Loose impediment moved in casual water inside bunker

[Frostfield]

Is this a penalty? This actually happened to me. I hit my teeshot into a fairway bunker that was 75% full of casual water. My ball is in the middle of the water and there are leaves floating on the water. I go to take relief from the casual water. So I grab a rake to retrieve my ball moving a multitude of loose impediments in the process. No problem. Next, I'm waiting on the official in our group to come over, and for absolutely no reason I reach down and grab a leaf thats floating on the casual water. He looks at me and tells me I can't move loose impediments in a bunker. I said that I knew that and that the leaf was in the casual water that I just basically bulldozed with the rake to get my ball. He penalized me a shot.

Again, is this a penalty? How would it be a non penalty with the rake and a penalty with my hand??? At the same time, I understand that the casual water is inside the boundry of the bunker. Confusing...

[rogolf]

To start with, if it is a breach, it's a penalty of two strokes; maybe he was only half right or uncertain?

[sui generis]

This could be fun. How about the loose impediment is not in the bunker since it's floating and the margins of the bunker do not extend upwards.

[smeech8000]

Retrieving the ball with the rake would likely qualify as "accidental" movement of loose impediments, which would be absolved under Exception #1 of 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.

 

Exceptions:

 

1. Provided nothing is done that constitutes testing the condition of the hazard or improves the lie of the ball, there is no penalty if the player (a) touches the ground or loose impediments in any hazard or water in a water hazard as a result of or to prevent falling, in removing an obstruction, in measuring or in marking the position of, retrieving, lifting, placing or replacing a ball under any Rule or (b) places his clubs in a hazard.

 

2. At any time, the player may smooth sand or soil in a hazard provided this is for the sole purpose of caring for the course and nothing is done to breach Rule 13-2 with respect to his next stroke. If a ball played from a hazard is outside the hazard after the stroke, the player may smooth sand or soil in the hazard without restriction.

 

3. If the player makes a stroke from a hazard and the ball comes to rest in another hazard, Rule 13-4a does not apply to any subsequent actions taken in the hazard from which the stroke was made.

 

Note: At any time, including at address or in the backward movement for the stroke, the player may touch, with a club or otherwise, any obstruction, any construction declared by the Committee to be an integral part of the course or any grass, bush, tree or other growing thing.

 

Penalty for Breach of Rule:

 

Match play - Loss of hole; Stroke play - Two strokes.

 

 

Further, I would agree that the official got the ruling half-correct as you should be penalized two strokes for plucking the leaf out with your hand (an INTENTIONAL removal of a loose impediment from the hazard). Here is the most relevant Decision I could find:

 

13-4/35.7 Player Deems Ball Unplayable in Bunker, Lifts Ball and Then Removes Loose Impediment from Bunker

 

Q.A player's tee shot comes to rest in a bunker. He lifts his ball from the bunker after deeming it unplayable. Before selecting an option under Rule 28, he removes a loose impediment from the bunker. Since this action took place while his ball was lifted, i.e., it was not lying in the hazard, was the player in breach of Rule 13-4?

 

A.Yes. The prohibitions of Rule 13-4 apply when a ball is in a hazard or when a ball, having been lifted from a hazard, may be dropped or placed in the hazard. Under the unplayable ball Rule, two of the player's options require him to drop a ball in the bunker. The player would incur the penalty even if he subsequently elected to put a ball into play outside the bunker under Rule 28a. However, the player would not incur the penalty if, before removing the loose impediment, he had indicated that he would put a ball into play outside the bunker under Rule 28a and subsequently did so.

[Sawgrass]

Retrieving the ball with the rake would likely qualify as "accidental" movement of loose impediments, which would be absolved under Exception #1 of 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.

 

Exceptions:

 

1. Provided nothing is done that constitutes testing the condition of the hazard or improves the lie of the ball, there is no penalty if the player (a) touches the ground or loose impediments in any hazard or water in a water hazard as a result of or to prevent falling, in removing an obstruction, in measuring or in marking the position of, retrieving, lifting, placing or replacing a ball under any Rule or (b) places his clubs in a hazard.

