Unplayable lie in waste bunker

[mdgboxx]

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.

 

My intention was to offer/suggest a means to eliminate, or at least greatly reduce, the overwhelming confusion concerning Bunkers that, for whatever reason, are no longer played under R13-4, but rather as Through the Green.

 

I am satisfied that I gave it the best I have, and I didn't feel like I fought a losing battle. I was convinced that something, could be done to clarify a reference to an unusual situation. It has absolutely nothing to do with changing any Rules in the RoG, it has everything to do with the reference to the issue. Nothing else.

 

I'll sit down now, and STFU! LMAO!

[Newby]

I didn't see much evidence of "overwhelming" confusion here and have not encountered elsewhere either.

 

But credit (i think) for perseverence.

[Dpavs]

One thing I thought was interesting when I was looking at the rules and definitions was the following-

 

"Grass-covered ground bordering or within a bunker, including a stacked turf face (whether grass-covered or earthen), is not part of the bunker."

 

I don't think I've ever encountered such a situation but it would apply to those instances where a bunker has been abandoned, as far as care goes, and gets grown over with grass in part or in total which is something I was not readily aware of.

[Argonne69]

One thing I thought was interesting when I was looking at the rules and definitions was the following-

 

"Grass-covered ground bordering or within a bunker, including a stacked turf face (whether grass-covered or earthen), is not part of the bunker."

 

I don't think I've ever encountered such a situation but it would apply to those instances where a bunker has been abandoned, as far as care goes, and gets grown over with grass in part or in total which is something I was not readily aware of.

 

[Dpavs]

and the walls of this bad boy...lol

 

[mdgboxx]

I didn't see much evidence of "overwhelming" confusion here and have not encountered elsewhere either.

 

But credit (i think) for perseverence.

 

I know, right?

 

Most of the evidence was well hidden inside three links that were posted earlier.

 

Wait!

 

 

It was you..............TWICE! :taunt:

[Newby]

The confusion is due to your (and others) insisting on using the word bunker for something that is not a bunker, either by definition or committee declaration.

Those who don't use the word wrongly are not confused.

[mdgboxx]

The confusion is due to your (and others) insisting on using the word bunker for something that is not a bunker, either by definition or committee declaration.

Those who don't use the word wrongly are not confused.

 

You prefer the term "Abandoned Bunker" for something that is still a Bunker, because it was at one time a well manicured bunker aka: Regular Bunker. Let's not start another 5 page discussion on the use of the term Regular Bunker, please.

 

Let's go with that...Abandoned Bunker

 

As the Course CEO, what do you do with it, assuming there is only one. I understand that Bunkers are part of the Architect's careful planing and designing. They are not something that is randomly thrown out there on a whim. They are strategically located hazards and have a large contribution to the Course's difficulty. That little "Je ne sais quoi" that keeps patrons coming back. Then there's R13-4 that dictates how you will play from them. To be clear, we're not talking about a High End Exclusive CC, but a decent Mid/working class public or muni course.

 

Your patrons, have been complaining that it has become unbearable to play from it abiding by RoG. Some have suggested GUR. But that Bunker is the signature element of that hole. You must keep your patrons playing from it. You declare it, by Local Rule, "Abandoned Bunker" and it will be played as Through the Green.

 

It is now, affectionately referenced as the Abandoned Bunker (the term you prefer) on hole six. No more confusion.

 

I'm still sitting down, obviously, I'm having a harder time at STFU. ---- But you asked, I assume that a Bunker with No-Name irritates you too ----

 

It's 05:15 AM, I have to put an Exelon patch on my Precious' back at 08:00 hrs.

[Newby]

As the Course CEO, what do you do with it, assuming there is only one.

 

As it happens my club has just closed a bunker. It was causing drainage problems and affecting an adjacent green. Apparently It was installed about 20 years ago and was thought to be a good idea at the time.

As the green staff have too much on following a flood, they haven't removed it immediately but simply marked it as GUR (which automatically makes it TTG). 25/13

No confusion, no problems.

 

They are strategically located hazards and have a large contribution to the Course's difficulty

One bunker has very little contribution to a course's difficulty. Its removal would make no difference to the rating.

[Colin L]

The confusion is due to your (and others) insisting on using the word bunker for something that is not a bunker, either by definition or committee declaration.

Those who don't use the word wrongly are not confused.

 

You prefer the term "Abandoned Bunker" for something that is still a Bunker, because it was at one time a well manicured bunker aka: Regular Bunker. Let's not start another 5 page discussion on the use of the term Regular Bunker, please.

 

Let's go with that...Abandoned Bunker

 

As the Course CEO, what do you do with it, assuming there is only one. I understand that Bunkers are part of the Architect's careful planing and designing. They are not something that is randomly thrown out there on a whim. They are strategically located hazards and have a large contribution to the Course's difficulty. That little "Je ne sais quoi" that keeps patrons coming back. Then there's R13-4 that dictates how you will play from them. To be clear, we're not talking about a High End Exclusive CC, but a decent Mid/working class public or muni course.

 

Your patrons, have been complaining that it has become unbearable to play from it abiding by RoG. Some have suggested GUR. But that Bunker is the signature element of that hole. You must keep your patrons playing from it. You declare it, by Local Rule, "Abandoned Bunker" and it will be played as Through the Green.

 

It is now, affectionately referenced as the Abandoned Bunker (the term you prefer) on hole six. No more confusion.

 

I'm still sitting down, obviously, I'm having a harder time at STFU. ---- But you asked, I assume that a Bunker with No-Name irritates you too ----

 

It's 05:15 AM, I have to put an Exelon patch on my Precious' back at 08:00 hrs.

