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 15

post #253 of 517
None of the emails the "messenger" gave us said that the local rule was legit.-Those were your words then you wrote in blue about how they changed their position on divots-NOt divot holes-because theyre not abnormal ground conditions-Something everybody knows and which they would know since they wrote the definition.

Nobodys shooting any one. Just dont believe what your guy said or think that was the official policy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rulesman View Post

I am not attempting to justify their stance prior to 2010. Just relaying information.

Don't shoot the messenger. All I can do is cut and paste the email confirming what I have already posted.

I gather you are in the R&A area. Go to their website and ask the question yourself.

I cannot get anything more formal from the R&A than a reply to my question asked in my official capacity. I doubt that they will respond to a request that they post the statement on their website.
post #254 of 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rulesman View Post
 

 

That really doesn't help. That is simply the decision from 2010 which started the discussion about the situation prior to 2010

Well I tried.  My thought was that prior to 2010, Scottish clubs might have felt they could properly have a Local Rule similar to the one above.  Until 2010, the R&A may have chosen to allow such Local Rules whereas the USGA did not allow the use of this Local Rule for divot holes.  In a move to be uniform in the application of the Rules of Golf, the USGA might have convinced the R&A that protection of the course should not include filled and seeded divot holes.  That would explain why some Scotsmen know that prior to 2010 if was okay to take relief from filled and seeded divot holes while their cousins like me can't believe anyone ever thought it was okay to take relief from divot holes.

post #255 of 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil McGleno View Post

None of the emails the "messenger" gave us said that the local rule was legit.-

 

These words

 

Yes, this was a permissible Local Rule prior to 2010.

 

Were taken directly from the R&A's response, as were the others.

post #256 of 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by bkuehn1952 View Post
 

  Until 2010, the R&A may have chosen to allow such Local Rules whereas the USGA did not allow the use of this Local Rule for divot holes. 

 

There are still a couple of situations where the USGA and the R&A differ. They don't seem to make them known widely but one that appears on the R&A website is this

 

Two or More Tees – Connected by a Length of Cord or String

TeesThis is a fairly common question and, if considered in the light of the above comments, then you might reasonably assume that such a configuration would be considered non-conforming – as the string could effectively be used to aid alignment. However, this is one of the Rules with an Exception.  

In many countries, but particularly in the UK, the use of two or more tees tied together with string has been fairly common for many years – especially in the winter when the ground can be hard due to frost, or when winter mats are in use. 

Therefore, within The R&A’s area of jurisdiction (i.e. everywhere except the USA and Mexico) the use of a conforming tee which is connected to one or more other conforming tees by a length of cord or string is permissible – provided the cord or string and other tees are not used to aid the player in his alignment. Such a practice would render the player in breach of Rule 8-2a (Indicating Line of Play).

post #257 of 517
Those words werent blue in your post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rulesman View Post

These words
Were taken directly from the R&A's response, as were the others.
post #258 of 517
Quote: Post #230
Originally Posted by Rulesman View Post
 

 

I am disappointed you doubt my integrity in suggesting I would not seek clarification at a very high level.

I cannot disclose a name or specific position of the person concerned as the R&A do not permit such information to be disclosed.

However, I can assure (and you will have to trust me) that my contact in this case is a senior member of the Rules Department staff. I know most of them.

 

I have just phoned them and received this confirmation.

 

Dear XXXX

 

Yes, this was a permissible Local Rule prior to 2010.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Regards

 

XXXXX

 

Xxxxxxxxxxxxx  - Rules

The R&A, St Andrews, Fife, Scotland, KY16 9JD

Tel: +44 (0) 1334 460000; Fax: +44 (0) 1334 460003

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil McGleno View Post

Those words werent blue in your post.

 

They are in italics and blue/grey to differentiate from my words.

post #259 of 517

I still find it hard to understand how any organization which takes on the responsibility of guardianship of the rules of the game could find a way to rationalize contravening this statement from the local rules section of the Rules of Golf:

 

Quote:
 If local abnormal conditions interfere with the proper playing of the game and the Committee considers it necessary to modify a Rule of Golf, authorization from the USGA must be obtained.

