Should Divots Be Considered Ground Under Repair?

[sjduffers]

4 hours ago, iacas said:

I disagree. I think burrowing animal holes and ruts deep enough to be disruptive to play are incredibly rare. Divot holes, not at all.

Rare yes, unexpected no. Meaning that they are not uncommon (in the sense of being so rare as to resemble a unicorn).

4 hours ago, iacas said:

As you know, "abnormal ground conditions" are defined in the Rules of Golf. A divot hole does not satisfy the definition.

Yes, I know and understand the RoG definition. However, I was quoting and responding to @Fourputt who refuses to even consider a divot hole as possibility for inclusion into abnormal ground (per the RoG) on the semantic ground (pun intended) that it is not "abnormal" (not in the sense of the RoG, but in the English common sense).  Otherwise, saying that a divot hole should not even be considered as "abnormal" ground because it is not included in the abnormal ground definition in the RoG is circular reasoning and would prevent anyone from ever changing anything for any reason... (because it's not already the rules, the law, etc...)

4 hours ago, iacas said:

8-10 inches deep? C'mon. And isn't that all beside the point? I don't know of a Committee who wouldn't call a 10" rut GUR.

Comparing that to a divot hole is not the same.

Besides, if the fairways are that soft, you've likely got issues with balls embedding in their own pitch marks, are playing preferred lies, have casual water… etc.

This stuff is neither here nor there. You have a picture in your mind, and I have a picture in mine. At the end of the day, we're not discussing idiots driving carts irresponsibly. We're discussing divot holes.

Yes. That deep: I should have taken a picture.  I am not comparing that monstrosity to a divot hole as far as justifying the playability or unplayability of it, but for the purpose of inclusion as to what is considered expected and relatively common. It's not the never seen before thing that happens once on a rare blue moon.  It happens any time there is a cart path only day with soaked fairways and morons are allowed to drive carts without adult supervision.  Please reread my initial response to @Fourputt's post above, as I am afraid that we are talking at cross-purposes.

Yes, on those days, balls embed, there is plenty of abnormal ground with casual water and so much mud on the ball that preferred lies is pretty much the only way to go. But, either you brave the elements and go play, or stay home with the fair weather golfers! ;)

4 hours ago, iacas said:

It's as fair as every other rule: nobody gets relief from divot holes. Everyone is treated exactly the same.

If you did allow relief from divot holes, and whether you got relief depended on how your fellow competitor defined "divot hole" and when one healed enough to cease being one, that would be unfair.

But he's wrong if he said it was unfair now. There are no really unfair rules, as that's the point: to treat like situations alike.

Of course. He didn't mean fair as per the rules (or in equity): it's a given that the rules are fair from that standpoint. Nobody is disputing that.  He meant fair as in the general meaning of the English word: when you do something good like pounding a drive far down the middle of the fairway, you shouldn't be punished by being in a divot hole... which is where the whole discussion started. ;)

Edited January 11, 2016 by sjduffers

[Rulesman]

1 hour ago, sjduffers said:

He meant fair as in the general meaning of the English word: when you do something good like pounding a drive far down the middle of the fairway, you shouldn't be punished by being in a divot hole... which is where the whole discussion started. ;)

Many courses have 'sighting' posts on or just over the brow of a hill in the middle of the fairway.

You hit a great shot down the middle and it ricochets off into the jungle. Is that fair? Life isn't fair, just get on with it.

[Lihu]

1 hour ago, sjduffers said:

He meant fair as in the general meaning of the English word: when you do something good like pounding a drive far down the middle of the fairway, you shouldn't be punished by being in a divot hole... which is where the whole discussion started. ;)

This is the story of my life. . . I used to get angry

Now, I've accepted it as an inevitability

[sjduffers]

9 hours ago, Rulesman said:

Many courses have 'sighting' posts on or just over the brow of a hill in the middle of the fairway.

You hit a great shot down the middle and it ricochets off into the jungle. Is that fair? Life isn't fair, just get on with it.

I am not saying that is not the case. I am saying that this is what Jack Nicklaus said: you might have heard of him, yes?

[Fourputt]

11 hours ago, sjduffers said:

Of course. He didn't mean fair as per the rules (or in equity): it's a given that the rules are fair from that standpoint. Nobody is disputing that.  He meant fair as in the general meaning of the English word: when you do something good like pounding a drive far down the middle of the fairway, you shouldn't be punished by being in a divot hole... which is where the whole discussion started. ;)

But that is the only meaning that golf is concerned with.  Just like so may other definitions associated with the game, they only apply within the context of the game.  