 

2. At any time, the player may smooth sand or soil in a hazard provided this is for the sole purpose of caring for the course and nothing is done to breach Rule 13-2 with respect to his next stroke. If a ball played from a hazard is outside the hazard after the stroke, the player may smooth sand or soil in the hazard without restriction.

 

3. If the player makes a stroke from a hazard and the ball comes to rest in another hazard, Rule 13-4a does not apply to any subsequent actions taken in the hazard from which the stroke was made.

 

Note: At any time, including at address or in the backward movement for the stroke, the player may touch, with a club or otherwise, any obstruction, any construction declared by the Committee to be an integral part of the course or any grass, bush, tree or other growing thing.

 

Penalty for Breach of Rule:

 

Match play - Loss of hole; Stroke play - Two strokes.

 

 

Further, I would agree that the official got the ruling half-correct as you should be penalized two strokes for plucking the leaf out with your hand (an INTENTIONAL removal of a loose impediment from the hazard). Here is the most relevant Decision I could find:

 

13-4/35.7 Player Deems Ball Unplayable in Bunker, Lifts Ball and Then Removes Loose Impediment from Bunker

 

Q.A player's tee shot comes to rest in a bunker. He lifts his ball from the bunker after deeming it unplayable. Before selecting an option under Rule 28, he removes a loose impediment from the bunker. Since this action took place while his ball was lifted, i.e., it was not lying in the hazard, was the player in breach of Rule 13-4?

 

A.Yes. The prohibitions of Rule 13-4 apply when a ball is in a hazard or when a ball, having been lifted from a hazard, may be dropped or placed in the hazard. Under the unplayable ball Rule, two of the player's options require him to drop a ball in the bunker. The player would incur the penalty even if he subsequently elected to put a ball into play outside the bunker under Rule 28a. However, the player would not incur the penalty if, before removing the loose impediment, he had indicated that he would put a ball into play outside the bunker under Rule 28a and subsequently did so.

Nice job, Smeech.

[Sawgrass]

This could be fun. How about the loose impediment is not in the bunker since it's floating and the margins of the bunker do not extend upwards.

 

This is in fact fun!

 

I'd say this Dcision leads us to the conclusion that in equity, the casual water is part of the bunker:

 

 

13/5 Ball Lying on Obstruction in Bunker

Q.If a ball is lying on either a movable or an immovable obstruction in a bunker, is the ball considered to be in the bunker?

 

A.Yes. Although the margin of a bunker does not extend upwards, a ball lying on an obstruction in a bunker is in the bunker

 

 

[x-out]

13-4/7 Touching Casual Water in Bunker with Club

Q. A player's ball lies in casual water in a bunker. The player elects to play his ball as it lies and touches the casual water with his club when addressing the ball. The player's club does not touch the sand in the bunker except in making the stroke. What is the ruling?

A. The player incurs no penalty as he did not touch the ground in the bunker with his club prior to making his stroke — see Rule 13-4b.

 

Clearly the floating LI is not "touching" the bunker, but does it lie In the bunker????

[Sawgrass]

13-4/7 Touching Casual Water in Bunker with Club

Q. A player's ball lies in casual water in a bunker. The player elects to play his ball as it lies and touches the casual water with his club when addressing the ball. The player's club does not touch the sand in the bunker except in making the stroke. What is the ruling?

A. The player incurs no penalty as he did not touch the ground in the bunker with his club prior to making his stroke — see Rule 13-4b.

 

Clearly the floating LI is not "touching" the bunker, but does it lie In the bunker????

 

Now it is even more fun!

[sui generis]

13-4/7 Touching Casual Water in Bunker with Club

Q. A player's ball lies in casual water in a bunker. The player elects to play his ball as it lies and touches the casual water with his club when addressing the ball. The player's club does not touch the sand in the bunker except in making the stroke. What is the ruling?

A. The player incurs no penalty as he did not touch the ground in the bunker with his club prior to making his stroke — see Rule 13-4b.

 

Clearly the floating LI is not "touching" the bunker, but does it lie In the bunker????

 

Now it is even more fun!

 

You had me worried . . . for a brief second. :taunt:

[Sawgrass]

13-4/7 Touching Casual Water in Bunker with Club

Q. A player's ball lies in casual water in a bunker. The player elects to play his ball as it lies and touches the casual water with his club when addressing the ball. The player's club does not touch the sand in the bunker except in making the stroke. What is the ruling?