 

Divots are not, and never have been abnormal conditions.  No one, thinking logically, would consider that making a second divot next to the first one was done in the interest of "preserving the course", which is the supposed reasoning behind the alleged authorization.  I'm not on any governing rules committee and even I can see that.  Apparently the USGA was also able to see the illogical inconsistency of such a local rule, as it seems that there was never any such authorization given to any club on this side of the Atlantic even before the word "abnormal" was added.  Maybe the USGA takes Tufts' analysis of the principles behind the rules more to heart because he was a USGA member.  

 

I really don't understand this peculiar action by the R&A.  The brevity of the response that Rulesman got makes it appear (at least to me) that the R&A is trying to sweep their participation under the rug as if they are embarrassed by it.  It would provide much more clarity for them to simply admit that it was an ugly mistake which has now been corrected.

 

Also an apology to Rulesman as I shouldn't have jumped on the messenger.  I was just so flabbergasted by the response that I was not really thinking as I wrote my response.

post #260 of 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenn View Post

 

 

I think the most important rule in golf deals with honor and the players doing what they mutually agree is fair under the circumstances.  If such a rule existed it should be very easy to let honor make the decision of what is or is not a divot.  Maybe not with you guys here but I don't think the guys I play with would have any difficulty in determining what was an unacceptable or unfair lie in someone else's divot. Isn't there something about "honor" in your rule book?

 

No honor here, just playing by the rules ;-)  The rules that say if your ball finds itself in a divot, you play it from there. The rules aren't something that is "mutually agreed" upon before you play.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

If the R&A allowed this it was a travesty on the rules.  Having to play from divot holes is too common a complaint for this to never have been mentioned before in any of the many golf forums which I am or have been a member of.  It is such a basic undermining of two of the most fundamental principles of the game that I can't see the R&A and USGA joint rules committee ever agreeing on such a practice.  

 

It does seem odd that we haven't heard about this before and I can't find anything about it online.  Not saying that Rulesman didn't get this email just this whole thing is very odd.  The Rules of Golf can't be waived by a Local Rule.

post #261 of 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

You do not get relief from a hole dug by a dog, because it is not a burrowing animal.  

I suppose it's off topic for this thread but the definition of a "burrowing animal" is something I've never thought about (and am not sure of).

 

Could literally be an animal that normally burrows or an animal digging a hole for whatever reason like a dog digging for a mole or to bury a bone.

 

Anybody know for 100% sure? I would like to know. Until now I would have considered a digging dog a burrowing dog and a digging squirrel a burrowing squirrel.

(Not that it's likely to come up).

post #262 of 517
As Fourputt said, a digging dog is not a burrowing animal. A mole, or chipmunk is......
post #263 of 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post

As Fourputt said, a digging dog is not a burrowing animal. A mole, or chipmunk is......

The reason I asked is that a few weeks ago I filled a huge hole on the course obviously dug by some animal. I would have no way to know if it was literally a burrowing animal or not. Groundhogs build burrows but it was bigger than any groundhog burrow I've seen. Foxes build burrows (a possibility?). Do coyotes build burrows?

 

If I had hit my ball in the hole I would have taken free relief and could have been wrong unless I could identify the animal that dug it.

post #264 of 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS256 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

You do not get relief from a hole dug by a dog, because it is not a burrowing animal.  

I suppose it's off topic for this thread but the definition of a "burrowing animal" is something I've never thought about (and am not sure of).

 

Could literally be an animal that normally burrows or an animal digging a hole for whatever reason like a dog digging for a mole or to bury a bone.

 

Anybody know for 100% sure? I would like to know. Until now I would have considered a digging dog a burrowing dog and a digging squirrel a burrowing squirrel.

(Not that it's likely to come up).

