Water in bunker

[Noles]

[quote name='4Wedges' timestamp='1380137117' post='7909705']
[quote name='Newby' timestamp='1380132349' post='7909315']
If a tree in the woods falls without anyone seeing it, is it still a fact that it fell?

If I said that the river Seine runs through Paris, have I not stated a fact, even though I have not copied a page from an atlas.
But even if I had, would that make it a fact? Would I have to take you to Paris and show you?

In the case in point, it is a fact, not because I said it was true but because it is written in the book. The fact that I didn't copy it makes it no less true or factual.

If A says one thing and B says the opposite, then one only has to ask both of them for the proof.
[/quote]

In your opinion.

Look, if you stuffed shirts want to think it's ok to answer a rules question without referencing the rule, you guys have at it. But when it creates confusion, as it did in this thread, just remember, I'm reading it and laughing at you all for it!
[/quote] A mature end to the conversation. I understand who we were dealing with much better now.

[4Wedges]

[quote name='Newby' timestamp='1380144539' post='7910423']
[quote name='4Wedges' timestamp='1380137117' post='7909705'] But when it creates confusion, as it did in this thread, just remember, I'm reading it and laughing at you all for it!
[/quote]


The definition of an abnormal condition was quoted in post #6 making it clear that it included casual water.
The appropriate rule is that which gives the relief options for casual water in a bunker.
My post #10 quoted the relevant text.
The online rules are available to all.

Perhaps you can point out which post showed confusion re the answers posted in the thread.
The poster of #15 was not confused IMO He simply didn't know the correct answer.
[/quote]

No, the person in #15 was confused by you posting a portion of a rule that he felt didn't apply because he didn't know which rule you were quoting from. You caused him to be confused. If you would have indicated which rule you were quoting from instead, he might not have been. But like I said...keep up the stuffed shirt persona, I think it suits many here that can do no wrong. I once told a member to go look for the rule themselves and was told I shouldn't do that...ironically, by someone in this very thread!

[color=#fff0f5]But it's ok....I'm sure he'll come back to so no he wasn't confused he was wrong.[/color]

[Mr. Bean]

Where's the GolfWRX Dislike button?

[Quasimoto]

Without wanting to derail this, I have a question respecting this rule as it pertains to the putting green. This is because a situation came up the other day that caused me to wonder about equitable relief.

I hit my approach onto a green leaving about 25' uphill for a putt.
When a playing partner went to the flag to remove it he said that someone had taken a large scalp out of the green about 18" from the hole and in my line.
I played the putt anyway because in my opinion the putt broke in away from the scalp. Which it did. (And I missed)
However, according to this 25.1, I potentially could get relief in this situation if it was in my line?


[b] 25-1. Abnormal Ground Conditions[/b]

[b] a. Interference[/b]

Interference by an [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Abnormal-Ground-Conditions"][color="#0f72da"]abnormal ground condition[/color][/url][/i] occurs when a ball lies in or touches the condition or when the condition interferes with the player’s [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Stance"][color="#0f72da"]stance[/color][/url][/i] or the area of his intended swing. If the player’s ball lies on the [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Putting-Green"][color="#0f72da"]putting green[/color][/url][/i], interference also occurs if an [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Abnormal-Ground-Condition"][color="#0f72da"]abnormal ground condition[/color][/url][/i] on the [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Putting-Green"][color="#0f72da"]putting green[/color][/url][/i] intervenes on his [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Line-Of-Putt"][color="#0f72da"]line of putt[/color][/url][/i]. Otherwise, intervention on the [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Line-Of-Play"][color="#0f72da"]line of play[/color][/url][/i] is not, of itself, interference under this Rule.
[b]Note:[/b] The [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Committee"][color="#0f72da"]Committee[/color][/url][/i] may make a Local Rule stating that interference by an [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Abnormal-Ground-Conditions"][color="#0f72da"]abnormal ground condition[/color][/url][/i] with a player’s [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Stance"][color="#0f72da"]stance[/color][/url][/i] is deemed not to be, of itself, interference under this Rule.

