or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Rules of Golf › Should divots be considered ground under repair?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Should divots be considered ground under repair? - Page 11

post #181 of 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post

@Kenn
,

It is very obvious for anyone who has ever read and understood the Rules of Golf or who has read The Principle Behind the Rules of Golf why a divot should not be considered ground under repair.  The rational reasoning is also obvious, play the course as you find it.  Holes made by previous golfers are part of the course, plain and simple.  Ground under repair has be designated GUR by a course committee because the course is repairing a section of the course.  They cannot designate every divot around the course.  There are literally thousands of them.  The also cannot duly deputize every golfer to designate GUR on their own because fairness would come into question.

Not fairness, but rather equity. A distinction also addressed by Tufts.

 

And it is an important distinction too.  Fairness is subjective - what is fair is different to different people.  Equity is objective.  It simply means that like situations are treated the same, and that doesn't change regardless of the situation to which it is applied.

post #182 of 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by birlyshirly View Post

 

You make a reasonable point. I think the Rules' primary purpose is to provide clarity and a level playing field. To that extent, what the Rules say on any given point could be quite arbitrary - as I think is the case here. I disagree with your conclusion though. It's one thing to say that the Rules could be changed to no ill effect. It's quite another to conclude that we don't need rules at all. The point is to have a system that everyone plays to.

 

Be still my beating heart.

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignorant View Post
 

 

I got pretty tired reading posts where some people claim it is not possible to have such a Local Rule. As that is complete BS I decided to write those three simple questions.

 

 

It is possible to have any kind of local rule you want.  But that does not make it right, legal, or authorized.  And personally if I play a course with an improper local rule I either ignore it or don't go back to that course.  E.g., the disturbing trend of local rules under which courses mark tree lines and rough lines as lateral hazards.  As if one of those courses in Scotland had the divot "rule", I doubt anyone would be DQed or penalized because they DIDN'T take relief.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenn View Post
 

So local rules did at one time allow for the seeded divot rule even if common sense does not prevail in your rule book.

 

 

And lots of courses now have a local rule under which tree lines are treated like lateral hazards.  So what?  All it proves is that people can do stupid things.

post #183 of 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenn View Post
 

Yes Payne, it does make perfect sense.


no it does not. in fact most course mark to much ground under repair as it is. Play the course as you find it! Learn to play a shot from a divot!

post #184 of 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post
 

 

Be still my beating heart.

 

It is possible to have any kind of local rule you want.  But that does not make it right, legal, or authorized.  And personally if I play a course with an improper local rule I either ignore it or don't go back to that course.  E.g., the disturbing trend of local rules under which courses mark tree lines and rough lines as lateral hazards.  As if one of those courses in Scotland had the divot "rule", I doubt anyone would be DQed or penalized because they DIDN'T take relief.

 

Certainly not, but what has that to do with anything?

 

A completely different situation would arise if relief by LR would be mandatory (just for an example). Players really knowing the Rules would refuse to take the relief as that LR would be against the RoG resulting to be DQ'd by the Committee having drafted the incorrect LR. That is my entire point here.

post #185 of 495
Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 

Here you go, Ignorant:

"The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf" by Richard S. Tufts
started on 09/26/13 last post 08/23/14 at 8:28am 95 replies 2320 views

 

I wonder why you are addressing this to me as there are 3 other persons referring to Tufts' book and I wasn't even first of them?

post #186 of 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignorant View Post
 

Certainly not, but what has that to do with anything?

 

Your original post stated that a person not following the (invalid) local rule would get in trouble for not following it or would feel that he would get in trouble. That's how it's stated and how @turtleback seems to have taken it as well.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignorant View Post
 

I wonder why you are addressing this to me as there are 3 other persons referring to Tufts' book and I wasn't even first of them?

 

Because others were using it in support of the discussion here, while you used it to discuss the use of range finders - a topic better suited for the specific discussion thread itself. My comment was a small part of a much larger, on-topic post.

