PGA Tour Local Rule for Bunker Liners

[Almostscratchonce]

Was happy to read this morning that PGA Tour is imposing a L.R. that prohibits relief from a liner interfering with a player's stance. Hoffman & Grace will need to find another way to bend rules to their advantage.

 

Might this be the first step in bifurcation & hopefully address the distance/equipment issue?

[Newby]

How is this bifurcation? The liner is by definition an immovable obstruction but any committee may deem it to be an immovable integral part of the course.

The Rule applies universally. The distance equipment Local Rule option is available to all and everyone.

[Almostscratchonce]

I was referring to limiting the distance of the ball & equipment, not distance measurement devices.

 

From the article I read:

 

On the “hard card” rules sheet distributed to players at this week’s Farmers Insurance Open and at all Tour stops, the committee has instituted local rules that now permit “ a drop only if a player’s swing path is impacted by a

rogue liner.

“The Rules Committee may deem an exposed liner ground under repair. However, interference by a liner with a player’s stance is deemed not to be, of itself, interference under Rule 25-1.”

Wouldn't a local rule that departs from the USGA's stance be defined as bifurcation?

[LeoLeo99]

Was happy to read this morning that PGA Tour is imposing a L.R. that prohibits relief from a liner interfering with a player's stance. Hoffman & Grace will need to find another way to bend rules to their advantage.

 

Might this be the first step in bifurcation & hopefully address the distance/equipment issue?

 

"bifurcation" gets some folks in a tizzy. The groove rule was already a step towards bifurcation.

[Newby]

From the article I read:

 

On the “hard card” rules sheet distributed to players at this week’s Farmers Insurance Open and at all Tour stops, the committee has instituted local rules that now permit “ a drop only if a player’s swing path is impacted by a

rogue liner.

“The Rules Committee may deem an exposed liner ground under repair. However, interference by a liner with a player’s stance is deemed not to be, of itself, interference under Rule 25-1.”

Wouldn't a local rule that departs from the USGA's stance be defined as bifurcation?

 

There is no departure from the USGA's 'stance'. The Rules specifically allow it. So no bifurcation.

 

The Definition of GUR says the Committee may declare anything to be GUR (ie an Abnormal Green Condition). The note to 25-1a authorises the last sentence.

 

Rule 25-1a

Note: The Committee may make a Local Rule stating that interference by an abnormal ground condition with a player's stance is deemed not to be, of itself, interference under this Rule

[Newby]

"bifurcation" gets some folks in a tizzy. The groove rule was already a step towards bifurcation.

The last and only.

[Sawgrass]

"bifurcation" gets some folks in a tizzy. The groove rule was already a step towards bifurcation.

The last and only.

 

I think calling the groove rule "bifurcation" is a distortion of the term. It typically means different rules for pros and amateurs. But the groove rule is simply a Condition of Competition -- and while I suppose you can call the enactment of any optional C of C a bifurcation (the one ball rule, for example) it still falls within the overall single set of Rules.

 

Distorted further, you could say that any enacted Local Rule produces bifurcation. I'm sure that there are thousands of combinations of Local Rules and C of Cs. What's the word for "thousands-furcation"?

[Newby]

The Brandon Grace issue comes to mind.

[SNIPERBBB]

How is this bifurcation? The liner is by definition an immovable obstruction but any committee may deem it to be an immovable part of the course.

The Rule applies universally. The distance equipment Local Rule option is available to all and everyone.

 

You meant intergral part of the course, of course?

[Newby]

How is this bifurcation? The liner is by definition an immovable obstruction but any committee may deem it to be an immovable part of the course.

The Rule applies universally. The distance equipment Local Rule option is available to all and everyone.

 

You meant intergral part of the course, of course?

 

Oops. I do of course.

Now fixed.

[raynorfan1]

So the liners are both integral parts of the course AND abnormal ground conditions, simultaneously...that takes some mental gymnastics, but I suppose it solved the issue within the existing rules.

[Sawgrass]

So the liners are both integral parts of the course AND abnormal ground conditions, simultaneously...that takes some mental gymnastics, but I suppose it solved the issue within the existing rules.

Any construction so declared is an "integral part of the course." But a liner, being made from artificial material, is otherwise an obstruction, not an abnormal ground condition.

[rogolf]

I'm fairly certain that the PGATour did their homework and confirmed with the USGA that their Local Rule was in conformance with the Rules of golf. It's a unique solution to prevent players from "gaming" the Rules when faced with a tough situation.

[Newby]

I'm sure you are right but IMO they didn't really have to.

The definition of GUR gives them all the authority they needed.

[Sawgrass]

I'm sure you are right but IMO they didn't really have to.

The definition of GUR gives them all the authority they needed.

The GUR definition? Really?