[Sawgrass]

[quote name='Quasimoto' timestamp='1380163853' post='7912095']
Without wanting to derail this, I have a question respecting this rule as it pertains to the putting green. This is because a situation came up the other day that caused me to wonder about equitable relief.

I hit my approach onto a green leaving about 25' uphill for a putt.
When a playing partner went to the flag to remove it he said that someone had taken a large scalp out of the green about 18" from the hole and in my line.
I played the putt anyway because in my opinion the putt broke in away from the scalp. Which it did. (And I missed)
However, according to this 25.1, I potentially could get relief in this situation if it was in my line?


[b] 25-1. Abnormal Ground Conditions[/b]

[b] a. Interference[/b]

Interference by an [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Abnormal-Ground-Conditions"][color="#0f72da"]abnormal ground condition[/color][/url][/i] occurs when a ball lies in or touches the condition or when the condition interferes with the player’s [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Stance"][color="#0f72da"]stance[/color][/url][/i] or the area of his intended swing. If the player’s ball lies on the [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Putting-Green"][color="#0f72da"]putting green[/color][/url][/i], interference also occurs if an [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Abnormal-Ground-Condition"][color="#0f72da"]abnormal ground condition[/color][/url][/i] on the [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Putting-Green"][color="#0f72da"]putting green[/color][/url][/i] intervenes on his [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Line-Of-Putt"][color="#0f72da"]line of putt[/color][/url][/i]. Otherwise, intervention on the [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Line-Of-Play"][color="#0f72da"]line of play[/color][/url][/i] is not, of itself, interference under this Rule.
[b]Note:[/b] The [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Committee"][color="#0f72da"]Committee[/color][/url][/i] may make a Local Rule stating that interference by an [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Abnormal-Ground-Conditions"][color="#0f72da"]abnormal ground condition[/color][/url][/i] with a player’s [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Stance"][color="#0f72da"]stance[/color][/url][/i] is deemed not to be, of itself, interference under this Rule.
[/quote]
The problem with your hope here is that an "abnormal ground condition" has a very specific definition in the rules. Unfortunately that definition (to follow) does not include some Bozo taking a hunk out of the green with his club. If you have a Committee to appeal to you can ask to have the gouge declared ground under repair. If you are just playing without access to a committee, you are screwed.

Abnormal Ground Conditions
An “abnormal ground condition” is any casual water, ground under repair or hole, cast or runway on the course made by a burrowing animal, a reptile or a bird.

[Quasimoto]

[quote name='Sawgrass' timestamp='1380164953' post='7912195']
[quote name='Quasimoto' timestamp='1380163853' post='7912095']
Without wanting to derail this, I have a question respecting this rule as it pertains to the putting green. This is because a situation came up the other day that caused me to wonder about equitable relief.

I hit my approach onto a green leaving about 25' uphill for a putt.
When a playing partner went to the flag to remove it he said that someone had taken a large scalp out of the green about 18" from the hole and in my line.
I played the putt anyway because in my opinion the putt broke in away from the scalp. Which it did. (And I missed)
However, according to this 25.1, I potentially could get relief in this situation if it was in my line?


[b]25-1. Abnormal Ground Conditions[/b]

[b]a. Interference[/b]

Interference by an [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Abnormal-Ground-Conditions"][color=#0F72DA]abnormal ground condition[/color][/url][/i] occurs when a ball lies in or touches the condition or when the condition interferes with the player’s [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Stance"][color=#0F72DA]stance[/color][/url][/i] or the area of his intended swing. If the player’s ball lies on the [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Putting-Green"][color=#0F72DA]putting green[/color][/url][/i], interference also occurs if an [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Abnormal-Ground-Condition"][color=#0F72DA]abnormal ground condition[/color][/url][/i] on the [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Putting-Green"][color=#0F72DA]putting green[/color][/url][/i] intervenes on his [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Line-Of-Putt"][color=#0F72DA]line of putt[/color][/url][/i]. Otherwise, intervention on the [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Line-Of-Play"][color=#0F72DA]line of play[/color][/url][/i] is not, of itself, interference under this Rule.
[b]Note:[/b] The [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Committee"][color=#0F72DA]Committee[/color][/url][/i] may make a Local Rule stating that interference by an [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Abnormal-Ground-Conditions"][color=#0F72DA]abnormal ground condition[/color][/url][/i] with a player’s [i][url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Definitions/#Stance"][color=#0F72DA]stance[/color][/url][/i] is deemed not to be, of itself, interference under this Rule.
[/quote]
The problem with your hope here is that an "abnormal ground condition" has a very specific definition in the rules. Unfortunately that definition (to follow) does not include some Bozo taking a hunk out of the green with his club. If you have a Committee to appeal to you can ask to have the gouge declared ground under repair. If you are just playing without access to a committee, you are screwed.

