Should Divots Be Considered Ground Under Repair?

[David in FL]

Don't the strings get hung up on the clubhead?

[boogielicious]

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.

In Massachusetts, it is "disgraced politicians".  Pesky little varmints dig holes to hide in everywhere.

I am saddened that the birthplace of golf would allow local rules to override the principles of golf.  Most of the courses I play only have OB declarations.

[Ernest Jones]

Deciding what is or is not a divot is no more difficult than deciding what is an animal scrape and relief from them is allowed.

"Hey what's this lumpy thing next to the garbage cans in alley?"

"What, that thing? Oh that's Kenn's credibility."

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkuehn1952

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

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).

Quote:

Originally Posted by David in FL

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

Perhaps I should have added, they are also used in areas of Asia where they suffer from heavy rain. Teeing areas are prone to damage from twisting spikes, especially on hilly courses where metal spikes are used. So they use so called winter mats where these 'volcano' shaped tees are useful.

I can find no prohibition to the use of tees strung together.  I thought that I had seen a decision about them sometime in the past, but I can't find it now.  I don't know if it was a prohibition or just a clarification like the one above.  It would seem that it is only a breach in the US too if used as an alignment aid.  They are sold through just about every outlet I could find.  I've had friends who played with them in the winter when the only way to get a regular tee in the frozen ground was to bore a hole.  I actually used to carry a small Philips screwdriver for that purpose.

I also had a rubber one for a while which was collapsible for a low tee or you would pop the middle part up for driver teeing.  When pressed together it was still about 1/2".  it was like these: http://www.amazon.com/Sof-Tee-Rubber-Golf-Sizes/dp/B002BTIE6K/ref=sr_1_229?s=golf&ie;=UTF8&qid;=1385477772&sr;=1-229

[Ignorant]

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

After this statement there is no doubt ever that the game of golf was invented by the Scottish people...

[iacas]

I'm still trying to piece together in my mind how we can have two sides of this Local Rule issue. The only real conclusion I can reach is that we don't - the Local Rule was never valid, but it was a somewhat common practice in the land of the R&A; until it grew large enough to warrant clarification via Decision.

The USGA - the law of the land for @Fourputt , @David in FL , and myself - has at every level (five personal contacts, up from four, Linda, and the "email a rules question to the USGA" person) disavowed that this Local Rule was ever legitimate, valid, authorized, or any other word you might want to use to say those things.

The best I can figure is that some number of clubs in the R&A; territory (particularly those in Scotland, which is frankly somewhat appalling to me as a card carrying Rules Geek) implemented the policy and the R&A; looked the other way. These Local Rules, I contend, were never actually valid (authorized/legitimate, etc.) - they violate the principles of the game, as well as the specific Rules as divot holes do not meet any of the exceptions.

So at some point the "Local Rule" that violated the Rules of Golf and its Principles was becoming widespread enough that the R&A; had to issue the Decision. The USGA, from what I'm told, went along with it despite not having such a problem for the same reasons anyone else would - it's just a clarification, and not any sort of change in the actual Rules.

This seems to be the most plausible explanation - the Local Rule was never actually valid, but due to growth and spreading, the Decision was implemented to stomp it out.

The facts supporting this are:

• It does not seem to have been used in serious competitions.
• Almost nobody has ever heard of such a Local Rule.
• The USGA has, to a person, denied this.
• The existence of the Decision without an accompanying change to wording of the pertinent Rules.
• The existence of but ONE article online talking about how this is a popular Local Rule.

It's almost completely analogous to courses in the U.S. and elsewhere marking trees or tall grass as lateral water hazards (despite not meeting the definition of "water hazard"). It is in no way a valid rule or way of marking the course, and if it's written on the card under a Local Rule it is as invalid there as was "move your ball from a divot hole" was in Scotland in 2009.

Perhaps it's there already, but the addition of the Decision re: divot holes would thus be the same as a Decision clarifying that tall grass or trees may not be marked as a water hazard unless they meet the definition of a water hazard.

@Rulesman shared the communication in private (and I've shared the "official" response from the USGA with him as well - they conflict, as stated above) and the person says it was a "permitted" Local Rule. I would contend that the most plausible explanation for this - since relief from a divot hole again goes against the Rules and Principles - is that it's either a poor word choice ("common" Local Rule would be more accurate) or that it's this person's way of whitewashing the past a little bit.