31 minutes ago, sjduffers said:

I am not saying that is not the case. I am saying that this is what Jack Nicklaus said: you might have heard of him, yes?

It really doesn't matter what Jack Nicklaus said.  He is not an authority on the Rules of Golf.  He was one of my favorite players, but that doesn't make his opinion on fairness in golf any more important than that of the next stranger I meet on the course.  

Golf isn't about fairness, it's about accepting the bad with the good and playing on.  A fundamental principle of the game is that you play the course as you find it.  Under a bush?  Stuck in a tree?  Lying in a divot hole?  The rules view all as situations which will be encountered in the game, and all must be dealt with appropriately.  99.9% of all divot holes are quite playable.  On the extremely rare occurrence that one's ball lies in an unrepaired trench, then you have simply encountered an extremely rare bit of bad fortune.  You simply must deal with it as you would any other bit of bad luck.  

Just as you get the benefit of a good break when your ball strikes a tree and rebounds into the fairway instead of continuing further into the primeval forest, so too must you accept the misfortune of your ball finding a divot hole from which normal play is not possible.   Both are simply part of the game of golf.

[DaveP043]

We can redefine the question to avoid the circular arguments.  Should the Rules of Golf be changed to include unrepaired divot holes under the definition of Abnormal Ground Conditions? 

I still say no, for all the reasons so many have given already.  They are neither so punitive nor so unusual that relief is justified.  To land in one is simply bad luck, much like landing in that little depressed strip where the water line runs up the center of the fairway, and the backfill has compressed over time.    

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

We can redefine the question to avoid the circular arguments.  Should the Rules of Golf be changed to include unrepaired divot holes under the definition of Abnormal Ground Conditions? 

We could, but I would vote no as you did. The answer almost has to remain the same given the guiding Principles, one of the two being "play the course as you find it." I cannot see an argument for why my ball landing in a three-day-old divot hole should be granted relief. My ball can come to rest on hardpan, thin grass, tall grass, a patch of clover, etc. and I don't expect relief in those cases, because I'm to play the course as I found it.

A superintendent cannot follow golfers around marking every divot hole as GUR, and you cannot devise a definition for a divot hole that could be applied equitably if you wanted to include "divot holes" inside the definition for "abnormal ground conditions."

[saevel25]

As this one guy at a conference I went to said about signal timing and other traffic related things. The only fair thing is to screw everybody. 

The rules of golf are pretty good. When the only instances people complain about are less than 1% of the time than that is good. I can accept a very small shit happens situation. 

 

[Golf Grouch]

It can be argued that the rules of golf are not consistent.  Namely, there is a fundamental difference in treatment between the green and the fairway.  I think that the rules for the fairway should reflect the rules for the green.  Since lift-clean-replace is essentially allowed on the green, shouldn't it also apply to the fairway?  That's one way to resolve this issue.

Edited January 11, 2016 by Golf Grouch

[Rulesman]

25 minutes ago, Golf Grouch said:

  Since lift-clean-replace is essentially allowed on the green, shouldn't it also apply to the fairway?  That's one way to resolve this issue.

Hardly. Replace means just that. Put the ball back in the divot hole. Great idea.

[iacas]

29 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

Hardly. Replace means just that. Put the ball back in the divot hole. Great idea.

Right. You don't get to put your ball tot he side. If your ball is on a ball mark, you fix the ball mark and put your ball back.

Also, famously, you don't get to repair spike marks. There's your equivalent to divot holes in the fairway.

[Golfingdad]

28 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

Hardly. Replace means just that. Put the ball back in the divot hole. Great idea.

***It's LCP, not LCR (not to be confused with the silly, fun, party game) and the PGA Tour does not require that the ball be placed back in the exact same spot.  At least, I'm pretty certain that they don't.  I don't know if it's a full club length, but there is certainly room to get it out of the divot.  @Golf Grouch is correct in that it would solve this issue.

The greater problem in doing so, however, is that one of the core principles of golf is not out the window.  The several times previously mentioned "play it as it lies."

---

***After writing this, and re-reading the original post you responded to, I realize that I am wrong and you are right @Rulesman because he is making a comparison to marking your ball on the green, and not "lift, clean and place" as I was mistakenly thinking.