Abnormal Ground Conditions
An “abnormal ground condition” is any casual water, ground under repair or hole, cast or runway on the course made by a burrowing animal, a reptile or a bird.
[/quote]

Makes sense with the definition.
I guess we need a Bozo decision added to the rules!

[Newby]

[quote name='4Wedges' timestamp='1380149787' post='7910799']
No, the person in #15 was confused by you posting a portion of a rule that he felt didn't apply because he didn't know which rule you were quoting from.
[color=#fff0f5]But it's ok....I'm sure he'll come back to so no he wasn't confused he was wrong.[/color]
[/quote]

You state it as if it is a fact that he was confused. The poster has not been back to make any comment to that effect. Just your opinion then.
In my opinion, it suggests that he recognised his belief was wrong.

The suggestion there may be confusion came from someone else.

Incidentally, don't you think your giving the actual rule number in post #2 would be a clue as to where my posted quotation highlighting the specific point originated. I can't see any other rule being mentioned.

[QEight]

[quote name='Newby' timestamp='1380178874' post='7912803']
[quote name='4Wedges' timestamp='1380149787' post='7910799']
No, the person in #15 was confused by you posting a portion of a rule that he felt didn't apply because he didn't know which rule you were quoting from.
[color=#fff0f5]But it's ok....I'm sure he'll come back to so no he wasn't confused he was wrong.[/color]
[/quote]

You state it as if it is a fact that he was confused. The poster has not been back to make any comment to that effect. Just your opinion then.
In my opinion, it suggests that he recognised his belief was wrong.
[/quote]

Post number #26.

[Newby]

[color=#282828]The poster has not been back to make any comment[b] to that effect[/b][/color]

[i][color=#282828]" I was not aware of this option for abnormal ground conditions. "[/color][/i]

[color=#282828]He doesn't say[/color][i][color=#282828] 'I was confused about the rule for AGC". [/color][/i][color=#282828]He was thinking about the wrong rule[/color]

[color=#282828]4Wedges requirement to post the rule reference obviously doesn't always work, particularly if the reference is not taken up. [/color]

[pingfool]

just a guess? -

rules official disagreeing w/ golf professional



simplified answer to OP - casual water in bunker - take relief

[Graymulligan]

[quote name='4Wedges' timestamp='1380136585' post='7909649']

I don't believe you truly understand what a fact is. I'll leave you to figure that out on your own.
[/quote]

I normally don't jump into internet pissing contests, but that might be the single most arrogant thing I've ever read. It's actually you who are confusing the term, and not the other gentleman.

If I state that I am posting this on the internet, it's a fact regardless of whether I cite a reference to prove it. If I state that gravity pulls objects toward the floor, it's a fact. Again, I don't need to state a reference for it to be so. You're confusing the term "fact" with perhaps the term "cited statement of fact" or some other semantic argument. A piece of information does not cease to be a fact simply because there's no cited reference for it.

[4Wedges]

[quote name='QEight' timestamp='1380183343' post='7912851']
[quote name='Newby' timestamp='1380178874' post='7912803']
[quote name='4Wedges' timestamp='1380149787' post='7910799']
No, the person in #15 was confused by you posting a portion of a rule that he felt didn't apply because he didn't know which rule you were quoting from.
[color=#fff0f5]But it's ok....I'm sure he'll come back to so no he wasn't confused he was wrong.[/color]
[/quote]

You state it as if it is a fact that he was confused. The poster has not been back to make any comment to that effect. Just your opinion then.
In my opinion, it suggests that he recognised his belief was wrong.
[/quote]

Post number #26.
[/quote]

Ironic isn't it...Newby doesn't think there was any confusion...but Sawgrass does. Yet when I point out the confusion...suddenly there wasn't any?