At the risk of making this all sound like a much, MUCH larger thing than it really is, I can't imagine the R&A; is too fond of this portion of its history. Many of their clubs, in the birthplace of the game, had via Local Rule for several years at least, offered relief for something which in no way qualified for relief.

Did this Local Rule exist? I think we've all agreed for a few pages now that it did. We don't know how widespread it was, but its existence seems to be agreed upon. What I will continue to disagree with, however, is that the Local Rule was ever valid. It has not been demonstrated, and cannot be demonstrated IMO, how such a Local Rule was valid under the Rules of Golf in 2009.

P.S. To those who might call us Yanks (namely, @Fourputt , @David in FL , and myself) obstinate, I simply submit that we had very, very, very good reason to be - the Local Rule is in violation of the Rules of Golf, and the clubs which implemented it should be ashamed of themselves. We had every right to be obstinate, for it was not us who were in violation of the Principles of the game, but you (your clubs, whatever).

[Fourputt]

I'm still trying to piece together in my mind how we can have two sides of this Local Rule issue. The only real conclusion I can reach is that we don't - the Local Rule was never valid, but it was a somewhat common practice in the land of the R&A; until it grew large enough to warrant clarification via Decision.

The USGA - the law of the land for @Fourputt, @David in FL, and myself - has at every level (five personal contacts, up from four, Linda, and the "email a rules question to the USGA" person) disavowed that this Local Rule was ever legitimate, valid, authorized, or any other word you might want to use to say those things.

The best I can figure is that some number of clubs in the R&A; territory (particularly those in Scotland, which is frankly somewhat appalling to me as a card carrying Rules Geek) implemented the policy and the R&A; looked the other way. These Local Rules, I contend, were never actually valid (authorized/legitimate, etc.) - they violate the principles of the game, as well as the specific Rules as divot holes do not meet any of the exceptions.

So at some point the "Local Rule" that violated the Rules of Golf and its Principles was becoming widespread enough that the R&A; had to issue the Decision. The USGA, from what I'm told, went along with it despite not having such a problem for the same reasons anyone else would - it's just a clarification, and not any sort of change in the actual Rules.

This seems to be the most plausible explanation - the Local Rule was never actually valid, but due to growth and spreading, the Decision was implemented to stomp it out.

The facts supporting this are:

It does not seem to have been used in serious competitions.

Almost nobody has ever heard of such a Local Rule.

The USGA has, to a person, denied this.

The existence of the Decision without an accompanying change to wording of the pertinent Rules.

The existence of but ONE article online talking about how this is a popular Local Rule.

It's almost completely analogous to courses in the U.S. and elsewhere marking trees or tall grass as lateral water hazards (despite not meeting the definition of "water hazard"). It is in no way a valid rule or way of marking the course, and if it's written on the card under a Local Rule it is as invalid there as was "move your ball from a divot hole" was in Scotland in 2009.

Perhaps it's there already, but the addition of the Decision re: divot holes would thus be the same as a Decision clarifying that tall grass or trees may not be marked as a water hazard unless they meet the definition of a water hazard.

P.S. To those who might call us Yanks (namely, @Fourputt, @David in FL, and myself) obstinate, I simply submit that we had very, very, very good reason to be - the Local Rule is in violation of the Rules of Golf, and the clubs which implemented it should be ashamed of themselves. We had every right to be obstinate, for it was not us who were in violation of the Principles of the game, but you (your clubs, whatever).

Interestingly, there is a decision on the lateral hazard issue too:

33-8/35

Local Rule Treating Rough as a Lateral Water Hazard

Q.The areas immediately adjacent to the fairways consist of large embedded boulders, thick desert brush and prickly cactus. A player whose ball comes to rest in such areas has no opportunity to play a stroke. Would it be proper to make a Local Rule under which such areas would be treated as lateral water hazards?

A.No. There are many courses where the areas adjacent to the fairways are of such a nature that a ball therein is almost always lost or unplayable. Thus, such a situation is not abnormal.

This decision is listed directly after the decision prohibiting relief from divot holes.   I don't have any supporting evidence, but I wonder if both decisions were added at the same time.

[Rulesman]

iacas "the Local Rule was never actually valid"

So you are 'alleging' that the person who sent me the email is lying.