 

The allowance is specifically in the rules because of the prevalence of rabbits on many courses in the UK.  It was a virtual necessity to allow relief or play would have been very difficult.  

post #265 of 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

The allowance is specifically in the rules because of the prevalence of rabbits on many courses in the UK.  It was a virtual necessity to allow relief or play would have been very difficult.  

I didn't know that!

We have burrowing owls down in FL. Quite rare and endangered. One of the courses I play has had them on two holes in the past. They're maybe 8 inches tall....they just sit outside there burrow and watch you play. Pretty cool.
post #266 of 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

The allowance is specifically in the rules because of the prevalence of rabbits on many courses in the UK.  It was a virtual necessity to allow relief or play would have been very difficult.  

I didn't know that!

We have burrowing owls down in FL. Quite rare and endangered. One of the courses I play has had them on two holes in the past. They're maybe 8 inches tall....they just sit outside there burrow and watch you play. Pretty cool.

 

In Colorado it's prairie dogs.  They can actually become quite a problem, as they will expand their towns into any visible open space as long as there is enough plant life to feed them.  I've seen prairie dog towns in Montana which covered hundreds of acres.  Environmentalists think that they are cute and cuddly and severely restrict how they are allowed to be handled when they become pests.

post #267 of 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rulesman View Post

There are still a couple of situations where the USGA and the R&A differ. They don't seem to make them known widely but one that appears on the R&A website is this

Two or More Tees – Connected by a Length of Cord or String



Tees
This is a fairly common question and, if considered in the light of the above comments, then you might reasonably assume that such a configuration would be considered non-conforming – as the string could effectively be used to aid alignment. However, this is one of the Rules with an Exception.  



In many countries, but particularly in the UK, the use of two or more tees tied together with string has been fairly common for many years – especially in the winter when the ground can be hard due to frost, or when winter mats are in use. 



Therefore, within The R&A’s area of jurisdiction (i.e. everywhere except the USA and Mexico) the use of a conforming tee which is connected to one or more other conforming tees by a length of cord or string is permissible – provided the cord or string and other tees are not used to aid the player in his alignment. Such a practice would render the player in breach of Rule 8-2a (Indicating Line of Play).



Alright.....OT I know, but why in the hell would you want to connect 2 tees with a piece of string? b3_huh.gif
post #268 of 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post


Alright.....OT I know, but why in the hell would you want to connect 2 tees with a piece of string? b3_huh.gif

 

Two reasons

1) when the ground is hard and frosty, normal tees tend to fly off into the distance and may be difficult to retrieve or find

2) in the same circumstances or when some types of winter teeing ground mats are in use, it is impossible to place a conventional tee in the ground so the arrangement shown in this link has been traditionally used in the UK since Adam was a boy.

 

http://www.onlinegolf.co.uk/pga-tour-winter-tee-253721.html?gclid=CLrTzfH2gbsCFRIPtAodxDEAVQ&ef_id=OPTOUT:20131126072844:s

post #269 of 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvmac View Post
 

 

 

It does seem odd that we haven't heard about this before and I can't find anything about it online.  Not saying that Rulesman didn't get this email just this whole thing is very odd.  The Rules of Golf can't be waived by a Local Rule.

 

As it would seem that the USGA and the R&A did not agree on this matter, it is unlikely that it would been widely known to anyone in the USA except members of the JRC. If there was an internal argument within the JRC prior to 2010, they are hardly likely to make it public. Details of discussions within the JRC rarely get out to associates or other staff members, never mind to joe public. Witness the limited leaks re new rules or decisions.

post #270 of 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rulesman View Post

Two reasons
1) when the ground is hard and frosty, normal tees tend to fly off into the distance and may be difficult to retrieve or find
2) in the same circumstances or when some types of winter teeing ground mats are in use, it is impossible to place a conventional tee in the ground so the arrangement shown in this link has been traditionally used in the UK since Adam was a boy.

http://www.onlinegolf.co.uk/pga-tour-winter-tee-253721.html?gclid=CLrTzfH2gbsCFRIPtAodxDEAVQ&ef_id=OPTOUT:20131126072844:s

Well I'll be damned..... Thanks!
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?