Should Divots Be Considered Ground Under Repair?

[turtleback]

Well, you could take my earlier posts as a "yes - because it did no great harm when play under those conditions was, as a matter of fact, widespread."

One could make the same argument about almost any rule. Playing a tree-line as a lateral hazard will do "no great harm".  Letting players fix spikemarks on the green will do "no great harm".  Dropping a ball near the place where it went out of bounds will do "no great harm".  Dropping a ball when you can't find yours will do "no great harm".  At some point you must be wondering why there are any rules at all since none of them really are needed to avoid doing "no great harm".

[Foursum Golf]

Page 10!?

[Rulesman]

@Rulesman - would you be willing to ask your CONGU committee member friend to state formally, on behalf of CONGU and not as a personal opinion, whether pre-2010 handicaps obtained from play under such a local rule were invalid?

And if you are also speaking to the R&A;, would you be willing to ask them to state whether the 2010 Decision altered a Committee's discretion to make such a local rule?

And if the answer is "no" - would you be willing to ask them to explain why the Decision was explicitly effective from a specified date rather than retroactive?

Again, if what comes back is explicitly a representative R&A; view and not a personal view - then I think that would settle the issue for me.

What goes on in Scotland is entirely a matter for the SGU and the SLGA. I have no wish to get involved in their processes. CONGU simply make the handicapping regulations, the national unions manage them.

I will report back from the R&A; when they respond. Decisions are never retrospective. They become effective on 1 Jan of the year after they are announced. The decisions are under continuous review and changes are made every two years. Anyway, there would be no point. The rules are about competition golf and once a competition is over it is over.

However, I should point out that I have been a contributor to various rules forums for many years now and the divot hole problem has been running on and off through many of them for as long as can remember. The often asked question 'why not make a local rule?' has always been answered by longer serving referees than me 'because the RBs don't permit it'.

[birlyshirly]

Quote:

Originally Posted by birlyshirly

Well, you could take my earlier posts as a "yes - because it did no great harm when play under those conditions was, as a matter of fact, widespread."

Actually, I don't have a strong view on whether the rule should be changed or not. Ironically, as it turns out, I was suggesting that it was silly for the thread to get so heated when both options have been tried and seem to work OK in practice.

I think it's relevant, because it's a practical test of the other side of the debate.

Where are you getting that it was "widespread"? A couple of courses in Scotland hardly qualifies as widespread. SMH. I'm not aware of anybody that attempts to play by the rules that ever took relief from a divot.

What is Widespread?-Seems to me the only reason anyone got heated is cuz you cant acknowledge simple truths

Quote:

Originally Posted by birlyshirly

Well, you could take my earlier posts as a "yes - because it did no great harm when play under those conditions was, as a matter of fact, widespread."

Actually, I don't have a strong view on whether the rule should be changed or not. Ironically, as it turns out, I was suggesting that it was silly for the thread to get so heated when both options have been tried and seem to work OK in practice.

What MS256 says.-Ive been on this forum a little while and nobody pre-10 said anything about playing from divots.-How do we know it wasnt just ten clubs somewhere being stupid? Wheres the widespread hand-wringing over this "new rule" that affects hundreds of clubs and thousands of golfers?-You just have one article word for word in a few places.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS256

Where are you getting that it was "widespread"? A couple of courses in Scotland hardly qualifies as widespread. SMH. I'm not aware of anybody that attempts to play by the rules that ever took relief from a divot.

@MS256 and Phil - I posted an article saying specifically that more than half of Scotland's clubs operated some kind of divot relief local rule. That's not 2 or 10, that's widespread, IMO. I can't verify the claims of the article, except to say that it's consistent with my experience.

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"

Quote:

Originally Posted by birlyshirly

Well, you could take my earlier posts as a "yes - because it did no great harm when play under those conditions was, as a matter of fact, widespread."

One could make the same argument about almost any rule. Playing a tree-line as a lateral hazard will do "no great harm".  Letting players fix spikemarks on the green will do "no great harm".  Dropping a ball near the place where it went out of bounds will do "no great harm".  Dropping a ball when you can't find yours will do "no great harm".  At some point you must be wondering why there are any rules at all since none of them really are needed to avoid doing "no great harm".

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.

[Asheville]

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.

[Kenn]

Birly, your stock took a big hit today. If you continue your stock will be de-listed (from this thread).

You're clearly wrong. Quit while you're behind.

It has never been legal (let's say since 1900 on the off chance there's some weird rules sheet from a club in 1747 that shared its fairways with the polo club or something) to move your ball from a divot hole. Any club that had a local rule allowing it did so against the Rules of Golf. A later decision clarifying that they were doing so against the Rules of Golf does not prove that they were correct to do so beforehand.