 

@Ignorant, please multiquote. We've asked this of you several times.

post #187 of 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by birlyshirly View Post

 

So take it or leave it. But if you, or anyone else wants to dispute the facts claimed in the article, it would be more persuasive to say "here is some contradictory evidence" rather than just some lame version of "that can't be accurate, because I've never heard about it before"

 

You're relying on others to prove a negative. ONE article (copied in multiple places) makes a claim. It's found NOWHERE else. Not in anyone's experiences (except your own), not in articles, not in posts here on TST or other sites pre-2010, etc.

 

The lack of evidence is in and of itself evidence. It's not strong, but neither are "your experiences" and one article copied in several places. It also doesn't jive with Scotland being the home of golf and playing the game honorably.

 

Regardless, it's a side topic whether half the clubs in Scotland were violating the RoG pre-2010. Why would anyone who doesn't live in Scotland care? Any club that had such a local rule was doing so in violation of the Rules of Golf. It seems as though you're clinging to this last little bit because it may be the only thing you could be right about, and even then the "correctness" is suspect.

 

Let's be clear - you're saying I'm clinging to this last little bit? That "last little bit" is the only point I've made. That we have a number of posters who went into furious denial when I pointed out this one fairly innocuous matter of fact, and blew it into a 10 page dispute, is not my problem.

 

Why should anyone who doesn't live in Scotland care? Well, if you don't think you've got anything to learn from whatever doesn't happen in your own backyard, then that's up to you. It should be of interest to anyone who's genuinely curious about the consequences of changing the rule about relief from divots. Obviously you can disagree with the practice or legality of taking relief from divots, but saying that it's irrelevant speaks of closed-mindedness.

 

What do you think are the consequences if those local rules were indeed "in violation of the Rules of Golf"? Do you too think handicaps were invalidated, or that golfers who played by those local rules were cheating, "almost criminal" - like some posters have argued?

post #188 of 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by birlyshirly View Post

Let's be clear - you're saying I'm clinging to this last little bit? That "last little bit" is the only point I've made. That we have a number of posters who went into furious denial when I pointed out this one fairly innocuous matter of fact, and blew it into a 10 page dispute, is not my problem.

Why should anyone who doesn't live in Scotland care? Well, if you don't think you've got anything to learn from whatever doesn't happen in your own backyard, then that's up to you. It should be of interest to anyone who's genuinely curious about the consequences of changing the rule about relief from divots. Obviously you can disagree with the practice or legality of taking relief from divots, but saying that it's irrelevant speaks of closed-mindedness.

What do you think are the consequences if those local rules were indeed "in violation of the Rules of Golf"? Do you too think handicaps were invalidated, or that golfers who played by those local rules were cheating, "almost criminal" - like some posters have argued?

I LOVE it when people post scores played under "rules" like that. Their hcps are significantly under-stated and when it comes time for them to actually play competitively by the rules of golf, they're easily creamed! I encourage you to roll it over anywhere you like. Treat all tree lines as red staked hazards, pick up any putt under 2.......hell, let's make it 4 feet, and anything else you'd like to do.

And let me say in advance......Thank you!

Nope, no consequences at all! a1_smile.gif
post #189 of 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by birlyshirly View Post
 

Let's be clear - you're saying I'm clinging to this last little bit? That "last little bit" is the only point I've made.

 

No it isn't. You claimed that it was legal to move your ball from a divot hole. The number of clubs that had this invalid rule is a secondary point that is, for the most part, irrelevant except to serve as a possible impetus for the addition of the Decision in 2009 (to take effect in 2010).

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by birlyshirly View Post
 

Well, if you don't think you've got anything to learn from whatever doesn't happen in your own backyard, then that's up to you.