R&A; "Yes, this was a permissible Local Rule prior to 2010."

Remember, the R&A; have absolute discretion over the management of the rules in the territories outside the USA and Mexico, in the same way that the USGA had a series of US only decisions until a few years ago which were not recognised or published by the R&A.;

[Rulesman]

Interestingly, there is a decision on the lateral hazard issue too:

This decision is listed directly after the decision prohibiting relief from divot holes.   I don't have any supporting evidence, but I wonder if both decisions were added at the same time.

It is in the 2004 book.

[Golfingdad]

It's almost completely analogous to courses in the U.S. and elsewhere marking trees or tall grass as lateral water hazards (despite not meeting the definition of "water hazard"). It is in no way a valid rule or way of marking the course, and if it's written on the card under a Local Rule it is as invalid there as was "move your ball from a divot hole" was in Scotland in 2009.

What about the situation where courses have signs posted near several tee areas, including on some par 4's, that say "drop area ahead?"  There are A LOT of courses around here that have canyon-y areas marked as hazards (no idea if they technically fit the definition of hazard or not, but I think in most cases they do) and on some of them that have forced carries, they often have a drop area across said forced carry at the beginning of the fairway.  Is this also a "local rule" that defies the Rules of Golf?  Either way, it is confusing, because logic tells me they put it there to speed up play for those people who have trouble carrying the hazard.  But then that makes no sense, because how could you be allowed to drop further up than your ball ever traveled?  In my recent tournament (the one with the debacle on the 18th green) I had this situation come up ... I bladed a 5 iron tee shot on a short, quirky, par 4, directly into the hazard in front of the tee area.  It went 40 yards.  The beginning of the fairway, and the drop area, were about 120 yards up ahead.  We had been told on the 1st tee that those drop areas "were available to us if we chose to use them," however, in this case, we all agreed it didn't make any sense to be allowed to advance the ball 80 yards for free, so I played it the safe route and just re-teed.  I meant to ask about it afterwards, but our round was, like, 5 1/2 hours so I was in a hurry to get home, and forgot.  So now I wonder, if you aren't allowed to advance your ball beyond the hazard to the drop area (which I hope you aren't) then what is even the point of those drop areas?  And are they at all legal, or do they fall into this same category as the R&A; divot "rule" and the water hazard definition you mentioned?

If you want to answer me in a PM or move this because it's OT, that's cool. :)

[Ernest Jones]

What about the situation where courses have signs posted near several tee areas, including on some par 4's, that say "drop area ahead?"  There are A LOT of courses around here that have canyon-y areas marked as hazards (no idea if they technically fit the definition of hazard or not, but I think in most cases they do) and on some of them that have forced carries, they often have a drop area across said forced carry at the beginning of the fairway.  Is this also a "local rule" that defies the Rules of Golf?  Either way, it is confusing, because logic tells me they put it there to speed up play for those people who have trouble carrying the hazard.  But then that makes no sense, because how could you be allowed to drop further up than your ball ever traveled?  In my recent tournament (the one with the debacle on the 18th green) I had this situation come up ... I bladed a 5 iron tee shot on a short, quirky, par 4, directly into the hazard in front of the tee area.  It went 40 yards.  The beginning of the fairway, and the drop area, were about 120 yards up ahead.  We had been told on the 1st tee that those drop areas "were available to us if we chose to use them," however, in this case, we all agreed it didn't make any sense to be allowed to advance the ball 80 yards for free, so I played it the safe route and just re-teed.  I meant to ask about it afterwards, but our round was, like, 5 1/2 hours so I was in a hurry to get home, and forgot.  So now I wonder, if you aren't allowed to advance your ball beyond the hazard to the drop area (which I hope you aren't) then what is even the point of those drop areas?  And are they at all legal, or do they fall into this same category as the R&A; divot "rule" and the water hazard definition you mentioned?

If you want to answer me in a PM or move this because it's OT, that's cool. :)

I don't know the answer but I highly suspect they answer is that that is a BS local rule that totally violates the principles. No way can you advance your ball like that.

[Ignorant]

The facts supporting this are:

Almost nobody has ever heard of such a Local Rule.