Weird.

[4Wedges]

[quote name='Graymulligan' timestamp='1380207056' post='7913881']
[quote name='4Wedges' timestamp='1380136585' post='7909649']
I don't believe you truly understand what a fact is. I'll leave you to figure that out on your own.
[/quote]

I normally don't jump into internet pissing contests, but that might be the single most arrogant thing I've ever read. It's actually you who are confusing the term, and not the other gentleman.

If I state that I am posting this on the internet, it's a fact regardless of whether I cite a reference to prove it. If I state that gravity pulls objects toward the floor, it's a fact. Again, I don't need to state a reference for it to be so. You're confusing the term "fact" with perhaps the term "cited statement of fact" or some other semantic argument. A piece of information does not cease to be a fact simply because there's no cited reference for it.
[/quote]

I disagree, obviously. I've been pretty clear here that when I'm talking about the difference between a fact an opinion, it's due to this being a golf rules forum. If you're going to make a statement that "such and such" is a rule, then state at a minimum the rule...without it, in my opinion, it's just an opinion. And when you don't provide the reference to the rule, it can cause unnecessary confusion, as happened here already.

But I think some members like to re-post answers because it makes them feel important for some reason, which I've never really figured out.

What is being overlooked is that some here think they carry more weight because of who they are and therefore don't feel it's necessary that *they* should post a rule number for reference because they feel the very fact that they said it makes it so and that they are infallible. Ironic really after the recent "stuffed shirt" discussion.

[Sawgrass]

[quote name='4Wedges' timestamp='1380207794' post='7913957']
[quote name='QEight' timestamp='1380183343' post='7912851']
[quote name='Newby' timestamp='1380178874' post='7912803']
[quote name='4Wedges' timestamp='1380149787' post='7910799']
No, the person in #15 was confused by you posting a portion of a rule that he felt didn't apply because he didn't know which rule you were quoting from.
[color=#FFF0F5]But it's ok....I'm sure he'll come back to so no he wasn't confused he was wrong.[/color]
[/quote]

You state it as if it is a fact that he was confused. The poster has not been back to make any comment to that effect. Just your opinion then.
In my opinion, it suggests that he recognised his belief was wrong.
[/quote]

Post number #26.
[/quote]

Ironic isn't it...Newby doesn't think there was any confusion...but Sawgrass does. Yet when I point out the confusion...suddenly there wasn't any?

Weird.


[/quote]



Wedges, you made a big, dramatic deal about putting me on "ignore" some time ago. I'm disappointed to see you've recanted as I was enjoying the peace.

Here's some helpful advice: Admit that you were wrong about your definition of the word "fact." Then say that you simply prefer that people cite a rule to go along with their statement. I'd hazard a guess that no one will refute your statement of your own preference.

Also, try not to be jealous of people like Newby who do in fact have a reputation for credibility.

You frequently provide good answers to questions. You frequently (to your credit) cite appropriate rules. But you also frequently irritate people with your remarkable level of sensitivity and stubbornness. While not let these things go and just get along?

[Colin L]

[quote name='4Wedges' timestamp='1380208065' post='7913981']
I disagree, obviously. I've been pretty clear here that when I'm talking about the difference between a fact an opinion, it's due to this being a golf rules forum. [/quote]

That makes no sense. A statement of fact is factual no matter where or how it is made. That you must play from where you played your previous stroke if your ball goes out of bounds is a fact whether I say it on an internet forum, in the clubhouse, in a pub, at home over dinner, or when talking to myself without any audience.

[quote name='4Wedges' timestamp='1380208065' post='7913981']
If you're going to make a statement that "such and such" is a rule, then state at a minimum the rule...without it, in my opinion, it's just an opinion. [/quote]

I don't see anyone disagreeing that citing a reference to a Rule or Decision is a good thing, but your opinion that without that a ruling is just opinion is manifestly wrong.