 

And what, pray tell, do we have to learn from golf clubs who make up invalid Local Rules? That there are idiots in the world? I think your avatar alone proves that. :-)

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by birlyshirly View Post
 

It should be of interest to anyone who's genuinely curious about the consequences of changing the rule about relief from divots.

 

The rule was not changed.

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by birlyshirly View Post
 

Obviously you can disagree with the practice or legality of taking relief from divots, but saying that it's irrelevant speaks of closed-mindedness.

 

No you can't. It's a fact. You're the only one disagreeing with facts in this case. Relief from a divot hole was never legal.

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by birlyshirly View Post
 

What do you think are the consequences if those local rules were indeed "in violation of the Rules of Golf"?

 

They were invalid Local Rules. There's no "if" about it.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by birlyshirly View Post
 

Do you too think handicaps were invalidated, or that golfers who played by those local rules were cheating, "almost criminal" - like some posters have argued?

 

I'm not going to answer that - they're not my comments originally - I'm just quoting it to point out that nobody ever said that golfers were "cheaters" or "almost criminal" for playing under those (invalid) Local Rules. The sentence to which you're referring was also not my comment, but you've clearly misunderstood its meaning. Feel free to address @Fourputt himself if you still feel the need to have explained to you what he meant there.

post #190 of 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by birlyshirly View Post

 

What do you think are the consequences if those local rules were indeed "in violation of the Rules of Golf"? Do you too think handicaps were invalidated, or that golfers who played by those local rules were cheating, "almost criminal" - like some posters have argued?

 

There is no "if" about it.  That was never a legitimate local rule.  Those courses which instituted such a policy were in direct contravention with the Rules of Golf.  Rule 13 requires that you play your ball as it lies unless a rule allows it to be lifted.  As there is no such rule or exception for relief from divot holes, anyone with even the most basic rules knowledge should know that this was not authorized.

 

No one, myself included called anyone a cheater or criminal (used the term for emphasis in what a consider a grievous abuse of power by the involved committees) for following what they thought was a legitimate local rule.  What I said was that I considered such freewheeling with the rules to be criminal because it improperly modified a rule which is founded on one of the most fundamental principles of the game.  If there was anyone which could be called "criminal" it was those committees which usurped the authority of the ruling bodies to institute those illegitimate "local rules".

post #191 of 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenn View Post
 

So local rules did at one time allow for the seeded divot rule even if common sense does not prevail in your rule book.

 

A seeded (or otherwise) divot relief rule is no longer allowed yet local rules declaring what is ground under repair is acceptable.  A local rule stating that all divots are ground under repair accomplishes the same thing.

 

 

 

If they got this one wrong how can anyone trust what they say?

 

Winter Rules No play from fairways unless beyond the white stakes in front of the green or using a putter. Please move balls to semi rough

 

No No play from fairways unless beyond the white staNo play from fairways unless beyond the white stakes in front of the green or using a putter. Please move balls to semi rough.kes in front of the green or using a putter. Please move balls to semi rough.play from fairways unless beyond the white stakes in frontNo play from fairways unless beyond the white stakes in front of the green or using a putter. Please move balls to semi rough. of the green or using a putter. Please move balls to semi rough.

post #192 of 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by birlyshirly View Post

 
Let's be clear - you're saying I'm clinging to this last little bit? That "last little bit" is the only point I've made.

No it isn't. You claimed that it was legal to move your ball from a divot hole. The number of clubs that had this invalid rule is a secondary point that is, for the most part, irrelevant except to serve as a possible impetus for the addition of the Decision in 2009 (to take effect in 2010).


OK - let's call it my primary point, the point that I joined the thread to make. 
Originally Posted by birlyshirly View Post


 

Funny how so many posters get so heated and moralistic and spirit-of-the-game-ish. The current rule is the current rule, but it's pretty arbitrary IMO. I don't recall any great hoo-ha in the years when you could legally move your ball from a divot.



 



If there's a justification for the current rule, it's probably to save wear and tear on the course.