P.S. To those who might call us Yanks (namely, @Fourputt, @David in FL, and myself) obstinate, I simply submit that we had very, very, very good reason to be - the Local Rule is in violation of the Rules of Golf, and the clubs which implemented it should be ashamed of themselves. We had every right to be obstinate, for it was not us who were in violation of the Principles of the game, but you (your clubs, whatever).

How pompous can you get?? Why don't you just accept that there are things in the golfing world that you or your friends have never come across with? Who are you to judge 90% of the golfing world just because you did not know something or thought it is wrong?

I agree with you and fourputt that this Local Rule is/was no good and against the general principle of golf but I am more than willing to accept that there are and have been eg. regional/local issues and aspects in golf that I do not know of, and for that reason I am not going to say they were wrong.

It seems to me that you are trying to lift not only USGA but also yourself above R&A.; To me it seems a very questionable thing to do.

(I am counting minutes for how long his post will remain on the board...)

[iacas]

How pompous can you get?? Why don't you just accept that there are things in the golfing world that you or your friends have never come across with? Who are you to judge 90% of the golfing world just because you did not know something or thought it is wrong?

Ignorant, you're being rude, and demonstrating an inability to read and comprehend what's written. It's not new for you, but it is getting old. Your contributions to this thread amount to little more than attempting to argue for the sake of arguing, and include plenty of name-calling and negativity.

It's a question of fact whether this was widespread or not, and if you'd like to argue that it was widespread, be my guest. Until such time, I'll stand by the belief that virtually nobody has heard of this Local Rule prior to this discussion.

There's no judging going on by stating that almost nobody has ever heard of the Local Rule. Please find for me several discussions of this Local Rule online. Please find for me several scorecards on which this Local Rule is printed. Do something to counter what appears to be an accurate statement - that almost nobody had ever heard of this Local Rule before.

If your "judging" comment refers to my postscript, I stand by what I wrote. I'm sad that in land where golf was created, clubs (of some unknown number) created and used a Local Rule that violated the Principles of the game of golf.

If 90% of the golfing world was aware of this Local Rule, there'd be plenty of posts about it. Heck, if 9% was aware of it, there'd be plenty of posts about it. There'd be a lot of evidence. There isn't.

It's not even the main point of the discussion, but if you need to claim a victory, go ahead. Be my guest and find the proof needed for me to say "yep, apparently it was widespread." It won't really speak to the actual point - the validity of such a Local Rule - but knock yourself out.

I agree with you and fourputt that this Local Rule is/was no good and against the general principle of golf but I am more than willing to accept that there are and have been eg. regional/local issues and aspects in golf that I do not know of, and for that reason I am not going to say they were wrong.

Nobody's debating whether this Local Rule existed somewhere (the quantity remains unknown). I have not been shown how it was ever valid. I said virtually the same thing already, but you failed to read it because you wanted to leap into Full Troll Mode.

It seems to me that you are trying to lift not only USGA but also yourself above R&A.; To me it seems a very questionable thing to do.

That makes no sense.

(I am counting minutes for how long his post will remain on the board...)

Nice troll tactic. Gonna be counting a long time.

iacas "the Local Rule was never actually valid"

So you are 'alleging' that the person who sent me the email is lying.

R&A; "Yes, this was a permissible Local Rule prior to 2010."

Remember, the R&A; have absolute discretion over the management of the rules in the territories outside the USA and Mexico, in the same way that the USGA had a series of US only decisions until a few years ago which were not recognised or published by the R&A.;

The issue is very simple. You can resolve this definitively just this easily.

Please demonstrate to me how, under the Rules of Golf, such a Local Rule was EVER valid.

An email from someone on the Rules committee or within the R&A; is not "under the Rules of Golf."

The R&A; could have been aware of such Local Rules at 5, 10, 270, whatever clubs in Scotland and looked the other way. That is not the same thing as the Local Rule being valid . If there were no Decision for treating tall grass as a lateral hazard, and clubs had that Local Rule on the books (or consider the Local Rule in 2003), it was also no more valid than the Divot Hole Local Rule. It is against the Rules and Principles. Its existence proves not that it was valid, but simply that it existed.

Consider the situation we had in 2009. There was no Decision. We had the Rules of Golf as they stood at the time. I do not believe you can demonstrate how such a Local Rule was valid. It may have been a "look the other way and ignore it" situation, but that is not the same as validity.

