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 17

post #289 of 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post
 

 

That said, I just want to add that you, Rulesman, have always been a great resource for this site and that personally nothing that has transpired in this thread has in any way changed the high regard in which I hold you and your knowledge of the rules.  We all need to remember that you were of the exact same opinion as most of use when the issue first came up and were as surprised as any of us at the response you got from the R&A.  Given the fact of the decision that clarifies things, the issue is obviously now moot so you have no obligation to pursue this any further, but it would be interesting to know by what means did the R&A make that local rule permissible - i.e., based on what specific provision of Appendix I or through individual authorizations.

 

A good post. Denying things is no route to understanding but understanding the facts is.

 

Well written, Turtleback.

post #290 of 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 

An email in November 2013 which contains all of one sentence on the topic is not proof that the R&A had ever issued a "ruling" authorizing or validating a Divot Hole Local Rule. As @turtleback says, show us the money.

 

Uhh, that is not what I said.  I said it would be interesting to see the rationale or the documentation of the local rule having been authorized at the time, but that Rulesman has no obligation to pursue this any further with his R&A contacts to settle what is, in effect, a bar bet on something that is completely moot.

 

I will only add that permissible covers a lot more territory than authorized.  Appendix I used authorized and implies a specific positive action, either through the operation of the policy in the Appendix or a specific authorization.  Permissible is a lot less specific, IMO, and could certainly be stretched to cover a more passive situation where "Yeah we knew they were doing it and let it slide but then we took action to stop it."  If it was as widespread as was claimed way upthread, then it would be hard to think that the R&A was not aware of it and was, by their inaction, allowing it (or, in effect, making it permissible).  

post #291 of 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

And consider this: if there's evidence or proof that, for some period of time, the R&A were not just looking the other way but outright sanctioning a Local Rule that directly and violently conflicts with the Principles of the game, that would be a sad day. I'm holding out hope that they were really just "looking the other way" until the "problem" grew too large to ignore, and then issued the Decision.

Admittedly stones in bunkers is not as widespread as divot holes but they are pretty common.  There is a specimen Local Rule for this situation. Frankly, improving one's lie in a hazard via Local Rule seems at least on par with improving one's lie from a filled and seeded divot hole in a closely mown area of the course.  

post #292 of 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignorant View Post

 

 

3) Your argument is that this Local Rule should have been widespread in order to have been legitimate. As it has not been widespread (in the jurisdiction of USGA) your direct conclusion is that virtually nobody has ever heard about it and thus it is wrong and untrue. I see it differently. This Local Rule has previously been authorized by R&A (within its jurisdiction) as shown by Rulesman  but has not been widely known and thus not widely used. In my mind this is the most credible scenario as I cannot see any possible reason for a R&A official to publicly lie about such an issue.

 

Not what Erik said.  It's hard to believe there was a valid local rule that violated one of the most fundamental principles of the game.  

post #293 of 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by bkuehn1952 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

And consider this: if there's evidence or proof that, for some period of time, the R&A were not just looking the other way but outright sanctioning a Local Rule that directly and violently conflicts with the Principles of the game, that would be a sad day. I'm holding out hope that they were really just "looking the other way" until the "problem" grew too large to ignore, and then issued the Decision.

Admittedly stones in bunkers is not as widespread as divot holes but they are pretty common.  There is a specimen Local Rule for this situation. Frankly, improving one's lie in a hazard via Local Rule seems at least on par with improving one's lie from a filled and seeded divot hole in a closely mown area of the course.  

 

The "stones in bunkers" argument generally centers around a perceived threat of danger to others who might be in the way of a stone which happened to come their way as a result of a player's bunker shot. Just as in many things context is king.

post #294 of 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post
 

Uhh, that is not what I said.  I said it would be interesting to see the rationale or the documentation of the local rule having been authorized at the time

 

I could have been clearer, sorry, but what you said here is what I was talking about. I too agree that he's under no obligation, but "show us the money" applied to the documentation or further actual "proof" than one sentence in an email. And I imagine he really couldn't care less whether I think the Local Rule was rubber stamped by the R&A or not, so I don't imagine we'll ever see the further evidence.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post
 

I will only add that permissible covers a lot more territory than authorized.

 

True. Perhaps "permissible" means "okay for handicap rounds, but don't use it in official competitions or anything serious." No idea, though.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post
 

Permissible is a lot less specific, IMO, and could certainly be stretched to cover a more passive situation where "Yeah we knew they were doing it and let it slide but then we took action to stop it."  If it was as widespread as was claimed way upthread, then it would be hard to think that the R&A was not aware of it and was, by their inaction, allowing it (or, in effect, making it permissible).  

 

I agree with that as well.

 

Again, I'm hoping that this is closer to the truth of what happened, because for the R&A to "authorize" such a Local Rule in direct conflict with the Rules and Principles, they'd lose a good chunk of respect amongst Rules Geeks (and maybe they don't care…).

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkuehn1952 View Post
 

Admittedly stones in bunkers is not as widespread as divot holes but they are pretty common.  There is a specimen Local Rule for this situation. Frankly, improving one's lie in a hazard via Local Rule seems at least on par with improving one's lie from a filled and seeded divot hole in a closely mown area of the course.  

