Jesus, this is getting out of hand.
Thought this was a simple open close item!
But to be honest most installations on a residential site.
The ground rods are installed adjacent to the building. Meaning that they are as close as possible to the building footer. They usually don't extend out into the yard.
If you take that into consideration as well as the allowance to extend above the requirement to make a connection. I really don't see a issue in that case.

And I never understood that you can run a conductor just above grade and just strap it down, But if your bury it then you need to be down 12"to 24" depending on the wiring method.
Meaning I can run a #4 gec along grade level and that is okay but if I want to bury it 1' to hide it I have to dig a ditch.

I still donot see the misunderstanding with table 300.5.In column 1 it says conductor and a gec is a conductor.Seems black and white to me.

The open question is whether you can use a table out of context, without direction from the text of the article that references it. The text of 300.5 says "cables, conduits and other raceways".

The best example of a mis-applied table is 310.15(B)(6). If you do not read the text of the article you could use this for any feeder in a dwelling. I think we all agree that would be wrong.

I'm with hotsparks, black and white for me.

... so you think you can use a table out of context with no regard to the text of the article? How about my 310.15(B)(6) example?
If I just read the table, without looking at the text in the article, it sounds like this would apply to any feeder in a dwelling.

Just to throw in a curve ball or two.

If you are using Table 300.5 to require a burial depth for GEC, even though it is not refered to in 250.64, are you also requiring compliance with 300.5(D)(1)?

If you are going to use the thought process that a GEC is a direct-buried cable (conductor), then it seems the same thought process would require compliance with 300.5(D)(1).

Joe, that is a great point and is one that one could use to make the solid argument that there needs to be clarification on the burial depth of a GEC, and require new code language be added to 250.64(B).

The code seems to require that the GEC be protected. The code seems to require that when it is not run along the surface of the building, that it be in pipe. If buried, there are a plethora of issues as we can see from the discussion here.

If buried, I would still use the table rather than leave it unprotected, and make the argument that the bare copper GEC is not specifically listed for direct burial, therefore 300.5(D)(1) would not apply, and would only apply to conductors specifically listed as such.

... then isn't burying it a violation?

Certainly using that logic you could say none of 300.5 applies.
You have picked enough cherries to make a pie.

All this spinning is making my dizzy.

If you really want to have fun with this topic. Submit it to the suncoast division for the upcoming chapter meeting for code questions.
I know that would not be a formal interpretation but..
Usually all the players are there.

Missed this in this busy topic.
But anyway.
I assume you are talking about the practice to turn up a rebar out of the footer for a connection to the gec.
They called it a 7 bar because it was a piece of rebar with a 90 degree bend.
Years ago this started to happen due to ufer requirements and for misc reasons such as theft of the copper and the electrician could not make a visit before the concrete was down.

1. First issue is rebar needs to be protected also. It needs to be encased by the concrete. To prevent oxidation.
That is why they use chairs on the mesh and rebar. It is not just for strength.

2. General Contractors hated the ufer and stated concerns on damage to the rebar. Due to the exposed "7 bar " as it was called at the time.
They also voiced concern that lightning strikes caused the rebar to explode and damage the footer.

3. Last the GC's voiced concern when they found that a current was flowing to the rebar that caused the rebar to degrade over time.

4. Most all of this was discounted over time.

But I do remember when ufer connections became prevalent. There was a company called cadweld, most of us know them,that had a report on ufer connections that supported the rod electrodes as a supplement to the ufer system.
They stated that it would act as a sacrificial anode protection to the rebar.

So in my day as a contractor when I had a ufer system I always added the two ground rods . Not to make the inspector happy but to protect the ufer system and the rebar.
My 2 cents.

BTW, I always disagreed with the turned up rebar for the above reasons. But it was there. And I never felt it always met the requirement of the code, since the reabar was not always => 1/2 inch.