Ball comes to rest in a dirt hole 2 feet off cart path.

[Rulesman]

IMO the 'hole made by a greenkeeper' is intended to cover eg

holes in unused temporary greens

holes dug for a stake to be set in concrete (say)

trenches started with intention of being filled with pebbles for french drains

In effect something where the hole was made by intent as part of some specific objective, not as an unintentional by product.

[Ignorant]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you or missing something in a Decision somewhere that qualifies the basic definition that a hole made by a greenkeeper is ground under repair whether marked or not.  I thought you were saying that a hole made by a greenskeeper is only GUR if there is an intention to fill it in.  The Rules don't say that unless I have missed something you can point me to.

I know our winter green holes should be filled in, but they haven't been.  They are a good example of a hole that has unarguably been made by a greenskeeper.  As a player or referee deciding whether relief from one  was permissible, I wouldn't for a moment be asking whether it was going to be filled in or not as that would have no relevance to deciding that it was GUR.  Yet you  seem to be saying I would only get or allow relief if it were known that they were to be filled in?

I think Rulesman put it rather well. The hole needs to be of temporary nature. If your staff is not doing their job it does not preclude player from obtaining a free relief from an 'old' winter green hole as long as there is an intention to fill it. I do not see any problem there but I do see the need for interpretation afa a hole not to be filled is concerned. IMO that kind of hole is not GUR unless so marked because it is meant to be part of the course as it is.

[ColinL]

I think Rulesman put it rather well. The hole needs to be of temporary nature. If your staff is not doing their job it does not preclude player from obtaining a free relief from an 'old' winter green hole as long as there is an intention to fill it. I do not see any problem there but I do see the need for interpretation afa a hole not to be filled is concerned. IMO that kind of hole is not GUR unless so marked because it is meant to be part of the course as it is.

I'm not sure that Rulesman was saying that a hole needs to be of a temporary nature but he can answer for that himself.   And I still cannot see any textual support for your insistence that there has to be an intention to fill a hole in.   The key point he makes is the the hole is made purposefully, not incidentally.  The heel mark from a groundsman's boot is not the same as the hole he has made putting in a direction marker.

The holes I referred to were for our temporary winter greens,  but these areas are being left over the summer just as fairway so no relief from a wrong putting green.  The holes may also  be left for next winter although I'll be pressing from them to be filled or capped.  Now,  If I find I have interference from one of the holes, it unarguably meets the definition of a hole made by a greenskeeper.  It is a hole; it was clearly made by a greenskeeper.  What grounds are there  for denying me relief?  Would you insist that if the intention is just to leave it and put it into use next winter when the ground is again prepared for putting, I cannot take relief?   In general, there is no requirement for GUR to be of a temporary nature and no requirement that there must be work intended to repair it.

[Rulesman]

The key point he makes is the the hole is made purposefully, not incidentally.  The heel mark from a groundsman's boot is not the same as the hole he has made putting in a direction marker.

That was was I was suggesting.

[rogolf]

I think Rulesman put it rather well. The hole needs to be of temporary nature. If your staff is not doing their job it does not preclude player from obtaining a free relief from an 'old' winter green hole as long as there is an intention to fill it. I do not see any problem there but I do see the need for interpretation afa a hole not to be filled is concerned. IMO that kind of hole is not GUR unless so marked because it is meant to be part of the course as it is.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you or missing something in a Decision somewhere that qualifies the basic definition that a hole made by a greenkeeper is ground under repair whether marked or not.  I thought you were saying that a hole made by a greenskeeper is only GUR if there is an intention to fill it in.  The Rules don't say that unless I have missed something you can point me to.

I know our winter green holes should be filled in, but they haven't been.  They are a good example of a hole that has unarguably been made by a greenskeeper.  As a player or referee deciding whether relief from one  was permissible, I wouldn't for a moment be asking whether it was going to be filled in or not as that would have no relevance to deciding that it was GUR.  Yet you  seem to be saying I would only get or allow relief if it were known that they were to be filled in?

Thanks Colin, I agree; nothing in the Rules talks about the greenkeeper's intention to fill the hole.

[turtleback]

Thanks Colin, I agree; nothing in the Rules talks about the greenkeeper's intention to fill the hole.

25/14

Explanation of "Hole Made by Greenkeeper" in Definition of "Ground Under Repair"

Q.What constitutes a "hole made by a greenkeeper"?

A.A "hole made by a greenkeeper" is usually ground temporarily dug up in connection with course maintenance, such as a hole made in removing turf or a tree stump, laying pipelines, etc.

Doesn't "temporarily dug up" imply an intent to fill it?  Else what does the modifier "temporarily" mean?

[Rulesman]

Doesn't "temporarily dug up" imply an intent to fill it?  Else what does the modifier "temporarily" mean?

There is another important qualifier though, ie "usually".

[ColinL]

Yes, indeed.   "Usually" indicates that there are other possibilities.

For example, a ball is resting against a direction marker.  The player removes  the marker post and the ball is on the edge of the hole.  It  interferes with his lie.  I would allow relief even though there is obviously no intention of filling it in.

[Ignorant]

Yes, indeed.   "Usually" indicates that there are other possibilities.

For example, a ball is resting against a direction marker.  The player removes  the marker post and the ball is on the edge of the hole.  It  interferes with his lie.  I would allow relief even though there is obviously no intention of filling it in.

There certainly is the intention to fill it with the post, right?

I'm afraid you are too stuck with the words instead of trying to understand the concept but so be it, I am not going to spend time in persuading you. This is the interpretation we use and it is not uncommon to have varying interpretations in golf.

[ColinL]

There certainly is the intention to fill it with the post, right?