 

The cliché that comes to mind has something to do with mountains and molehills. The answer is neat and easy as Newby has explained. The long-term plan might well be to fill in the bunker (we have done so quite a few times in the process of course changes) but that costs time and money. Defining the bunker as GUR only costs a sign to stick in the ground. You might like to note that by making it GUR you do not change its status as a bunker: it is no longer a hazard and so 13-4 does not apply.

[Sawgrass]

You might like to note that by making it GUR you do not change its status as a bunker: it is no longer a hazard and so 13-4 does not apply.

 

Typo?

[Sawgrass]

 

 

Let's go with that...Abandoned Bunker

 

As the Course CEO, what do you do with it, assuming there is only one . . .

 

Your patrons, have been complaining that it has become unbearable to play from it abiding by RoG. Some have suggested GUR. But that Bunker is the signature element of that hole. You must keep your patrons playing from it. You declare it, by Local Rule, "Abandoned Bunker" and it will be played as Through the Green.

 

 

 

Really, as CEO, if my course's single abandoned bunker was a signature element of a hole, I'd un-abandon it.

 

(I wouldn't abandon the ROG.)

[LeoLeo99]

You might like to note that by making it GUR you do not change its status as a bunker: it is no longer a hazard and so 13-4 does not apply.

 

Typo?

 

It's now a GURB.

[mdgboxx]

You might like to note that by making it GUR you do not change its status as a bunker: it is no longer a hazard and so 13-4 does not apply.

 

Typo?

 

It's now a GURB.

 

ROTFLMAO!

 

I went to bed at 05:30 hrs, got up at 08:00 hrs, for 5 min., then slept in 'till 11:00 hrs.

 

I'm still sitting down, and I promise, I'll try harder to STFU!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Copy/Paste: -----If nobody responds, maybe this dead horse will be carted off to the glue factory.-----

[Newby]

You might like to note that by making it GUR you do not change its status as a bunker: it is no longer a hazard and so 13-4 does not apply.

 

Typo?

 

I think not. It's the sloppy words actually used in Decision 25/13.

 

But as the definition says 'A "hazard" is any bunker or water hazard', if it is not a hazard, by definition it cannot be a bunker nor can it be a water hazard.

[LeoLeo99]

You might like to note that by making it GUR you do not change its status as a bunker: it is no longer a hazard and so 13-4 does not apply.

 

Typo?

 

I think not. It's the sloppy words actually used in Decision 25/13.

 

But as the definition says 'A "hazard" is any bunker or water hazard', if it is not a hazard, by definition it cannot be a bunker nor can it be a water hazard.

 

Sounds like a sand trap to me.

[Sawgrass]

You might like to note that by making it GUR you do not change its status as a bunker: it is no longer a hazard and so 13-4 does not apply.

 

Typo?

 

I think not. It's the sloppy words actually used in Decision 25/13.

 

But as the definition says 'A "hazard" is any bunker or water hazard', if it is not a hazard, by definition it cannot be a bunker nor can it be a water hazard.

 

I agree that defining an entire bunker as GUR changes it from being a bunker and makes it TTG. Colin, however, used the words, "do not change its status" when I think he meant, "do change its status."

[mdgboxx]

You might like to note that by making it GUR you do not change its status as a bunker: it is no longer a hazard and so 13-4 does not apply.

 

Typo?

 

I think not. It's the sloppy words actually used in Decision 25/13.

 

But as the definition says 'A "hazard" is any bunker or water hazard', if it is not a hazard, by definition it cannot be a bunker nor can it be a water hazard.

 

I agree that defining an entire bunker as GUR changes it from being a bunker and makes it TTG. Colin, however, used the words, "do not change its status" when I think he meant, "do change its status."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:sorry: :rofl:

[Dpavs]

I would tend to agree, ground under repair is technically ground under repair and nothing else... it's a temporary change in definition\status of the area until it is no longer GUR by definition or by marking.

[mdgboxx]

I would tend to agree, ground under repair is technically ground under repair and nothing else... it's a temporary change in definition\status of the area until it is no longer GUR by definition or by marking.

 

As opposed to being abandoned. When I sold my BH-5 irons, I abandoned all rights to them.

 

Not quite there, but close enough, IMO.

Grass cuttings and other material left on the course that have been abandoned and are not intended to be removed are not GUR unless so marked.

 

"Unless so marked"?

I don't dare. :beruo:

 

:nono:

[LeoLeo99]

I would tend to agree, ground under repair is technically ground under repair and nothing else... it's a temporary change in definition\status of the area until it is no longer GUR by definition or by marking.

 

As opposed to being abandoned. When I sold my BH-5 irons, I abandoned all rights to them.

 

Not quite there, but close enough, IMO.

Grass cuttings and other material left on the course that have been abandoned and are not intended to be removed are not GUR unless so marked.

 

"Unless so marked"?

I don't dare. :beruo:

 

:nono:

 

And cast Hogan. For shame. No wonder you abandoned them.

[mdgboxx]

I would tend to agree, ground under repair is technically ground under repair and nothing else... it's a temporary change in definition\status of the area until it is no longer GUR by definition or by marking.

 

As opposed to being abandoned. When I sold my BH-5 irons, I abandoned all rights to them.

 

Not quite there, but close enough, IMO.

Grass cuttings and other material left on the course that have been abandoned and are not intended to be removed are not GUR unless so marked.

 

"Unless so marked"?

I don't dare. :beruo:

 

:nono:

 

And cast Hogan. For shame. No wonder you abandoned them.

 

They got squeezed outta the bag by a set of S-58 irons.

 

I don't have a problem with cast. lol