Unplayable lie in waste bunker

[Rookie1422]

Play it through the green, and as for match play take the penalty and drop and proceed.

[rogolf]

This is a Rules of golf forum.

 

 

"Bunker" is a defined term in the Rules of golf. Adding an adjective in front of "bunker", such as large, small, pot, fairway, greenside, Hell or waste does not change its status - if it meets the definition, it is still a bunker under the Rules.

[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.

 

 

• 
  
• Advanced Members
  
• 
  
• 1,528 posts
  
• Member #: 184750
  
• Joined: 06/06/2012
  

• Location:Tampere, Finland
  

GolfWRX Likes : 660

• 
  
  0 Feedback Score

  
  

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

• Unlike
  
• 1
  

D: Mizuno MP-650, 9.5*, Orochi Red Stiff

3&5W: Mizuno MP-650, 15* & 18*, Orochi Red Stiff

2 Iron: Titleist 712U, KBS Tour Stiff

3 Iron: Mizuno MP-H5, KBS Tour Stiff

4-PW: Mizuno MP-4, KBS Tour Stiff

Mizuno MP-T4 52.07 & 58.10, DG Wedge

Mizuno Bettinardi C-01H/BC-4

WITB Link

 

Swing DNA: 91/4/3/6/6

[Colin L]

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.

 

You posted virtually at the same time as Rogolf and so you didn't know that he had (again) answered your question. There is no confusion if you realise you can only call something a waste bunker (or a banana bunker, a brute of a bunker, a bloody-awful-to-get-out-of-bunker, a benign bunker....) if it is a bunker by definition, in which case it is a hazard and all the restrictions of Rule 13-4 apply. Confusion is created if you call something a waste bunker which doesn't meet the definition. In short, you are creating the potential for confusion.

 

As has been said in various ways throughout the thread.

[mdgboxx]

Tee box, rough, (all specific versions) fairways and others are all accepted, and regularly used terms in the Golf vocabulary. Although not precisely defined as such, there is a mention of most of them in the RoG, (OK, tee box remains teeing ground) but not a waste bunker, which is A BUNKER that was abandoned/neglected/left to fend for itself/no longer maintained by the grounds crew.

 

 

 

Mdg, I enjoy your playing with words as you do. I believe though that you and I (and others) have a fundamental disagreement regarding the (unestablished) definition of a Waste Bunker which is making the establishment of such a definition particularly important to you, though not so much to me. You seem to think that a Waste Bunker is a neglected Bunker. I don't buy that at all. To me, a neglected Bunker is simply a Bunker where you're apt to have more trouble than others -- though the Rules regarding Bunkers still firmly apply.

 

A "Waste Bunker" or "Waste Area" is an area that was never intended to be a Bunker at all, it's an area designed to be a particular type of "rough" right from the start. "Rough without grass" if you will. And since these areas of rough without grass are not hazards of any kind, they are simply, naturally played as Through the Green.

 

If it were true that a Bunker's neglect was intended to change the way we play from it, your demand of a definition would certainly be necessary.

 

Would it surprise you to learn that we agree, so much more, than we disagree? Colin L comes close second. He agrees that, what was once a Bunker, is still, and will always remain a Bunker. But, it became a Bunker with no name, when 13-4 no longer applied. IMHO

 

I have never suggested that the term "Waste Bunker" become an established definition within the RoG. Simply that it should be included in the golf literature/vocabulary, as an accepted term, alluding to a specific playing condition Through the Green.

 

For lack of a better term, I have not shied away from "Waste Bunker". I cannot take credit for any other suggestions, including "Neglected Bunker". For clarification purposes, I have said: Abandoned, no longer maintained, left to fend for itself, left to go to waste and such.

 

I took the liberty of highlighting your description of a Waste Area, as it is spot on. But, the Bunker part doesn't apply, no more than R13-4 applies to the Bunker. To make that bunker a waste area, it would need to be filled to turf level, concealing every aspect of it. Another option would be to re-grass it, and forget it. It will then become a wayward ball collector. I'm sure it would get baptized something different by anyone landing in there.

 

Copy/Paste from your post

 

If it were true that a Bunker's neglect was intended to change the way we play from it, your demand of a definition would certainly be necessary.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Is is a fact!

 

Allow me to correct that next segment. I am not demanding that a new and explicit definition be officially introduced in the RoG glossary.