[quote name='4Wedges' timestamp='1380208065' post='7913981] 'What is being overlooked is that some here think they carry more weight because of who they are and therefore don't feel it's necessary that *they* should post a rule number for reference because they feel the very fact that they said it makes it so and that they are infallible. Ironic really after the recent "stuffed shirt" discussion.
[/quote]

I can only answer for myself in saying that I post here occasionally because I think I can help others with the answer to a rules question and/or because there is something puzzling that we all want to tease out. The weight of my answers like those of anyone else is a function of my knowledge of the Rules and it simply takes time before users of the forum might begin to reckon whether I I know what I'm talking about or not. The notion that I'm a stuffed shirt or think myself infallible is absurd. I don't know any RO who thinks himself or herself infallible. As the old saying goes, there are 2 types of Rules Official: there's the ones who are going to make mistakes and the ones who have already made mistakes.

How about easing up a bit and allow us all - yourself included - to offer understanding of the Rules when we can and to learn from others when we need to?

[Noles]

I had no idea that my son's bunker shot could cause such a stir!

[4Wedges]

[quote name='Colin L' timestamp='1380214444' post='7914563']
That makes no sense. A statement of fact is factual no matter where or how it is made. That you must play from where you played your previous stroke if your ball goes out of bounds is a fact whether I say it on an internet forum, in the clubhouse, in a pub, at home over dinner, or when talking to myself without any audience.

[color=#ff0000]No it's not. It's only a fact based upon playing by the rules of golf. Look around at all the high and mightys that complain about people that aren't playing "golf" if they don't follow the rules. I can go out and knock the ball out of bounds a 100 times and a 100 times go to where the ball went out of bounds and play my next shot...but that wouldn't be by the rules of golf. Therefore, if I ask about it, I need to know which rule I'm breaking. Capice? [/color]


I don't see anyone disagreeing that citing a reference to a Rule or Decision is a good thing, but your opinion that without that a ruling is just opinion is manifestly wrong.

[color=#ff0000]In your opinion. See above.[/color]

I can only answer for myself in saying that I post here occasionally because I think I can help others with the answer to a rules question and/or because there is something puzzling that we all want to tease out. The weight of my answers like those of anyone else is a function of my knowledge of the Rules and it simply takes time before users of the forum might begin to reckon whether I I know what I'm talking about or not. The notion that I'm a stuffed shirt or think myself infallible is absurd. I don't know any RO who thinks himself or herself infallible. As the old saying goes, there are 2 types of Rules Official: there's the ones who are going to make mistakes and the ones who have already made mistakes.

[color=#ff0000]Not really. You assume everyone that visits this forum is a regular. Someone could come in here that's been a member for years and never posted here and have no idea who you are or your background. Therefore, just because you say it's so doesn't mean it's so. Yet there are those here that believe because they say it, it's true without reproach. That's arrogance at it's best.[/color]

How about easing up a bit and allow us all - yourself included - to offer understanding of the Rules when we can and to learn from others when we need to?

[color=#ff0000]So I'm not supposed to offer my opinion that to improve this forum one should always cite the rule they are quoting from to avoid confusion? Interesting. I think the only ones with their panties in a wad are the stiff shirt crowd.[/color]

[/quote]

[4Wedges]

Too funny to resist!

 

 

:cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy:

[sui generis]

[quote name='Noles' timestamp='1380218811' post='7914961']
I had no idea that my son's bunker shot could cause such a stir!
[/quote]

Amazing what a single imperious dickhe@d can do to an otherwise interesting thread! Furthermore, he seems to spread his talents over more than one thread at a time.

[Colin L]

[4Wedges]

[quote name='Colin L' timestamp='1380226516' post='7915669']

[/quote]

I agree...you're definitely

[Newby]

[quote name='4Wedges' timestamp='1380246388' post='7917281']
[quote]A player is entitled to relief without penalty from any path to which a foreign material (e.g., tar, gravel, dirt) has been applied. A player would not get relief from a dirt path created by vehicle traffic unless it had been defined as ground under repair.
[/quote]
[/quote]

Is that a fact or an opinion ?