I don't think anyone is really arguing the fact that nowhere in the rules does it say you get relief from a divot.  The thread was started by someone asking should that relief be allowed and the reason for that question is obvious.  Now put down your rule book for a moment and give me a rational reason why a golfer should be penalized for the negligence of another golfer and because "the rules say so" is not a rational reason.  The only one I can think of is, if allowed, you then have to determine what is or is not a divot.  Well, if the buddies you are playing with all say wow, tough luck on that lie ending up in a divot, it's a divot.

[Ignorant]

You claim to be a great referee but you don't seem to be objective and impartial.  Multiple people here have pointed out that moving the ball from a divot was never authorized by the Rules of Golf while one person claims it was done in Scotland as a local rule and provides a link to a blogger and these are the best questions you can come up with?

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.

I have encountered various Local Rules that are against the Rules in my time and every time (if feasible) I have tried to inform the responsible parties about the error. However, I'd be a complete fool to argue that those Local Rules never existed. And for the record, people playing by those erroneous Local Rules would put themselves between a rock and a hard place should they not follow them in a competition as it is the Committee in question that has created them and it is that very Committee that would penalize the player in breach of the LR. So no wonder they follow all LR's at their club, not knowing (or believing) they could be against the Rules of Golf.

[Kenn]

Quote:

What about the twist on this rule seen most dramatically at the US Open at Olympic?

At that club, divots are not replaced, but are instead filled with sand.  At least it is always reported to be sand; I have played many courses that ask you to fill divots with a provided mix of dirt and seed.

At any rate, Payne Stewart had to hit a key shot out of one such divot.  He argued that, since the grounds crew had applied this sand, it was clearly ground under repair, and he was entitled to relief.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?topic=5536.15;wap2

Yes Payne, it does make perfect sense.

[Rulesman]

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.

Golf, like life, is full of breaks. It is a game of chance, one of its fascinations being in "the way the ball bounces." To be able to accept the
breaks and still go on playing your game has always been one of the tests of the true champion, a test which it is more important to meet
successfully in golf than in any other sport. The acceptance of the conditions which the player finds on the course is therefore a vital part of
the game.

Of all the basic principles, the playing of the course as you find it is certainly one of the most sacred and those who violate it can hardly have
acquired an understanding or appreciation of the game.

[Kenn]

Seeded Divots: Golfers are reminded that in 2010 the R&A; withdrew the facility for golf clubs to establish a local rule giving relief from seeded divots and the ball must be played as it lies. However we would request that in casual play common sense should prevail and relief should be taken.

http://www.muckhartgolf.com/page.aspx?pid=12140

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.

[Ignorant]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenn

Quote:

What about the twist on this rule seen most dramatically at the US Open at Olympic?

At any rate, Payne Stewart had to hit a key shot out of one such divot.  He argued that, since the grounds crew had applied this sand, it was clearly ground under repair, and he was entitled to relief.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?topic=5536.15;wap2

Yes Payne, it does make perfect sense.

When does that sand filled divot hole stop being GUR? Who decides that? Will that speed up the game when a referee is called at the scene every time someone's ball is lying on the fairway and the player thinks he does not have a perfect lie?

I find that idea to be quite ridiculous, and I believe Mr. Stewart would have preferred to make his shots from a sand filled divot hole than from a divot hole not filled with anything.

[Ignorant]

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.

Golf, like life, is full of breaks. It is a game of chance, one of its fascinations being in "the way the ball bounces." To be able to accept the

breaks and still go on playing your game has always been one of the tests of the true champion, a test which it is more important to meet

successfully in golf than in any other sport. The acceptance of the conditions which the player finds on the course is therefore a vital part of

the game.

Of all the basic principles, the playing of the course as you find it is certainly one of the most sacred and those who violate it can hardly have

acquired an understanding or appreciation of the game.

Not that I disagree with that sacred principle but I bet Mr. Tufts also believed that distances should be estimated instead of pacing them off, not to mention measuring them with a range finder. Things have a tendency to change.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Seeded Divots: Golfers are reminded that in 2010 the R&A; withdrew the facility for golf clubs to establish a local rule giving relief from seeded divots and the ball must be played as it lies. However we would request that in casual play common sense should prevail and relief should be taken.

http://www.muckhartgolf.com/page.aspx?pid=12140

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.

Have you actually read what went before? There was never an authorized local rule allowing relief from a divot hole . Never anywere .  The fact that a few courses did so didn't make it right - no more than the fact that a few people rob banks makes that right.  Those courses were in direct opposition to the rules of golf and to the R&A; and USGA who manage the Rules of Golf.  Decision 33-8/34 was not for the purpose of rescinding the right to make such a local rule - it was to inform those wayward clubs that the local rule they had enacted was not authorized or proper, and never had been.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rulesman

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.