 

I'm simply suggesting, what is IMHO, an appropriate identification for a Bunker that is no longer Played under R13-4, but rather as Through the Green.

 

 

[HitEmTrue]

Would it surprise you to learn that we agree, so much more, than we disagree? Colin L comes close second. He agrees that, what was once a Bunker, is still, and will always remain a Bunker. But, it became a Bunker with no name, when 13-4 no longer applied.

 

Pretty sure Colin's point was that rule 13-4 still applies to the bunker.

 

( deleting lots of text sure is a pain on iPhone )

 

[mdgboxx]

This is a Rules of golf forum.

 

 

"Bunker" is a defined term in the Rules of golf. Adding an adjective in front of "bunker", such as large, small, pot, fairway, greenside, Hell or waste does not change its status - if it meets the definition, it is still a bunker under the Rules.

 

Correction!

 

This is GolfWRX

 

A Golf Community Forum where Golf enthusiasts, from anywhere on the planet congregate, to exchange anything Golf.

 

We are in the Rules and Etiquette segment of GolfWRX, and this is exactly where we should be, since Augster, the thread starter, asked about the proper procedure concerning a WASTE BUNKER.

 

Waste Bunker is not an adjective and a noun that are meant to be used individually. They are meant to be used as a possible appropriate TERM to identify a BUNKER where Rule 13-4 is no longer applied. (Where I am sure it was, at some time or other) At least we agree that it is STILL a BUNKER!

EDIT:

You need to read Augster's initial post again, but, this time, read it carefully.

[mdgboxx]

Would it surprise you to learn that we agree, so much more, than we disagree? Colin L comes close second. He agrees that, what was once a Bunker, is still, and will always remain a Bunker. But, it became a Bunker with no name, when 13-4 no longer applied.

 

Pretty sure Colin's point was that rule 13-4 still applies to the bunker.

 

( deleting lots of text sure is a pain on iPhone )

 

But it doesn't. That was answered in post #2

[Sawgrass]

 

Waste Bunker is not an adjective and a noun that are meant to be used individually. They are meant to be used as a possible appropriate TERM to identify a BUNKER where Rule 13-4 is no longer applied. (Where I am sure it was, at some time or other) At least we agree that it is STILL a BUNKER!

 

1) I do very much like having been directed to the Animals in your preceding post.

 

2) I, in all of my many long years, have never to my knowledge come across any type of bunker that is no longer to be played as a bunker. Perhaps I missed that a bunker which once existed was removed, but even if that's so I wouldn't wish to call the space anything at all. If I do ever come across a bunker for which the intention is to have us no longer play it as a bunker, I will most certainly think of you.

[mdgboxx]

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.

 

You posted virtually at the same time as Rogolf and so you didn't know that he had (again) answered your question. There is no confusion if you realise you can only call something a waste bunker (or a banana bunker, a brute of a bunker, a bloody-awful-to-get-out-of-bunker, a benign bunker....) if it is a bunker by definition, in which case it is a hazard and all the restrictions of Rule 13-4 apply. Confusion is created if you call something a waste bunker which doesn't meet the definition. In short, you are creating the potential for confusion.

 

As has been said in various ways throughout the thread.

 

You said earlier that if it ever was a Bunker, it remains a Bunker. But, in Augster situation, Rule 13-4 does not apply. Instead, it is played as Through the Green.

 

But unlike "fairway" and "rough", which are also played under the same Rule(s) Through the Green, this "once upon a time" "Bunker played under Rule 13-4" is not identified as anything that would even suggest that it is played as Through the Green. But it remains a Bunker nonetheless.

[HitEmTrue]

 

You said earlier that if it ever was a Bunker, it remains a Bunker. But, in Augster situation, Rule 13-4 does not apply. Instead, it is played as Through the Green.

 

If Augster gave any indication that the area in question was previously a real bunker, I certainly missed it.

 

[mdgboxx]

Waste Bunker is not an adjective and a noun that are meant to be used individually. They are meant to be used as a possible appropriate TERM to identify a BUNKER where Rule 13-4 is no longer applied. (Where I am sure it was, at some time or other) At least we agree that it is STILL a BUNKER!

 

1) I do very much like having been directed to the Animals in your preceding post.