I really, really hoped you weren't going to say that.  It distorts the meaning of "fill in" .

What else do we have in understanding "the concept" other than the words  in the Rules that I am sticking with?  I don't believe we should be adding words that aren't there!   All that I read from the Rules is that if a hole was made by the groundsman, not accidentally but for a purpose it is an abnormal ground condition.  What is to happen to the hole in the future is irrelevant: that it was purposefully made is enough for me.

So, as a last question it's back to the holes on my course.  These are for winter greens which are not being "prepared for putting" over the summer and are therefore  not wrong putting greens.  Say the intention is to leave these holes unfilled  every summer to be brought back into use when winter greens are prepared.    Never mind whether that is a good idea or not, would you refuse relief if one of the holes was interfering with my lie?

Perhaps you would by arguing that the intention is to fill it with a flagstick.

Thanks for an enjoyable argument.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColinL

Yes, indeed.   "Usually" indicates that there are other possibilities.

For example, a ball is resting against a direction marker.  The player removes  the marker post and the ball is on the edge of the hole.  It  interferes with his lie.  I would allow relief even though there is obviously no intention of filling it in.

There certainly is the intention to fill it with the post, right?

I'm afraid you are too stuck with the words instead of trying to understand the concept but so be it, I am not going to spend time in persuading you. This is the interpretation we use and it is not uncommon to have varying interpretations in golf.

It isn't up to "us" or "we" to interpret the rules.  That is the job of the USGA and R&A.;  They document what they feel are necessary interpretations in the Decisions, and then we make our rulings based on the Rules and Decisions.  If further interpretation is needed, we apply to the ruling bodies for assistance.

In the interest of finishing a competition, we may try an interpretation in the heat of battle, but if there is a significant question, then we should immediately apply to the appropriate ruling body for an authorized procedure or interpretation.

[ColinL]

Perhaps you would grant relief  by arguing that the intention is to fill it with a flagstick.

Apologies - that's how that sentence should read.

[Rulesman]

There certainly is the intention to fill it with the post, right?

I'm afraid you are too stuck with the words instead of trying to understand the concept but so be it, I am not going to spend time in persuading you. This is the interpretation we use and it is not uncommon to have varying interpretations in golf.

Similar to Colin's situation, a course near me has 'permanent' temporary/winter greens a short distance from the normal green. They have two holes in each green. During the summer these 'greens' are cut to fairway length and are played as 'fairways' (ie they are not wrong greens). The holes are not filled in and are not intended to be filled in. They are however holes made by a green keeper.

The R&A; advised me, on behalf of the club, that they can be considered as such or as an Immovable Obstruction if it helped players understand how to proceed.

[Rulesman]

It may be worth noting that as long ago as 1812 the St Andrews code treated the other hole, the "supernumerary hole", on double greens in the same way as a rabbit burrow.

As an aside, there was no relief from a rabbit scrape.

[Ignorant]

It isn't up to "us" or "we" to interpret the rules.  That is the job of the USGA and R&A.;  They document what they feel are necessary interpretations in the Decisions, and then we make our rulings based on the Rules and Decisions.  If further interpretation is needed, we apply to the ruling bodies for assistance.

In the interest of finishing a competition, we may try an interpretation in the heat of battle, but if there is a significant question, then we should immediately apply to the appropriate ruling body for an authorized procedure or interpretation.

The way I/we see this is that I/we are not interpreting the Rules but giving rulings based on Rules and course conditions. A hole made by a greenkeeper has not been scrupulously determined in the Rules so ad hoc interpretations are a must.

It seems that as well as Colin you are also missing the concept, but as with Colin I will not spend time trying to convert you as I know from previous experience that is not worth a shot.

However, I will throw in a question for you:

On a straight 394 meter long par4 there is an area in the deep rough 30 meters left from the left edge of the green partially 'ruined' by maintenance vehicles (tire marks and such) and it might be very difficult to play a ball from that area, depending on the lie the ball takes. The green is 20 meters wide and the hole is in the middle. Would you as a referee mark that area as GUR?

What if that area would be in the woods where there are sticks & stones as well as big trees, would that make a difference?

What if that hole would be 320 meters in length and the flag would be in the right side of the green?

Just curious to understand your thinking...

[Ignorant]

I really, really hoped you weren't going to say that.  It distorts the meaning of "fill in" .

What else do we have in understanding "the concept" other than the words  in the Rules that I am sticking with?  I don't believe we should be adding words that aren't there!   All that I read from the Rules is that if a hole was made by the groundsman, not accidentally but for a purpose it is an abnormal ground condition.  What is to happen to the hole in the future is irrelevant: that it was purposefully made is enough for me.

So, as a last question it's back to the holes on my course.  These are for winter greens which are not being "prepared for putting" over the summer and are therefore  not wrong putting greens.  Say the intention is to leave these holes unfilled  every summer to be brought back into use when winter greens are prepared.    Never mind whether that is a good idea or not, would you refuse relief if one of the holes was interfering with my lie?

Perhaps you would by arguing that the intention is to fill it with a flagstick.

Thanks for an enjoyable argument.

I was expecting comments of much higher quality from you, Colin, but apparently you have made up your mind and refuse to think out of your box. Good day to you.

[Rulesman]

Ignorant

I'm puzzled. Are you suggesting that a 'hole made by a greenkeeper' only qualifies for relief if there is an intention for it to be filled in?

[Ignorant]

Quote:

Ignorant

I'm puzzled. Are you suggesting that a 'hole made by a greenkeeper' only qualifies for relief if there is an intention for it to be filled in?

Well, it seems to me that you have not quite grasped what I have tried to explain. But in the light of all the examples I've presented, what is your (own) opinion?