Never mind.

[Fourputt]

1 hour ago, Golf Grouch said:

It can be argued that the rules of golf are not consistent.  Namely, there is a fundamental difference in treatment between the green and the fairway.  I think that the rules for the fairway should reflect the rules for the green.  Since lift-clean-replace is essentially allowed on the green, shouldn't it also apply to the fairway?  That's one way to resolve this issue.

On top of what was stated above, you are allowed slightly more latitude in repairing damage to the green and in cleaning your ball because you  are expected to roll the ball for your next stroke.  This is really the only case where you are not required to play the course as you find it.  You are allowed to repair pitch marks as a concession to the relatively pristine condition of the green and the idea that you are most likely going to be rolling the ball on this pristine surface.  Anywhere else, it's expected that the ball will be lofted into the air, so defects in the turf are not considered for relief by the rules unless they are bad enough to qualify for being marked as GUR.

[Golfingdad]

38 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

On top of what was stated above, you are allowed slightly more latitude in repairing damage to the green and in cleaning your ball because you  are expected to roll the ball for your next stroke.  This is really the only case where you are not required to play the course as you find it.  You are allowed to repair pitch marks as a concession to the relatively pristine condition of the green and the idea that you are most likely going to be rolling the ball on this pristine surface.  Anywhere else, it's expected that the ball will be lofted into the air, so defects in the turf are not considered for relief by the rules unless they are bad enough to qualify for being marked as GUR.

This is a good point that brings us back to the beginning, I imagine.  Since the core principles are to play it as it lies and this one concession was made for unique circumstances on the green, if an argument that both areas should be treated similarly would ever convince people to change a rule, it would probably be that one that would get changed.

"You know what, you're right ... it's not consistent that we allow you to lift your ball on the green but not on the fairway soooooooooooo, from now on, we go back to basics and there is no lifting of the ball from anywhere.  Happy?" 

(Reminds me of something a parent might say to one of their kids after the exclamation of "but it's not fair - she got [blah blah blah]!")

[iacas]

15 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

This is a good point that brings us back to the beginning, I imagine.  Since the core principles are to play it as it lies and this one concession was made for unique circumstances on the green, if an argument that both areas should be treated similarly would ever convince people to change a rule, it would probably be that one that would get changed.

"You know what, you're right ... it's not consistent that we allow you to lift your ball on the green but not on the fairway soooooooooooo, from now on, we go back to basics and there is no lifting of the ball from anywhere.  Happy?" 

(Reminds me of something a parent might say to one of their kids after the exclamation of "but it's not fair - she got [blah blah blah]!")

The same thought occurred to me, too.

[David in FL]

3 hours ago, Golf Grouch said:

It can be argued that the rules of golf are not consistent.  Namely, there is a fundamental difference in treatment between the green and the fairway.  I think that the rules for the fairway should reflect the rules for the green.  Since lift-clean-replace is essentially allowed on the green, shouldn't it also apply to the fairway?  That's one way to resolve this issue.

Where in the rules is the "fairway" defined, or even mentioned?

[imsys0042]

I see this pop up from time to time.   I'm sure it's been echoed before, but it's just too difficult to determine when you get relief and when you don't.   And it will lead to arguments.

However when I am in a match play match with someone, I allow them to roll the ball out because it's just against me and not a wider field.   Why?   Because I think landing in one is bad luck and I'd prefer to win, or lose, on my own ability not bad luck.   Bad luck is part of the game, however I'd want to win based on me playing my best against someone else playing their best.  

[Asheville]

4 minutes ago, imsys0042 said:

I see this pop up from time to time.   I'm sure it's been echoed before, but it's just too difficult to determine when you get relief and when you don't.   And it will lead to arguments.

However when I am in a match play match with someone, I allow them to roll the ball out because it's just against me and not a wider field.   Why?   Because I think landing in one is bad luck and I'd prefer to win, or lose, on my own ability not bad luck.   Bad luck is part of the game, however I'd want to win based on me playing my best against someone else playing their best.  

1-3. Agreement to Waive Rules

Players must not agree to exclude the operation of any Rule or to waive any penalty incurred.

Penalty for Breach of Rule 1-3:

Match play - Disqualification of both sides;

Stroke play - Disqualification of competitors concerned.