 

2) I, in all of my many long years, have never to my knowledge come across any type of bunker that is no longer to be played as a bunker. Perhaps I missed that a bunker which once existed was removed, but even if that's so I wouldn't wish to call the space anything at all. If I do ever come across a bunker for which the intention is to have us no longer play it as a bunker, I will most certainly think of you.

 

Budget cuts in Munies and Public Courses actually increased their numbers.

 

Here's a hint.

 

The first and second posts in this thread...One has a question, two has the answer. And chances are, they don't know each other.

 

Be very careful Sawgrass, they're out there in increasing numbers. :busted_cop:

 

If a bunker is removed, as in, buried, I wouldn't call it anything either. There wouldn't be anything left to call.

[mdgboxx]

You said earlier that if it ever was a Bunker, it remains a Bunker. But, in Augster situation, Rule 13-4 does not apply. Instead, it is played as Through the Green.

 

If Augster gave any indication that the area in question was previously a real bunker, I certainly missed it.

 

Why else would he call it a Waste Bunker, if it wasn't a Bunker to begin with?

[mdgboxx]

To the, increasing in numbers, opposing Army:

 

How can you deny that the Thread Starter and the first responder knew what a Waste Bunker actually is?

 

Do you suspect that they TWEETED each other, then dreamt up an elaborate plan to get a good Troll off the ground? Collusion????

[b.helts]

Don't drag me into this. I thought he meant waste area.

 

If I was I wrong I was wrong. But the words I chose, I chose with sincerity. I suspect you lack a fair bit of sincerity in this thread. But again I may be wrong.

[Augster]

Yes. All areas used to be bunkers on this course. Due to lack of funds/maintenance folks, they have decided not to do any upkeep on any of the (former) bunkers and enacted a local rule allowing grounding your club, removing impediments etc. Turning the former bunkers, governed under 13-4, into full time waste areas.

 

They also have areas of sand that were originally waste areas. Those just stayed the same.

 

While putting in 100's of bunkers is a good idea, in theory, to make your course harder, it certainly takes LOTS of time each morning to groom each of them. With staff cutbacks, green maintenance will always be the priority.

 

They also had a "local rule" that if your ball landed in a footprint in one of these areas you could remove the ball, rake or smooth, and place.

 

We didn't use that one.

[mdgboxx]

Yes. All areas used to be bunkers on this course. Due to lack of funds/maintenance folks, they have decided not to do any upkeep on any of the (former) bunkers and enacted a local rule allowing grounding your club, removing impediments etc. Turning the former bunkers, governed under 13-4, into full time waste areas.

 

They also have areas of sand that were originally waste areas. Those just stayed the same.

 

While putting in 100's of bunkers is a good idea, in theory, to make your course harder, it certainly takes LOTS of time each morning to groom each of them. With staff cutbacks, green maintenance will always be the priority.

 

They also had a "local rule" that if your ball landed in a footprint in one of these areas you could remove the ball, rake or smooth, and place.

 

We didn't use that one.

 

Now I see why you mentioned the rakes earlier. So, they are Bunkers that are no longer played under Rule 13-4. And you, and I assume most, if not all other patrons, refer to them as Waste Bunkers. You also candidly admit, that the Committee/pro shop also refer to them as Waste Bunkers. While all other waste areas stay the same. Am I reading this wrong?

 

All public and municipal courses that I played, not only tolerate, but encourage smoothing a footprint if your ball lands in one. They don't want to lose you as a customer because of a Bunker full of footprints. We all know that it's a no-no in competition. OTOH, not raking is frowned upon, you really don't want to get caught.

 

The eternalizing discussion we have skidded into, is whether it would be appropriate to refer to those ex-bunkers as Waste Bunkers, or not.

 

I'm not doing so well, but nobody, so far, has offered a better suggestion. The TERM is already used as profusely as fairway and/or rough but not written anywhere in the Golf Glossary. There is no mention of it...I find it interesting. We have something that once was, and no longer is, and we can't call it anything but what it's not.

[mdgboxx]

Don't drag me into this. I thought he meant waste area.

 

If I was I wrong I was wrong. But the words I chose, I chose with sincerity. I suspect you lack a fair bit of sincerity in this thread. But again I may be wrong.

 

He wrote Waste Bunker because he meant to say Waste Bunker. You thought he meant Waste Area, which it is not, IMHO, but your answer is correct.

[QEight]

Total disaster. Total. Sad. So sad.

[Newby]

Why else would he call it a Waste Bunker, if it wasn't a Bunker to begin with?