 

I believe the feeling is that rocks in bunkers are a safety concern, so that's not on par with allowing relief from divots unless you seed your divots with really coarse sand. :-D 

 

Edit: Oops. Was beaten to that one.

post #295 of 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 

 

Again, I'm hoping that this is closer to the truth of what happened, because for the R&A to "authorize" such a Local Rule in direct conflict with the Rules and Principles, they'd lose a good chunk of respect amongst Rules Geeks (and maybe they don't care…).

 

 

Especially rules geeks that are at the top of the food chain at the USGA .  Imagine Mike Davis hearing about this :pound:

post #296 of 517

I understand the "danger" issue of stones in bunkers but it is not dissimilar from a stone imbedded in turf or a swing that may hit a tree, etc...  No relief is given to many other situations where a ricocheting ball, dislodged stone or branch or broken club might injured someone.  The justification for the Local Rule is stated to be safety but that sort of flies in the face of all the other times attempting a shot can cause an injury.

post #297 of 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvmac View Post
 

 

Especially rules geeks that are at the top of the food chain at the USGA .  Imagine Mike Davis hearing about this :pound:

Lol, maybe we should email him.

post #298 of 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post
 

 

I will only add that permissible covers a lot more territory than authorized.

 

 

 

permit (n)

1. (Law) an official certificate or document granting authorization;

 

authorize (vt)

2. To give permission for; sanction: 
 
 
 
 
 
post #299 of 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post
 

 

Maybe not lying, but shading the truth a little to cover-up some shady doings?  

 

That is a pretty strong allegation without evidence to back it up.

 

There are allegations being posted here with no hard facts to substantiate them. Plenty of 'I think', 'It is my opinion' but no more. It is not upto me to get proof of innocence from the R&A but up to those who believe they are guilty of a cover up to provide the hard evidence or proof.

 

If anyone feels strongly enough about, I suggest they write to the R&A directly. There is a facility on their website.

post #300 of 517

I think "permit" is more passive, while "authorize" is more active.

 

The policeman in my jaywalking example "permitted" people to jaywalk, but they didn't "authorize" it. "Permit" has an air of "look the other way" to it.

 

For me, it comes down to this… The instant I admit that I was wrong that the R&A not only "permitted" clubs to have such a Local Rule but outright "authorized" it, I will in that same instance lose a good chunk of respect for the R&A for having authorized such a Local Rule in violation of the Rules and Principles.

 

Why am I having so much trouble accepting that they authorized it as a valid Local Rule?

  1. It's difficult to believe that they would authorize such a Local Rule because it's so clearly in violation of the Rules and Principles.
  2. We've only seen one email, only one sentence of which even addresses this topic specifically, which uses the word "permissible." We don't have any other details. There doesn't appear to be much - if any - supporting evidence online.
 

A part of me is glad the person said "permissible" because I feel like I'm still holding out and hoping the R&A didn't actually authorize this Local Rule.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rulesman View Post
 

There are allegations being posted here with no hard facts to substantiate them. Plenty of 'I think', 'It is my opinion' but no more. It is not upto me to get proof of innocence from the R&A but up to those who believe they are guilty of a cover up to provide the hard evidence or proof.

 

I feel that you have that backwards. We're asking for evidence that they authorized this Local Rule. I won't speak for others, but when I say that perhaps they "looked the other way," I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt - I'm holding out and hoping that they were not so incredibly stupid as to actually authorize the Relief from Divot Holes Local Rule.

 

But again, no, it's not "up to" you to do provide anything. I don't think anyone has said it is. But it's not up to us to do anything, either, except to be rational and curious, and to make the best opinions we can.

 

You're taking offense to things which are not intended to be offensive, or said offensively.

post #301 of 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvmac View Post
 

 

It's hard to believe there was a valid local rule that violated one of the most fundamental principles of the game.  

 

This is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of accepting a statement from one of the two Ruling Bodies.

 

This is the last of it from my part, I do not have competence nor will to argue with R&A, unlike some others seem to have.

post #302 of 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rulesman View Post
 

 

permit (n)

1. (Law) an official certificate or document granting authorization;

 

authorize (vt)

2. To give permission for; sanction:

 

That is the definition for PERmit ... not the definition for perMIT.  Those are two entirely different words. ;)  One authorizes you to fish or hunt or get married or carry a gun, and the other is ...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

I think "permit" is more passive, while "authorize" is more active.

 

The policeman in my jaywalking example "permitted" people to jaywalk, but they didn't "authorize" it. "Permit" has an air of "look the other way" to it.

 

Agreed.  perMIT can definitely have an air of passiveness to it.  Permitting is more like knowing that it's happening and not bothering to stop it.  Authorizing is actively saying "yes, you can do that."  I will occasionally permit my son to steal a cookie from the jar or drink his sisters milk, not because he's technically supposed to be doing it, but simply because I'd rather avoid the tantrum that will follow if don't authorize it. (and his sister never finishes her milk anyways ;))

post #303 of 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

I believe the feeling is that rocks in bunkers are a safety concern, so that's not on par with allowing relief from divots unless you seed your divots with really coarse sand. :-D

 

Edit: Oops. Was beaten to that one.