A. The player incurs no penalty as he did not touch the ground in the bunker with his club prior to making his stroke — see Rule 13-4b.

 

Clearly the floating LI is not "touching" the bunker, but does it lie In the bunker????

 

Now it is even more fun!

 

You had me worried . . . for a brief second. :taunt:

 

I believe you should still worry. The 13-4 prohibition is not to:

 

"Touch or move a loose impediment lying in or touching the hazard."

 

13-4/7 says that the causal water in the bunker is not "ground." But 13/5 says that a ball lying on something in a bunker is in the bunker.

 

Ergo, the leaf floating in the casual water in a bunker is in the bunker, and you may not move a LI that's lying in a bunker.

 

 

[Frostfield]

13-4/7 Touching Casual Water in Bunker with Club

Q. A player's ball lies in casual water in a bunker. The player elects to play his ball as it lies and touches the casual water with his club when addressing the ball. The player's club does not touch the sand in the bunker except in making the stroke. What is the ruling?

A. The player incurs no penalty as he did not touch the ground in the bunker with his club prior to making his stroke — see Rule 13-4b.

 

Clearly the floating LI is not "touching" the bunker, but does it lie In the bunker????

 

 

So the rule is contradictory. In this case you can touch the water no penalty, hence its not the bunker. In other instances it supposedly IS the bunker. Hmmmmm BS. They need clarification!!!

[QEight]

13-4/7 Touching Casual Water in Bunker with Club

Q. A player's ball lies in casual water in a bunker. The player elects to play his ball as it lies and touches the casual water with his club when addressing the ball. The player's club does not touch the sand in the bunker except in making the stroke. What is the ruling?

A. The player incurs no penalty as he did not touch the ground in the bunker with his club prior to making his stroke see Rule 13-4b.

 

Clearly the floating LI is not "touching" the bunker, but does it lie In the bunker????

 

 

So the rule is contradictory. In this case you can touch the water no penalty, hence its not the bunker. In other instances it supposedly IS the bunker. Hmmmmm BS. They need clarification!!!

 

Touching the water is not prohibited except in WH and the water is not loose impediment. I do not see contradiction.

[rogolf]

The Decision regarding touching the casual water in the bunker is clear - the water is not ground in the bunker. That does not mean that the casual water is not in the bunker, clearly it is in the bunker, and the floating leaf is therefore also in the bunker.

I do not see any contradiction in the Rules.

[augustgolf]

So....let's see if I can make this a little more unclear.

 

My ball lands in a bunker that has standing (casual) water in it, and not only does my ball land in the bunker, it rolls into the casual water that also happens to have leaves floating on it.

 

To find my ball, I must move the leaves that cover it, and I do so with my hands. In fact, I actually pick up some of the leaves, because they are so thick, in order to find my ball.

 

Am I now subject to penalty? How about if I put the leaves back into the same position as they occupied prior to my "disturbing" them?

 

And you thought that this couldn't get any more convoluted....

[Halebopp]

If the floating loose impediments can't be moved, in my opinion it would be easy to say it requires unreasonable effort to retrieve the ball. Thus you'd be allowed to substitute it. After playing the substituted ball out of the bunker there would be no issues raking the original ball from the water and moving some loose impediments while doing so.

 

I'm supposed to referee a tournament on Sunday and the forecast is promising some heavy rain for the day and the night before. This could be an actual issue coming up.

 

So....let's see if I can make this a little more unclear. My ball lands in a bunker that has standing (casual) water in it, and not only does my ball land in the bunker, it rolls into the casual water that also happens to have leaves floating on it. To find my ball, I must move the leaves that cover it, and I do so with my hands. In fact, I actually pick up some of the leaves, because they are so thick, in order to find my ball. Am I now subject to penalty? How about if I put the leaves back into the same position as they occupied prior to my "disturbing" them? And you thought that this couldn't get any more convoluted....

 

Rule 12-1b covers this, no penalty as long as you put the loose impediment back but if the ball was completely covered by leaves, you can leave a small part of the ball visible.