Golf, like life, is full of breaks. It is a game of chance, one of its fascinations being in "the way the ball bounces." To be able to accept the

breaks and still go on playing your game has always been one of the tests of the true champion, a test which it is more important to meet

successfully in golf than in any other sport. The acceptance of the conditions which the player finds on the course is therefore a vital part of

the game.

Of all the basic principles, the playing of the course as you find it is certainly one of the most sacred and those who violate it can hardly have

acquired an understanding or appreciation of the game.

Not that I disagree with that sacred principle but I bet Mr. Tufts also believed that distances should be estimated instead of pacing them off, not to mention measuring them with a range finder. Things have a tendency to change.

But Mr. Tufts would have agreed that distances to course features are information, and as such how that information is gathered is less important than how it is classified.  But that's not what we are discussing here.  If you want that debate to start again, you can always open a thread.  there is a whole thread for discussion of the Principles by Mr. Tufts, and that is the proper place for this comment.

[David in FL]

I don't think anyone is really arguing the fact that nowhere in the rules does it say you get relief from a divot.  The thread was started by someone asking should that relief be allowed and the reason for that question is obvious.  Now put down your rule book for a moment and give me a rational reason why a golfer should be penalized for the negligence of another golfer and because "the rules say so" is not a rational reason.  The only one I can think of is, if allowed, you then have to determine what is or is not a divot.  Well, if the buddies you are playing with all say wow, tough luck on that lie ending up in a divot, it's a divot.

First if all, it's not negligent to take a divot. Second, a divot cannot be instantly repaired to pre-divot turf conditions. At most courses, the correct procedure is to sand the divot to allow for the turf to heal over time. No negligence in doing that either. The only time you'll encounter "negligence" caused by another player is if they don't sand their divot.....and unfortunately, that happens. But, clods drag their feet on the green and they leave unraked, or poorly raked sand traps too. That's all part of the game. If you want to play a game that plays on exactly the same course, in perfect conditions, every time, I'd suggest tennis. Indoor tennis at that. As to your buddies determining what is or is not a divot, you can do any silly thing you want playing with your buddies. But without a clear definition of what a divot is, and more importantly, the exact point that it no longer becomes a divot, the determination becomes completely subjective and the most basic principles of the game.....play the course as you find it and the ball as it lies, never touching your ball, except as specifically allowed by the rules, until you remove it from the cup.....and rules must be written in such a manner as to support the principles of the game and to remove all subjectivity to the extent possible.

[boogielicious]

I don't think anyone is really arguing the fact that nowhere in the rules does it say you get relief from a divot.  The thread was started by someone asking should that relief be allowed and the reason for that question is obvious.  Now put down your rule book for a moment and give me a rational reason why a golfer should be penalized for the negligence of another golfer and because "the rules say so" is not a rational reason.  The only one I can think of is, if allowed, you then have to determine what is or is not a divot.  Well, if the buddies you are playing with all say wow, tough luck on that lie ending up in a divot, it's a divot.

@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.

[David in FL]

Not that I disagree with that sacred principle but I bet Mr. Tufts also believed that distances should be estimated instead of pacing them off, not to mention measuring them with a range finder. Things have a tendency to change.

Have you read Tufts' book? What in it makes you believe that he cares one way or another how a golfer obtains a yardage?

[iacas]

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.

So take it or leave it.

We will leave it, as it is not really the topic being discussed how many clubs specifically were in violation of the Rules of Golf.

The only one I can think of is, if allowed, you then have to determine what is or is not a divot.  Well, if the buddies you are playing with all say wow, tough luck on that lie ending up in a divot, it's a divot.

And you don't see the gaping holes in that, Kenn?

And please read the thread I sent you in a PM: http://thesandtrap.com/t/69379/newbie-helpers-little-things-everyone-expects-and-asks-of-users .

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.

Is it "possible"? Of course. So is a Local Rule allowing automatic two-putts. Are either legal? No.

I have encountered various Local Rules that are against the Rules in my time and every time (if feasible) I have tried to inform the responsible parties about the error. However, I'd be a complete fool to argue that those Local Rules never existed.

Then it's a good thing nobody is saying they never existed. People are doubting that the same (invalid) Local Rule was as widespread as a single source claims. People are also saying that regardless of how widespread it may or may not have been, it was never actually legal.

Not that I disagree with that sacred principle but I bet Mr. Tufts also believed that distances should be estimated instead of pacing them off, not to mention measuring them with a range finder. Things have a tendency to change.

Here you go, Ignorant:

[David in FL]

@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, [U]play the course as you find it[/U].  Holes made by previous golfers are part of the course, plain and simple.  Ground under repair has be [U]designated[/U] 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.