I tend to hate analogies, but consider jaywalking in a city where it's illegal. The police don't want to bother with it, and the city prosecutors don't care, so they look the other way and let people jaywalk. Maybe there's even a memo to the PD saying "don't worry about jaywalkers, it's not worth your time to ticket them." Does that change the legality of jaywalking? No. Suppose then a new mayor wants to increase police revenue and $10 jaywalking tickets are the way to do it, so he re-emphasizes the laws and asks that police begin issuing tickets. The law is still the same, they've just said "enough looking the other way, please."

I tend to hate analogies because they always seem to fail, but on face, that one should be reasonably close to make my point. The law remained the same the entire time. Letters from mayors don't mean anything.

iacas "the Local Rule was never actually valid"

So you are 'alleging' that the person who sent me the email is lying.

R&A; "Yes, this was a permissible Local Rule prior to 2010."

I'll conclude by pointing out that I have a "letter" - that you've seen - saying "There has never been an authorized Local Rule allowing for relief without penalty from a divot or divot hole."

Neither person is lying, nor am I alleging that. Your contact's response is puzzling, though. The most plausible theory to me is discussed above, and I think the R&A; is simply trying to brush aside looking the other way for so long.

---

@Golfingdad Your question is OT, but I wanted to share a related story. As you may know, I rate courses (rating/slope, not "review" them) for the West Penn Golf Association. One example was interesting… We were given instructions on how to rate a hole that can't be played under the Rules of Golf. For example, a woman's tee with a 190-yard carry over water that she can't play around quite literally can't be played by the "female bogey golfer" per the standards… so that course would have an unusually high (almost infinitely high) slope due to the fact that she would literally never get across the hazard. We were told that the formula accounts for that, because to do otherwise would just be goofy, and were told to rate the landing area as if they somehow are magically transported across to the other side of the hazard, and to rate the hole from there on. The formulas and number-crunching that they apply (the algorithms they use) will account for the tee shot, so we rate what we can and move on.

I've never actually had this come up, though. The example wasn't even an actual example - it was a hypothetical. The 160-yard carry existed, but it was from the back tees, where you'd almost never find a female bogey golfer playing, and from which tees we don't even rate for females.

[Ignorant]

Ignorant, you're being rude, and demonstrating an inability to read and comprehend what's written. It's not new for you, but it is getting old. Your contributions to this thread amount to little more than attempting to argue for the sake of arguing, and include plenty of name-calling and negativity.

It's a question of fact whether this was widespread or not, and if you'd like to argue that it was widespread, be my guest. Until such time, I'll stand by the belief that virtually nobody has heard of this Local Rule prior to this discussion.

1) You are being rude to anyone who's opinions you don't like so being rude should not come as a surprise to you.

2) The way I see it it is you who has brought the negativity in this thread by calling Rulesman (or ********, as you like to call him...) a liar as well as the official from R&A;, which I find appalling.

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.

And then again, what is the value of this entire argument anyway? That Local Rule is not authorized today, end of story.

[turtleback]

iacas "the Local Rule was never actually valid"

So you are 'alleging' that the person who sent me the email is lying.

R&A; "Yes, this was a permissible Local Rule prior to 2010."

Remember, the R&A; have absolute discretion over the management of the rules in the territories outside the USA and Mexico, in the same way that the USGA had a series of US only decisions until a few years ago which were not recognised or published by the R&A.;

Maybe not lying, but shading the truth a little to cover-up some shady doings?  The thing is, I still do not see how it could have been permissible under the rules governing local rules.  In order to be a permissible local rule it has to satisfy the policy established in Appendix I.  And Appendix I is structured so that it addresses the specific issues for which local conditions can be properly be used to justify a local rule being adopted without specific USGA/R&A; authorization, and provides that any other local conditions for which the course believes a local rule is warranted should be submitted to the governing body for authorization.  And frankly it is hard to see how the issue of divots, which occur on every golf course in the world, could be regarded as what the Appendix calls a " local abnormal conditions", which is what local rules are designed to address.