 

This got me wondering whether or not you could rake the floating leaves under the guise of identifying your ball.

[QEight]

If the floating loose impediments can't be moved, in my opinion it would be easy to say it requires unreasonable effort to retrieve the ball. Thus you'd be allowed to substitute it. After playing the substituted ball out of the bunker there would be no issues raking the original ball from the water and moving some loose impediments while doing so.

 

If the decision allows moving the LI while retrieving the ball then you can move them. I do not see it more difficult than that.

 

If the players intention was to play from the water (either as it is or "maximum relief") then I might get worried about the amount of leaves disturbed. His intention should be clear before the whole ordeal.

[Stuart_G]

But if they are floating around in the water, how do you put them back? I would think that an equity based decision would be warranted specifically when identifying or retrieving the ball in that situation.

 

Which is different from moving/touching the loose impediments in the water after you have taken relief from the casual water.

[Colin L]

This could be fun. How about the loose impediment is not in the bunker since it's floating and the margins of the bunker do not extend upwards.

 

But if the margins of the bunker weren't higher than the surface of the water there wouldn't be any water, would there?

[augustgolf]

I gotta admit, in all the years of being "the committee", teaching rules classes, and working with national tournaments as a rules official....this is something that has never come up. Thanks to the OP for toasting my brain at this early hour.

 

Stuart G.- I think that you are correct, in that this is an equity situation, where by, if moving the leaves to either identify the ball, or to pick it up to play from the area offered by relief under the rules....once again touching another leaf in the casual water should not be a penalty. This reasoning comes from the fact that the ball has already been removed from the condition (casual water) which is treated as an area within the hazard that allows the touching of said LI.

 

But, I could be wrong. Neil Young said it best: "I've been wrong before, and I'll be there again....I don't have any answers, my friend"

 

While this might be one of those situations that the USGA is currently considering in their path to a simplification of the rules (I'll see if I can find the link to that article).....it would be probably worthwhile to forward this to them for consideration, as it seems under the current rules...no clearly defined (and equitable) decision is to be found.

 

http://www.golfchannel.com/media/usga-considering-simplifying-rules-grow-game

[Frostfield]

I gotta admit, in all the years of being "the committee", teaching rules classes, and working with national tournaments as a rules official....this is something that has never come up. Thanks to the OP for toasting my brain at this early hour.

 

Stuart G.- I think that you are correct, in that this is an equity situation, where by, if moving the leaves to either identify the ball, or to pick it up to play from the area offered by relief under the rules....once again touching another leaf in the casual water should not be a penalty. This reasoning comes from the fact that the ball has already been removed from the condition (casual water) which is treated as an area within the hazard that allows the touching of said LI.

 

But, I could be wrong. Neil Young said it best: "I've been wrong before, and I'll be there again....I don't have any answers, my friend"

 

While this might be one of those situations that the USGA is currently considering in their path to a simplification of the rules (I'll see if I can find the link to that article).....it would be probably worthwhile to forward this to them for consideration, as it seems under the current rules...no clearly defined (and equitable) decision is to be found.

 

http://www.golfchannel.com/media/usga-considering-simplifying-rules-grow-game

 

That is the way I see it. There is some gray area for sure though!

[Sawgrass]

I gotta admit, in all the years of being "the committee", teaching rules classes, and working with national tournaments as a rules official....this is something that has never come up. Thanks to the OP for toasting my brain at this early hour.

 

Stuart G.- I think that you are correct, in that this is an equity situation, where by, if moving the leaves to either identify the ball, or to pick it up to play from the area offered by relief under the rules....once again touching another leaf in the casual water should not be a penalty. This reasoning comes from the fact that the ball has already been removed from the condition (casual water) which is treated as an area within the hazard that allows the touching of said LI.

 

But, I could be wrong. Neil Young said it best: "I've been wrong before, and I'll be there again....I don't have any answers, my friend"

 

While this might be one of those situations that the USGA is currently considering in their path to a simplification of the rules (I'll see if I can find the link to that article).....it would be probably worthwhile to forward this to them for consideration, as it seems under the current rules...no clearly defined (and equitable) decision is to be found.

 

http://www.golfchann...rules-grow-game

 

That is the way I see it. There is some gray area for sure though!

