HoganApexFan

You keep quoting portions of posts without context to support your position. You still haven't presented a consistent or even remotely cogent argument regarding my complete post about defining "Divot Holes" ("a whole bunch of unnecessary words") What is wrong with the complete definition I provided; not with single phrases, sentences, or paragraphs? As others have complained here, you seem to have the habit of selectively quoting pieces from multiple posts and than using them in a rapid fire assault against members with differing views from you.

My proposed definition is not going to work because it "Includes a whole bunch of unnecessary words" might be why so many people are frustrated with this thread, which I thought was titled "Should Divots Be Considered Ground Under Repair?" RUKM? You MUST come up with a definition that WE can agree to, but don't use a whole bunch of unnecessary words...

Apparently I am no longer able to post in this thread, as I have requested that any and all refutations of my proposed definition address ALL3 paragraphs of this definition. For example, some people reference the first paragraph and completely ignore the third wrt sand/seed. Others completely disregard the second paragraph which eliminates most fatuous arguments about different lies, ground conditions, or barren areas. As We All Know, divot holes have absolutely nothing to do with the natural contours of the fairway or barren areas anywhere on the course.

Please do NOT break this post up into parts when you try to attack me, especially since ALL 3 paragraphs are both related and relevant regarding this definition. If you disagree with this definition, then please provide a recommended improvement. If you just don't like it because it effectively refutes YOUR opinion regarding a rules change, then maybe you should come up with a better argument.

Normally I'm ridiculed ad nauseum about my absolute cluelessness regarding the rules of golf (3 mistakes in a single sentence...) This is just a proposed definition from an ignorant bastard who could not ever have been cognizant of the rules of golf, and yet...crickets...What is wrong with this proposed definition???

I have been lectured and condescended to by people like you who think they know everything and are therefore above reproach. Your response to my response to this thread and specifically to @iacas who unilaterally changed the rules and REQUIRED that people who voted in favor of the rule change (AKA, the topic of this FREAKING discussion) indicated that you not only didn't read it, but that you are CLUELESS as well! You must be on the inner circle to be able to get away with such flagrant bullshit... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Over??? What about my proposed definition of a divot hole offended your delicate arse so much???

One of the unfortunate changes in the recent ROG is that they introduced a "General Area", and eliminated the "Closely mown areas through the green" concept, which included fairways, fringes, and greens, including closely mown areas through the rough (as well as the walking path for golfers from the tee to the fairway). Great point regarding whether or not the soil is disrupted. We should not care what caused the disruption, only that it occurred. Some golfers are sweepers, others are diggers...OTOH, it seems like a reasonable decision for competitors to make (without a rules official) if the soil was disrupted. (They have been doing this for years regarding pitch marks on the green vs spike marks). Absolutely no clue how to answer the third question

YES! Thank You! Please be one of the people that acknowledges that the definition at least has merit. Mike Davis seemed to be overly concerned about this healing aspect, and in my opinion really dismissed the perspective of one of the Greatest Golfers of All Time!!! He wasn't being gentle, he was a hack golfer/lawyer being polite to a legend.

minutes ago

Point taken. But please provide your position on the proposed definition of Divot Hole that I provided,

And THIS is why I tried to provide a definition that was acceptable to at least 3 "No type People"...RUKM??? For some reason I have to convince supporters of the cult before I am allowed to even try to clear the "Second Hurdle". BTW, I'm kinda sorta believing that my definition of Divot Hole can come close (although cults do tend to stick together...)

Love You Shorty, but read the title of this topic/thread. Should Divots Be Considered Ground Under Repair?

Please read the entire post...I even specifically stated that "Mere disruptions in the surface area where the ball rests, differences in lie or conditions of grass, or even the complete absence of grass without the disruption in the soil shall NOT be considered a divot hole for relief purposes under this rule. Barren areas of any course, including on or adjacent to greens, should be evaluated by the committee to determine their eligibility as grounds under repair." Wake up and smell the coffee...

LOL! Who give a rat's tail? DON'T Care! We are talking about relief n a Fairway! This thread is 100% about relief under GUR in the FAIRWAY! And your response includes false statements. I do not care what some of the "purist/elitist" consider "divot holes" and are trying to limit the definition to support their position. I wanted to present a definition that DEFIED all of the nitpicking so that we could get back to the original question of whether the rule should be changed. HINT: It Should!

While I am patiently waiting for the inevitable attacks from the holy warriors, I am convinced that even the GOAT, Mr. Jack Nicklaus, would agree with this definition and also would not be so kind in telling former USGA (whatever his position was) and lawyer Mike Davis to stick it where the sun doesn't shine.