 

The justification for allowing one to remove a stone or pebble (size not specified) from a hazard (bunker) via an authorized Local Rule based on safety fits well into the principle of golf that says play the course as you find it. The justification in allowing relief from filled and seeded divot holes via an authorized Local Rule based on preservation of the course, however, is a direct assault on the principle of playing the course as you find it.

 

The USGA justifies the Local Rule from a safety standpoint:

 

"However, stones in bunkers may represent a danger to players (a player could be injured by a stone struck by the player’s club in an attempt to play the ball) and they (the stones) may interfere with the proper playing of the game."

 

I can't help but wonder how many people (other than the player hitting the shot) have been hit by stones from a bunker versus, say, hit by a bladed golf ball.  Is safety the real reason or is "interference with the proper playing of the game" and the large nick in one's Volkey wedge the true reason?

post #304 of 517
They said AND-That says to me it is both.-That is what "AND" means right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bkuehn1952 View Post


I can't help but wonder how many people (other than the player hitting the shot) have been hit by stones from a bunker versus, say, hit by a bladed golf ball.  Is safety the real reason or is "interference with the proper playing of the game" and the large nick in one's Volkey wedge the true reason?
post #305 of 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rulesman View Post
 

 

 

permit (n)

1. (Law) an official certificate or document granting authorization;

 

authorize (vt)

2. To give permission for; sanction: 
 
 
 
 
 

 

Golfingdad has already touched on the fact that the noun definition of permit is inapt to this case, but the definition of the actual word when used as an adjective, as was done in the email is much less definite:

 

Quote:

Full Definition of PERMISSIVE

1  archaic :  granted on sufferance :  tolerated
2
a :  granting or tending to grant permission :  tolerant
 
b :  deficient in firmness or control :  indulgentlax
3
:  allowing discretion :  optional <reduced the permissiveretirement age from 65 to 62>
 

Full Definition of AUTHORIZE

1
:  to establish by or as if by authority :  sanction <a customauthorized by time>
2
:  to invest especially with legal authority :  empower<authorized to act for her husband>
3
archaic :  justify 1a

 

 

The "tolerant" sense and the "indulgent" sense are the ones I was referring to when I said that permissive is more passive than authorized, which implies a specific positive approval. 

 

I HOPE that is the sense the email used the word permissive.  And while I understand that you are only explicating what the R&A told you, can you in your own knowledge and understanding and experience of the rules see how such a local rule could possibly be authorized without contradicting the ROG and, specifically, Appendix I?  Because frankly, irrespective of the R&A response I still am having a very hard time seeing what the rationale for such a local rule could be.  Can you explain it other than through an appeal to authority? (not that you have any obligation to do so)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rulesman View Post
 

 

That is a pretty strong allegation without evidence to back it up.

 

There are allegations being posted here with no hard facts to substantiate them. Plenty of 'I think', 'It is my opinion' but no more. It is not upto me to get proof of innocence from the R&A but up to those who believe they are guilty of a cover up to provide the hard evidence or proof.

 

If anyone feels strongly enough about, I suggest they write to the R&A directly. There is a facility on their website.

 

I agree that you have no obligation to pursue this any further with the R&S and have said so.

 

But you have to agree that when even someone as experienced and knowledgeable as you are initially thinks that the local rule is not allowable, as you did, it is not unreasonable to express skepticism of their statement when it provides no rationale or explanation of how they concluded that something that on its face appears to directly contradict the ROG was allowable.

 

As to writing to the R&A, if their site is anything like the USGA site the R&A wouldn't answer a query from me because I am in the USA..  The USGA requires anyone to provide a mailing address and phone number with any rules questions.  Their reason is:

 

Quote:

Why do we require a mailing address and phone?
Through an agreement with the R & A of St. Andrews, Scotland, the Rules jurisdiction of the USGA includes only the United States, its territories, and Mexico. Therefore, we are unable to answer questions posed from outside this geographic area. If you are outside this jurisdiction, please forward your questions to the R&A. If you are located in Canada, please direct your inquiry to Golf Canada. Additionally, in the event of problems with the delivery of an e-mail message, the USGA will respond via telephone or U.S. mail. The USGA does not use this information for any other purpose.

 
post #306 of 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignorant View Post
 

 

This is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of accepting a statement from one of the two Ruling Bodies.

 

This is the last of it from my part, I do not have competence nor will to argue with R&A, unlike some others seem to have.

 

Yes we have a statement from someone at the R&A and have five communications from USGA people that contradict what the R&A person said.

 

Why is it hard to believe? Erik summed it up best

Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 

 

Why am I having so much trouble accepting that they authorized it as a valid Local Rule?

  1. It's difficult to believe that they would authorize such a Local Rule because it's so clearly in violation of the Rules and Principles.
  2. We've only seen one email, only one sentence of which even addresses this topic specifically, which uses the word "permissible." We don't have any other details. There doesn't appear to be much - if any - supporting evidence online.
 
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?