 



In the context of a thread starter asking about the desirability of a change in the rules for seeded divots, I thought I was pretty clear in my first post. I would not have posted on this thread if I'd wanted a debate on whether the local rules I'd played under previously had been properly made (which would have been way OT). I was only pointing out that different playing conditions had held sway. 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by birlyshirly View Post

What do you think are the consequences if those local rules were indeed "in violation of the Rules of Golf"? Do you too think handicaps were invalidated, or that golfers who played by those local rules were cheating, "almost criminal" - like some posters have argued?

There is no "if" about it.  That was never a legitimate local rule.  Those courses which instituted such a policy were in direct contravention with the Rules of Golf.  Rule 13 requires that you play your ball as it lies unless a rule allows it to be lifted.  As there is no such rule or exception for relief from divot holes, anyone with even the most basic rules knowledge should know that this was not authorized.

No one, myself included called anyone a cheater or criminal (used the term for emphasis in what a consider a grievous abuse of power by the involved committees) for following what they thought was a legitimate local rule.  What I said was that I considered such freewheeling with the rules to be criminal because it improperly modified a rule which is founded on one of the most fundamental principles of the game.  If there was anyone which could be called "criminal" it was those committees which usurped the authority of the ruling bodies to institute those illegitimate "local rules".
Fourputt - you originally said "Playing the ball as it lies is just about as fundamental a principle of golf as there is.  Modifying that principle without a rule or authorization is, to me just about criminal." I took you to mean that to extend to a player who discards or modifies that principle during play. Sorry if I misunderstood. But the same question to you as to Iacas - what are the consequences of following a Local Rule that violates a Rule of Golf?
post #193 of 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by birlyshirly View Post
 

 what are the consequences of following a Local Rule that violates a Rule of Golf?

Under any handicapping authority, any rounds played do not qualify for handicapping purposes.

 

In the US many courses turn a blind eye and let (encourage?) players to post scores.

Elsewhere, it is done through ignorance.

 

Further, neither of the ruling bodies will arbitrate on any decisions arising from competitions played other than to the Rules of Golf.

post #194 of 495
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asheville View Post
 

Perhaps, we've been punk'd. OP (who happens to be a sponsor here) probably never dreamed that he would get so many hits on his site. ;-) 

 

:whistle:

post #195 of 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by birlyshirly View Post
 

Yes. Pre-2010 - and that handicap lapsed after a break in club membership before I established a new handicap where I play now. Should I prepare for a visit from the authorities?

Not at all, I was simply curious if these clubs held tournaments with the local divot rule in play.  Even you'd have to agree your handicap had the potential to be inflated, compared to members from clubs that didn't provide such a local rule, given you never had to hit from a divot on the fairway.

 

Edit:  I just read the response from Rulesman, I guess your scores while playing under those rules shouldn't have been applied for handicap.

post #196 of 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rulesman View Post
 

From one person who knows his way round more than most. Richard Tufts

 

If there is one principle more basic than any of the rest, it must be that you play the course as you find it [Definitions: Course]. This
simply means that the player must accept the conditions he encounters during play and may not alter them to suit his convenience.

 

 

That is unless it's GUR, or on the green, or a burrow caused by an animal or any other number of reasons one of which should be the negligence of another golfer.

post #197 of 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenn View Post

That is unless it's GUR, or on the green, or a burrow caused by an animal or any other number of reasons one of which should be the negligence of another golfer.

Please tell us how a properly sanded divot reflects negligence on anyone's part......
post #198 of 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post


Please tell us how a properly sanded divot reflects negligence on anyone's part......

I think Kenn would prefer if you chased down the pieces of your divot and put them pack into place like a jigsaw puzzle so that it doesn't appear as if you ever took one.  Of course the rest of us on the course don't mind waiting so Kenn isn't required to hit from a properly repaired divot.  :whistle:

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Rules of Golf
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Rules of Golf › Should divots be considered ground under repair?