If it was a valid local rule then it should be possible to point to a specific part of Appendix I that authorizes it or to be able to produce an individual authorization for each club adopting the local rule authorizing it - or at least one such club.  IOW, if it is a local rule that addresses a widespread situation then we would expect that there would be a specimen rule.  If it is a local rule addressing a very localized situation (which again, it is hard to see how divots would fall into that category) then there should be evidence of specific guidance to specific courses authorizing the local rule.  What seems hard to fathom is that there was a valid local rule affecting a lot (according to that article up to half) of the courses in Scotland, but there was no specimen rule or specific authorization.  And that the basis for such a local rule is so completely absent from the rulebook.  Some of the situations for which there ARE specimen local rules are far less common than this Scottish local rule seems to have been.

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.

[Rulesman]

1) An email from someone on the Rules committee or within the R&A; is not "under the Rules of Golf."

2) I'll conclude by pointing out that I have a "letter" - that you've seen - saying "There has never been an authorized Local Rule allowing for relief without penalty from a divot or divot hole."

3) The most plausible theory to me is discussed above, and I think the R&A; is simply trying to brush aside looking the other way for so long.

1)  Whatever rulings the R&A; makes are under the Rules of Golf within the administrative area of the R&A.; viz winter tees

2) Your letter can only refer to the USGA's authority in their administrative area. They have no authority outside that area.

You have a copy of the email where the R&A; say differently. No doubt they are referring to their authority to do so in their administrative area.

3) Speculation.

Incidentally, my name is(was) not in the public domain for a particular reason. I sometimes post information here which may make it difficult to continue if my sources were to identify me. Although my sources do not read this site, others that do are aware of my relationship(s) and may say something inadvertently. Thank you for that.

[iacas]

1) You are being rude to anyone who's opinions you don't like so being rude should not come as a surprise to you.

Disagreeing is not "being rude." And a lot of what is being discussed here is not opinion.

2) The way I see it it is you who has brought the negativity in this thread by calling Rulesman (or ********, as you like to call him...) a liar as well as the official from R&A;, which I find appalling.

His name is ********, and nobody called him a liar.

3) Your argument is that this Local Rule should have been widespread in order to have been legitimate.

No, that's not my argument at all, and never has been.

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.

No, I disagree: he has not shown that it was authorized within the R&A;'s jurisdiction. He's shown me and a few others an email from someone saying it was "permissible." I've seen nothing on the R&A; website, either specifically authorizing the rule and dated pre-2010, or even revoking it after the Decision.

See also the jaywalking example above. And if you cannot keep your posts strictly on topic, they'll be removed, whether you add in your troll-like baiting stuff about how you're "counting the minutes" or not. BTW, what's the count up to now? :P

The thing is, I still do not see how it could have been permissible under the rules governing local rules. In order to be a permissible local rule it has to satisfy the policy established in Appendix I.  And Appendix I is structured so that it addresses the specific issues for which local conditions can be properly be used to justify a local rule being adopted without specific USGA/R&A; authorization, and provides that any other local conditions for which the course believes a local rule is warranted should be submitted to the governing body for authorization. And frankly it is hard to see how the issue of divots, which occur on every golf course in the world, could be regarded as what the Appendix calls a " local abnormal conditions", which is what local rules are designed to address.

This is basically my position as well. And though I won't speak for @Fourputt or @David in FL I believe it is their position as well.

And though I've not quoted all of @turtleback 's post, the same comment applies.

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.

I agree with this as well, and wish to re-double saying that we're simply trying to get to the bottom of this, and that any offense you've taken has not been intended on my behalf. I've also taken the time to remove your first name from any posts as a demonstration of respect for your position.

1)  Whatever rulings the R&A; makes are under the Rules of Golf within the administrative area of the R&A.; viz winter tees

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.

If you're able to, I'll plainly admit that I was wrong - that the R&A; had, for some period of time up to January 1, 2010, authorized relief from divot holes, in spite of it violating one of the most fundamental principles of the game they're charged with protecting, preserving, and advancing.

2) Your letter can only refer to the USGA's authority in their administrative area. They have no authority outside that area.

I think we all know that…

You have a copy of the email where the R&A; say differently. No doubt they are referring to their authority to do so in their administrative area.

No, there's plenty of doubt. It's one sentence, and later sentences use bad math to talk about the maintenance work of divots.

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.

The instant I say that I'm wrong about this is the same instant the R&A; loses a chunk of credibility in my opinion, and I dare say, in the opinion of other Rules Geeks.

3) Speculation.

I called it "the most plausible theory." So… yeah… I know.

[Ignorant]

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.