Practice swing in a Bunker

[BC MIST]

A golfer plays a stroke from a fairway bunker and the ball lands in a green side bunker. He then takes a practice swing in the fairway bunker, making contact with the sand. Is this permitted?

I ask because of Rule 13:4 "....before making a stroke at a ball that is in a hazard, the player must not,
a. Test the condition of the hazard, "OR ANY SIMILAR HAZARD"

Clearly, if I contact the sand with a practice swing in one hazard, I can get the feel for the sand from another, therefore the "any similar hazard" part of the above should apply, as my ball is still in a hazard.

[Kilroy]

Sounds correct, but is a fairway hazard truly similar? Less sand and not a practice swing just before the shot to be played.
Good question.

[AAA]

This has been the subject of debates on a number of other Rules Forums within the last few weeks.
The USGA have responded to a number of enquiries confirming in effect that a greenside hazard is 'similar to' a fairway hazard and that practice swings in any bunker if the ball is in another bunker is in contravention of Rule 13-4a. They have indicated that the R&A would make the same ruling.
An impression has been given that the rule may be changed. Watch this space.

[1dash1]

Concur with AAA, except the last sentence. The phrasing of USGA response was open to the interpretation that the rule may be changed or that the rule may be clarified.

My opinion tends toward the latter, the ruling will remain the same - but the new 2006 Decisions book may have some better examples to make this ruling clear. We'll see.

[Chieflongtee]

So what if someone takes a practice swing in a different bunker? There may be less sand in the fairway bunker than the green bunker, The lie will also be different. It could be a buried lie a downhill or uphill lie or there could be a big lip in front. All and all the practice swing won't accomplish much in my opinion.

[DavidY]

I believe that I have seen a PGA pro (sorry, don't remember who) do this during a TV broadcast awhile ago. Don't think that he was penalized for it....broadcasters didn't say anything about it.

Dave

[1dash1]

Chieflongtree:

Whether the practice swing in a similar hazard "accomplishes much" won't figure into the ruling.

For the purposes of interpretiing Rule 13-4a, all bunkers are considered as "similar" and all water hazards are considered as "similar" (even when one is a lateral water hazard and the other is a plain water hazard).

Consequently, if the player's action would be considered as a breach of rule in "the" bunker (where the ball lies), then it will be considered as a breach of rule in "a" bunker (different bunker).

Granted, your argument may have merit from the standpoint of rulesmithing - perhaps the rule should be written otherwise. However, until the rule is re-written, the ruling will remain as stated.

Note: Rule 13-4 is an empirical rule. It is a rule forged by centuries of trial-and-error to deal with the things the players do or used to do in hazards. As such, it is periodically subject to change, without significantly altering the balance of other rules.

[1dash1]

Dave,

The incident that precipitated this particular ruling occurred at the Ford Championship at Doral, back in March of this year. On the 10th hole, final round, Vijay Singh's second shot from the fairway bunker came up short and ended up in the greenside bunker. He took a couple of practice swings from the fairway bunker before exiting it. Apparently neither Vijay nor the Committee paid any attention to the possible infraction. The matter was brought up only after the final tournament results had been posted.

Vijay finished at 269, tied for third place in the event. Had he taken the two stroke penalty, he would have finished at 271, tied for fourth place. Of course, if the penalty had been discovered after he returned his scorecard, then he would have been disqualified.

Note: Even if this had caught the Committee's attention, there is a good possibility that they would have ruled in Vijay's favor. The language of Decision 13-4/37 has, in the past, been open to interpretation and the PGA Tour is generally prone to giving players the benefit of the doubt. IMHO, the only way the Committee would have ruled to penalize Vijay would have been if they had deferred the ruling to Far Hills.

[Chieflongtee]

1dash1 . Thanks fo your input and aloha.
Here is the tricky part. It's about intent.When Vijay took those couple practicing swings in the bunker was he a: rehearsing the upcoming shot or b: trying to correct the bad swing that sent him in the greenside bunker?

[1dash1]

Chieflongtree:

I don't know, but his intent didn't matter in this case. The condition of the hazard either was or was not tested by the practice strokes. (Like getting a speeding ticket: you're either speeding or not, your intention is irrelevant.)

[Chieflongtee]

How irrelevant? If I hit the ball with no intention of hitting it i.e practice swing, ball falling off the tee I don't get penalised for it.

[Chieflongtee]

Moreover how many times during a round will you find the exact same lie except for the tee box? The definition of similar hasard is too broad imo. No lies are EXACTLY alike. Similar or close maybe. But exactly never.

[AAA]

Moreover how many times during a round will you find the exact same lie except for the tee box? The definition of similar hasard is too broad imo. No lies are EXACTLY alike. Similar or close maybe. But exactly never.

The Rule uses the word 'Similar' it does not say 'Exactly'

[Gary Hill]

Similar means the same CLASSIFICATION of hazard.

If your ball is in a bunker, you can ground your club in water in a water hazard before the stroke.
If your ball is in a water hazard, you can ground your club in a bunker before the stroke.

It has NOTHING to do with similar kinds of sand, fairway bunkers as opposed to greenside bunkers, etc.