 

Because of the common confusion of the two terms 'waste area' and 'waste bunker'

 

Earlier I gave three links which demonstrated this clearly. The two terms are used interchangeably but tellingly, the pictures all show areas which were not originally bunkers (as defined). That post elicited no response from you

 

 

See these references to 'waste bunkers'

 

http://www.pgatour.c...te-bunkers.html

 

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

This is interesting because the reference is to areas featured in the design - hardly 'abandoned' and not constructed to satisfy the RoG definition.

 

http://golf.about.co...f_wastebunk.htm

 

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

 

http://golftips.golf...kers-20548.html

 

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

 

Incidentally, I have refereed, rated and played on an untold number of courses and have never seen a 'waste bunked' (as 'defined' by you).

[mdgboxx]

Why else would he call it a Waste Bunker, if it wasn't a Bunker to begin with?

 

Because of the common confusion of the two terms 'waste area' and 'waste bunker'

 

Earlier I gave three links which demonstrated this clearly. The two terms are used interchangeably but tellingly, the pictures all show areas which were not originally bunkers (as defined). That post elicited no response from you

 

 

See these references to 'waste bunkers'

 

http://www.pgatour.c...te-bunkers.html

 

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

This is interesting because the reference is to areas featured in the design - hardly 'abandoned' and not constructed to satisfy the RoG definition.

 

http://golf.about.co...f_wastebunk.htm

 

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

 

http://golftips.golf...kers-20548.html

 

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

 

Incidentally, I have refereed, rated and played on an untold number of courses and have never seen a 'waste bunked' (as 'defined' by you).

 

Actually, you got the only LIKE, from me on Feb 06. In my haste to reply to each individual post, I ended up two pages later and forgot about it.

 

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

 

The Waste Bunker referenced in this thread is defined as such by Augster, and I happen to agree with him.

 

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.

 

In post #44, you mention that you prefer "failed" or "abandoned"...Hey! What ever floats your boat, at least you seem to agree that it's not a waste area per say. Since we agree that a waste area is not usually man made, from a drawing board, with predefined specifications.

 

In post #14, I added a picture of what I believe is a waste area. I chose that specific picture to show what a Waste Bunker could look like (although slightly exagerrated) with all the rocks, (in the forefront) if it was a man made, below the ground, complete with lips, that was abandoned by the grounds crew...But was still, at one time a regular bunker played under Rule 13-4.

[Colin L]

Would it surprise you to learn that we agree, so much more, than we disagree? Colin L comes close second. He agrees that, what was once a Bunker, is still, and will always remain a Bunker. But, it became a Bunker with no name, when 13-4 no longer applied.

 

Pretty sure Colin's point was that rule 13-4 still applies to the bunker.

 

( deleting lots of text sure is a pain on iPhone )

 

You were right.

 

But enough's enough. There is a limit to my ability to follow the swirling patterns of mgdboxx's thinking and the last paragraph of the post above is just too much.

[mdgboxx]

Total disaster. Total. Sad. So sad.

 

Isn't it though?

 

Wait, are you talking about your game?

[mdgboxx]

Would it surprise you to learn that we agree, so much more, than we disagree? Colin L comes close second. He agrees that, what was once a Bunker, is still, and will always remain a Bunker. But, it became a Bunker with no name, when 13-4 no longer applied.

 

Pretty sure Colin's point was that rule 13-4 still applies to the bunker.

 

( deleting lots of text sure is a pain on iPhone )

 

You were right.

 

But enough's enough. There is a limit to my ability to follow the swirling patterns of mgdboxx's thinking and the last paragraph of the post above is just too much.

 

Why does the bolded part show up only after I clicked on the REPLY button?

[Newby]

 

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"

[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.)

[sui generis]

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:

[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.

[mdgboxx]

Would it surprise you to learn that we agree, so much more, than we disagree? Colin L comes close second. He agrees that, what was once a Bunker, is still, and will always remain a Bunker. But, it became a Bunker with no name, when 13-4 no longer applied.

 

Pretty sure Colin's point was that rule 13-4 still applies to the bunker.

 

( deleting lots of text sure is a pain on iPhone )

 

You were right.

 

But enough's enough. There is a limit to my ability to follow the swirling patterns of mgdboxx's thinking and the last paragraph of the post above is just too much.

 

I don't have a problem with you :hi:

[rogolf]

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