[Newby]

I'm sure you are right but IMO they didn't really have to.

The definition of GUR gives them all the authority they needed.

The GUR definition? Really?

 

Yes. Read post #5 again. Or even the Definition itself.

[HitEmTrue]

I'm sure you are right but IMO they didn't really have to.

The definition of GUR gives them all the authority they needed.

The GUR definition? Really?

 

Yes. Read post #5 again. Or even the Definition itself.

 

Not real sure where you are going with this.

 

The committee would declare all bunkers as GUR? And then say that players can’t get relief if the liner (actually, the bunker itself) interferes with the stance? What about the golf ball that is now sitting in GUR?

 

[rogolf]

I'm sure you are right but IMO they didn't really have to.

The definition of GUR gives them all the authority they needed.

The GUR definition? Really?

 

Yes. Read post #5 again. Or even the Definition itself.

 

Not real sure where you are going with this.

 

The committee would declare all bunkers as GUR? And then say that players can't get relief if the liner (actually, the bunker itself) interferes with the stance? What about the golf ball that is now sitting in GUR?

Not real sure you read the original post correctly.

The PGATour Local Rule defines a LINER in the bunker to be GUR, not the entire bunker, with no relief for interference with the stance only.

[Sawgrass]

I'm sure you are right but IMO they didn't really have to.

The definition of GUR gives them all the authority they needed.

The GUR definition? Really?

 

Yes. Read post #5 again. Or even the Definition itself.

 

Not real sure where you are going with this.

 

The committee would declare all bunkers as GUR? And then say that players can't get relief if the liner (actually, the bunker itself) interferes with the stance? What about the golf ball that is now sitting in GUR?

Not real sure you read the original post correctly.

The PGATour Local Rule defines a LINER in the bunker to be GUR, not the entire bunker, with no relief for interference with the stance only.

Of course the committee can declare anything it wants as GUR, but IMO it's cleaner to call all the liners integral parts of the course.

[Newby]

Of course the committee can declare anything it wants as GUR, but IMO it's cleaner to call all the liners integral parts of the course.

If the liner is an IPC, then the player would get no relief for a ball sitting on an exposed liner or under an exposed part of a torn liner

[raynorfan1]

Of course the committee can declare anything it wants as GUR, but IMO it's cleaner to call all the liners integral parts of the course.

If the liner is an IPC, then the player would get no relief for a ball sitting on an exposed liner or under an exposed part of a torn liner

 

Don't they have to do both?

 

If it's not an IPC, it's an immovable obstruction. And if it's an immovable obstruction, it can't be GUR, no?

 

So don't you have to first declare it an IPC, so that if your stance is impacted by it, you don't get relief. And then declare exposed liners GUR, with no stance relief?

 

You've got to make it ground before you can put it under repair.

[sui generis]

This may be the new addition to the PGA Tour hard card:

 

“The Rules Committee may deem an exposed liner ground under repair. However, interference by a liner with a player’s stance is deemed not to be, of itself, interference under Rule 25-1.”

[Newby]

Of course the committee can declare anything it wants as GUR, but IMO it's cleaner to call all the liners integral parts of the course.

If the liner is an IPC, then the player would get no relief for a ball sitting on an exposed liner or under an exposed part of a torn liner

 

Don't they have to do both?

 

If it's not an IPC, it's an immovable obstruction. And if it's an immovable obstruction, it can't be GUR, no?

 

So don't you have to first declare it an IPC, so that if your stance is impacted by it, you don't get relief. And then declare exposed liners GUR, with no stance relief?

 

You've got to make it ground before you can put it under repair.

 

No. Nowhere does it define 'ground' nor does the definition put any constraint on what the committee may deem to be GUR.

Ground under repair" is any part of the .......

 

However, many things have dual status.

 

An immovable distance marker is both an IO and an Outside Agency.

The putting green of another hole is a Wrong Putting Green and is also Through the Green

A Fellow Competitor is also an Outside Agency.

[raynorfan1]

Of course the committee can declare anything it wants as GUR, but IMO it's cleaner to call all the liners integral parts of the course.

If the liner is an IPC, then the player would get no relief for a ball sitting on an exposed liner or under an exposed part of a torn liner

 

Don't they have to do both?

 

If it's not an IPC, it's an immovable obstruction. And if it's an immovable obstruction, it can't be GUR, no?

 

So don't you have to first declare it an IPC, so that if your stance is impacted by it, you don't get relief. And then declare exposed liners GUR, with no stance relief?

 

You've got to make it ground before you can put it under repair.

 

No. Nowhere does it define 'ground' nor does the definition put any constraint on what the committee may deem to be GUR.

Ground under repair" is any part of the .......

 

However, many things have dual status.

 

An immovable distance marker is both an IO and an Outside Agency.