 

Gentlemen, 13-4 c says you may not: Touch or move a loose impediment lying in or touching the hazard.

 

The Rule offers exceptions, one of which is when retrieving a ball, but once you have retrieved the ball the prohibition continues. So "once again touching another leaf in the casual water" as stated above will cost you two strokes or the hole.

[augustgolf]

I gotta admit, in all the years of being "the committee", teaching rules classes, and working with national tournaments as a rules official....this is something that has never come up. Thanks to the OP for toasting my brain at this early hour.

 

Stuart G.- I think that you are correct, in that this is an equity situation, where by, if moving the leaves to either identify the ball, or to pick it up to play from the area offered by relief under the rules....once again touching another leaf in the casual water should not be a penalty. This reasoning comes from the fact that the ball has already been removed from the condition (casual water) which is treated as an area within the hazard that allows the touching of said LI.

 

But, I could be wrong. Neil Young said it best: "I've been wrong before, and I'll be there again....I don't have any answers, my friend"

 

While this might be one of those situations that the USGA is currently considering in their path to a simplification of the rules (I'll see if I can find the link to that article).....it would be probably worthwhile to forward this to them for consideration, as it seems under the current rules...no clearly defined (and equitable) decision is to be found.

 

http://www.golfchann...rules-grow-game

 

That is the way I see it. There is some gray area for sure though!

 

Gentlemen, 13-4 c says you may not: Touch or move a loose impediment lying in or touching the hazard.

 

The Rule offers exceptions, one of which is when retrieving a ball, but once you have retrieved the ball the prohibition continues. So "once again touching another leaf in the casual water" as stated above will cost you two strokes or the hole.

 

I see your point, and respect it. But, until I see an actual decision handed down by the USGA (clowns that they have been this year) I reserve the right to hold judgment.

 

Quick story. A good friend of mine, excellent player in his youth, but sadly now, paralyzed from a stroke, was competing in the qualifying for the Western Amateur on our home course. He had a hole in one on the 13th hole, a long (at the time) part 3. Finished his round, and signed for a 67, easily qualifying. But not so fast.

 

The committee asked him; "When you picked your ball out of the cup, did you take out the flagstick, and let it fall (come to rest) in the hole?" His reply...."no"

 

DQ

 

The rules were changed not too long after that, when the USGA and the R&A did their revisions every so many years.

 

Because of that....I believe that a decision could go as you have stated, Sawgrass....but, I also believe it could also go another way, depending on your option for not playing from the casual water in the hazard.

 

Either way, it has been a great time discussing this, and I would hope that everyone keeps an open mind about this. In the meantime, if I can reach out to our local USGA rules expert (if he isn't playing or doing something else) I'll ask him what he thinks, and let you know through this thread

 

see ya'll

 

 

oh....and, this thought crossed my mind right after I posted, so I am editing the post with this thought:

 

What penalty is there existing for touching/removing a LI in casual water??????

[QEight]

The committee asked him; "When you picked your ball out of the cup, did you take out the flagstick, and let it fall (come to rest) in the hole?" His reply...."no"

 

DQ

 

The rules were changed not too long after that, when the USGA and the R&A did their revisions every so many years.

 

This is interesting as the definition of the "Holed" has been same from at least 1952, except 1984 there was addition of "at rest":

 

A ball is "

holed

" when it is at rest within the circumference of the

hole

and all of it is below the level of the lip of the

hole

.

 

It would be interesting to know which rule was changed, or was there a Decision changed?

[augustgolf]

The committee asked him; "When you picked your ball out of the cup, did you take out the flagstick, and let it fall (come to rest) in the hole?" His reply...."no"

 

DQ

 

The rules were changed not too long after that, when the USGA and the R&A did their revisions every so many years.

 

This is interesting as the definition of the "Holed" has been same from at least 1952, except 1984 there was addition of "at rest":

 

A ball is "

holed

" when it is at rest within the circumference of the

hole

and all of it is below the level of the lip of the

hole

.

 

It would be interesting to know which rule was changed, or was there a Decision changed?

 

 

The rule read (and I'm paraphrasing here:) the ball must come to rest at the bottom of the hole.

