. Local Rules

 

a. Policy

 

 

The Committee may establish Local Rules for local abnormal conditions if they are consistent with the policy set forth in Appendix I.

 

Appendix I says nothing about declaring a bunker as something else.

 

Nevertheless, Committees are certainly free to clarify what the various features of a course are (which could be important if there's a waste area that looks something like a Bunker).

 

In DJ's case, the Tournament Committee went to the trouble to remind players in writing that everything out there that looks like a Bunker is in fact a Bunker. DJ did not take notice. AFAIK there never was nor has been a change in status regarding these bunkers.

 

With all due respect, I think you're wrong on this unless I'm misunderstanding you. As in Auguster's initial question, what used to be bunkers on his course are now waste areas through the green. Are you arguing his course can't do this?

 

The rule Johnson broke—and that cost him his first major victory—was even younger than he was. Six years earlier, before the 2004 PGA Championship at Whistling Straits, PGA officials decided to classify the roughly 1,000 sandy areas on the course as bunkers, even though some resembled patches of dirt no bigger than the seat of a chair. The local rule was clearly posted in the locker room and elsewhere.

 

Therefore, these sandy patches don't meet the definition of bunker you posted.

 

I acknowledge that there can be confusion as to what's a Bunker and what's a waste area. And I applaud any Committee on making the proper understanding clear. Nevertheless I'm saying that a Committee may not simply declare that which meets the definition of a Bunker to be something other than a Bunker. That's what seems to have taken place at Augster's course, and over which thousands of electrons have lost their lives in the course of this thread.

 

"Oh, the Electricity!"

 

We almost all agree that it is a waste "something". This is precisely why I am burning so much energy to maintain it's status as a Bunker.

A Bunker that is not played under the Hazard Rule, but a Bunker nonetheless.

 

As worthless as it may seem to most, IMHO, it should be referenced as a Waste Bunker if only to reduce the amount of confusion that's been growing over time. We can call it whatever else, as long as it's still a Bunker.

[mdgboxx]

Then I chimed in, wondering why the term "Waste Bunker" wasn't mentioned anywhere in the Golf literature, even though in is a widely used expression, since for ever, all over the planet.

 

 

That's a bold statement. I for one hadn't heard of a "waste bunker" before this thread. I had heard of waste areas before though.

 

In case a course has old bunkers that are now waste areas, why can't they make them bunkers again, state such areas on the scorecard/local rules, mark the areas as GUR or cover the areas with grass and be done with it? If the course isn't bothered to do any of those things, it doesn't seem like it's the Rules of Golf that should be accommodating them creating new problems with terminology and adding new rules for everyone else.

 

That's a mistake on my part. We did our best to keep it from you, specifically. Wait, you're here since 2012 with 1500+ posts to your credit...Allow me to cast a shadow of doubt over your bolder statement.

 

FWIW, I suggested earlier in this thread that they (such Bunkers) would be marked as GUR, but that didn't go over so well either. But, it seems that they, whomever "they" are, actually want you to play from them. So, I suggested that it is given a name/term. Waste Bunker

 

Where do you get the notion that it would create a problem with terminology? IMHO, it would eliminate most of it's confusion.

 

EDITED TO ADD:

Please disregard my casting a shadow of a doubt. In post #29, you clearly contradict yourself.

 

Posted 05 February 2017 - 08:56 AM

 

Stuart G., on 05 February 2017 - 08:42 AM, said:

 

It doesn't appear to be on their site any more, but back in 2009, the USGA put out an article on the "Top 10 Misused Terms in Golf". I believe "Waste Bunker" was #7.

Here you go: http://www.barryrhod...ms-in-golf.html

 

1) I can only assume you base your claim of contradiction on me posting that link (as there isn't much else to it). I googled it as I got curious about the subject of mis-used terms.

 

2) As for GUR, I would agree it shouldn't be one but it's still an option. I can't recall what they've said but an "abandoned" bunker isn't under repair or just momentarily in a bad shape, thus it shouldn't be marked as one.

 

3) If you call it waste bunker, people will make a connection with the defined term bunker and go with that. It is much easier for the course to do something about it than to create a new definition, the name of which overlaps with another definition and rules wise isn't any different from through the green. One example of confusion are water hazards and lateral water hazards. Actually it's exactly the same as both of their names end with "water hazard" but they're different. Pretty much every course has both of them yet people are quite often confused about what they can or can't do. My opinion is that a big reason for that is the fact that LWHs have more relief options available and people think they have the two club lengths even with WHs or can play from the green side if the ball rolled back into the WH.

 

4) As for how much waste bunkers are discussed here, according to Google, it has seen very little use since 2012, mostly on some travel and course review threads - which I don't visit for obvious reasons. :)

 

https://www.google.f...in:2012&start=0

 

1) You assumed right. Scratch the Disregard, and I am keeping my shadow of doubt

 

2) "Abandoned" means exactly that. I'm thinking more Long Term than momentary.

 

3) Again with the K or VC notion of what "people" will do. Now, you're trolling, IMO.

If only out of curiosity, any newby will ask the difference btw Yellow, Red and White stakes as they come across them. No confusion, none at all.

 

4) What's obvious to me, is that you ignore the presence of the GolfWRX search window, clearly indicated at the top of every single GolfWRX page.

[mdgboxx]

So how long does it take for a "prepared area" to turn into waste?

 

As long as it takes! :rofl:

 

Feeling better? IIRC, you were sad last night...Devastated even.

[mdgboxx]

You went through the trouble of asking him what he meant, in post #47. He replied that they were indeed bunkers, gave you a description, pointed out that a local rule made them waste bunkers, then he added: "I now know they are waste areas". But he insists that they were bunkers that are no longer cared for.

 

 

 

While you correctly quote Augster, I'll point out that IMO the Rules of Golf do not respect a Local Rule which magically changes a bunker into something else. A Water Hazard is a Water Hazard, and a Bunker is a Bunker. Their status is established based on their features, they don't require markings or any other designation. A Local Rule could change a Bunker into Ground Under Repair, but that's a different thing. You can't change a Bunker into a Water Hazard just because you say so, and you can't change it into Through the Green either. (But a shovel and/or some grass can.)

 

Agreed

 

My intention is not, and never was to change the RoG definition a Bunker. I'm actually defending it's status, this one specifically, BECAUSE it retains all of it's features. But, R13-4 is not applied, as decided by the Committee, when the front office interrupted it's daily upkeep.

 

We don't need anything more than a Committee which follows the Rules of Golf. They need to do something way more dramatic than interrupt upkeep to legally distract a player from applying 13-4.

 

Yes, something as dramatic as the patrons threatening to take their business elsewhere because some of their Bunkers have become clearly unplayable within the Rules.

[Colin L]

 

We almost all agree that it is a waste "something". This is precisely why I am burning so much energy to maintain it's status as a Bunker.

A Bunker that is not played under the Hazard Rule, but a Bunker nonetheless.

 

To be blunt. As long as you persist in this fundamental error despite everything that has been said by a number of well qualified contributors, your understanding of the matter is stuck.