The putting green of another hole is a Wrong Putting Green and is also Through the Green

A Fellow Competitor is also an Outside Agency.

 

Isn’t an obstruction, by definition, not part of the course?

 

GUR is any part of the course.

[Sawgrass]

Of course the committee can declare anything it wants as GUR, but IMO it's cleaner to call all the liners integral parts of the course.

If the liner is an IPC, then the player would get no relief for a ball sitting on an exposed liner or under an exposed part of a torn liner

 

Don't they have to do both?

 

If it's not an IPC, it's an immovable obstruction. And if it's an immovable obstruction, it can't be GUR, no?

 

So don't you have to first declare it an IPC, so that if your stance is impacted by it, you don't get relief. And then declare exposed liners GUR, with no stance relief?

 

You've got to make it ground before you can put it under repair.

 

No. Nowhere does it define 'ground' nor does the definition put any constraint on what the committee may deem to be GUR.

Ground under repair" is any part of the .......

 

However, many things have dual status.

 

An immovable distance marker is both an IO and an Outside Agency.

The putting green of another hole is a Wrong Putting Green and is also Through the Green

A Fellow Competitor is also an Outside Agency.

 

Isn't an obstruction, by definition, not part of the course?

 

GUR is any part of the course.

Everything in bounds is part of the course.

[Newby]

Isn't an obstruction, by definition, not part of the course?

 

Which Definition says that?

 

The relevant Definition actually says:

An "obstruction" is anything artificial, including the artificial surfaces and sides of roads and paths and manufactured ice, except: b. Any part of an immovable artificial object that is out of bounds;

 

Further, Decision 24-2b/21 makes it clear that artificial objects off the course are not included in the definition of Obstruction. Therefore 'Obstructions' must be objects on the course.

[raynorfan1]

Everything in bounds is part of the course.

 

That's absurd. Equipment is in bounds, but not part of the course. Animals are in bounds, but not part of the course.

 

 

Isn't an obstruction, by definition, not part of the course?

 

Which Definition says that?

 

The relevant Definition actually says:

An "obstruction" is anything artificial, including the artificial surfaces and sides of roads and paths and manufactured ice, except: b. Any part of an immovable artificial object that is out of bounds;

 

Further, Decision 24-2b/21 makes it clear that artificial objects off the course are not included in the definition of Obstruction. Therefore 'Obstructions' must be objects on the course.

 

You've gotten quite good at truncating "relevant" definitions right at the point where they become relevant.

 

An "obstruction" is anything artificial, including the artificial surfaces and sides of roads and paths and manufactured ice, except:

 

a.

Objects defining out of bounds, such as walls, fences, stakes and railings;

 

b.

Any part of an immovable artificial object that is out of bounds; and

 

c.

Any construction declared by the Committee to be an integral part of the course.

If the committee declares it to be an integral part of the course it is NOT an obstruction. So doesn't it follow that if it is an obstruction, it is not a part of the course?

 

The R&A actually uses exactly this example in explaining the definition of "integral part of the course":

 

"For example, newly constructed bunkers often have a plastic lining which, by Definition, is an immovable obstruction. However, if the lining is such that it is unlikely to hinder a player in his play, the Committee may make a Local Rule declaring the lining to be an integral part of the course in order to prevent a player from obtaining relief in the bunker."

[Sawgrass]

Everything in bounds is part of the course.

 

That's absurd. Equipment is in bounds, but not part of the course. Animals are in bounds, but not part of the course.

 

 

 

 

Yes, sorry, I certainly didn't mean to imply that people were part of the course. What I did mean to communicate is that all obstructions are part of the course. For instance, when taking a drop from GUR you are required to have the ball first hit an appropriate part of the course per R 25-1b -- and that could very well be a paved cart path (an obstruction).

 

See definition of Course:

 

course" is the whole area within any boundaries established by the Committee (see Rule 33-2).

[Newby]

If the committee declares it to be an integral part of the course it is NOT an obstruction. So doesn't it follow that if it is an obstruction, it is not a part of the course?

 

To be accurate, it follows that if it is an obstruction, it is not an integral part of the course. There is a difference between the term that is defined and one that is not.

 

The rules are concerned with things that are on or part of the course. ie anything that is not outside OB margin. The lining is within the OB margin so satisfies the requirement of all the rules that address obstructions - unless it has been specifically deemed to be an IPC.

 

It does in fact say that artificial immovable objects that are OB are not 'immovable obstructions', so it follows that they are IOs when they are on or part of the course but not when they are an 'integral part of the course'

[HitEmTrue]

Not real sure you read the original post correctly.

The PGATour Local Rule defines a LINER in the bunker to be GUR, not the entire bunker, with no relief for interference with the stance only.

 

I read the OP correctly. However, I did not read post #3 completely/correctly.