 

The rule was changed to reflect that obviously, if it is "holed"...meaning resting against the flagstick, and not going anywhere, it could (and did) get dislodged as a player attempted to pull the flagstick out of the hole, with the ball coming to rest out of the hole. Prior to the rule change, you must finish play from that point until it was holed, or face penalty. It was this inequity that caused the rule change. Even today, you will see a player moving the flagstick carefully, if the ball is wedged between the stick and the edge of the hole. and let the ball fall to the bottom, or the bottom as much as it can be, considering that the flagstick actually occupies the true bottom, where it fits into the cup.

 

It's this little inequity we are discussing with the leaves on/in the casual water in a hazard....where is the equity, or....why would you need to move any more leaves, if you've already found, and removed your ball from the casual water?

 

Just my POV

[QEight]

The committee asked him; "When you picked your ball out of the cup, did you take out the flagstick, and let it fall (come to rest) in the hole?" His reply...."no"

 

DQ

 

The rules were changed not too long after that, when the USGA and the R&A did their revisions every so many years.

 

This is interesting as the definition of the "Holed" has been same from at least 1952, except 1984 there was addition of "at rest":

 

A ball is "

holed

" when it is at rest within the circumference of the

hole

and all of it is below the level of the lip of the

hole

.

 

It would be interesting to know which rule was changed, or was there a Decision changed?

 

 

The rule read (and I'm paraphrasing here:) the ball must come to rest at the bottom of the hole.

 

The rule was changed to reflect that obviously, if it is "holed"...meaning resting against the flagstick, and not going anywhere, it could (and did) get dislodged as a player attempted to pull the flagstick out of the hole, with the ball coming to rest out of the hole. Prior to the rule change, you must finish play from that point until it was holed, or face penalty. It was this inequity that caused the rule change. Even today, you will see a player moving the flagstick carefully, if the ball is wedged between the stick and the edge of the hole. and let the ball fall to the bottom, or the bottom as much as it can be, considering that the flagstick actually occupies the true bottom, where it fits into the cup.

 

Which rule read like that and when? Because there seems to be no rule itself regarding "holing" the ball. Only the Definition I gave above.

 

I do not doubt the given ruling (whether right or wrong), but would like to know the rule itself.

 

And just to add, about as many times as you see tour caddie remove the flag first, you see tour player remove the ball first. As it does not matter which way you do it, if the ball is below the lip.

[Colin L]

The rule read (and I'm paraphrasing here:) the ball must come to rest at the bottom of the hole.

 

Like QEight, I'm puzzled by your story. The first appearance of a Definition of ball holed that I can find is in the 1950 Rules. It reads:

 

The ball is ‘holed’ when it lies within the circumference of the hole and is below the level of the lip of the hole.

 

Prior to that, as far as I have looked there was none. Have you got a reference for the rule you are paraphrasing?

 

By the way, I'm also intrigued by your nickname. Does augustgolf refer to the kind of golf you play, or the time of year in which you play it? :)

[Halebopp]

Could it be the ball wasn't holed (as per the definition) when he picked it up?

[Mr. Bean]

IMO the OP case is very clear. No penalty for moving his ball when retrieving it but 2 PS for removing a LI from a bunker he is to drop his ball in. No doubts, no contraddictions, no need for any Decision. Rules 13-4 and 12-1 cover it all beyond any doubt.

 

Furthermore, should the player later decide not to play from that bunker he would still be subject to penalty, see D13-4/17.

[Newby]

13/5 says that a ball lying on something in a bunker is in the bunker.

 

No it doesn't

[smeech8000]

13/5 says that a ball lying on something in a bunker is in the bunker.

 

No it doesn't

 

With all due respect, how would you interpret the following to NOT affirm Sawgrass' statement above?

 

13/5 Ball Lying on Obstruction in Bunker

Q.If a ball is lying on either a movable or an immovable obstruction in a bunker, is the ball considered to be in the bunker?

 

A.Yes. Although the margin of a bunker does not extend upwards, a ball lying on an obstruction in a bunker is in the bunker.

 

 

I'll grant that the Decision may not be directly applicable to the scenario in question because an Obstruction is not a Loose Impediment, but I'm wondering where you're going with this...