Jump to content
IGNORED

Should Divots Be Considered Ground Under Repair?


Foursum Golf

Should divot holes be considered GUR under the Rules of Golf?  

129 members have voted

  1. 1. Should divot holes be considered GUR under the Rules of Golf?



Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

It is really getting old how many justify not getting relief from a fw divot base on the idea of good fortune of bouncing off a tree and into the fairway. One cannot justify the other.

Let’s say my approach shot hits a sprinkler head and takes a bad bounce into water. I do not get relief for that, why should I get relief for a divot when I can still make a shot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Just now, StuM said:

Let’s say my approach shot hits a sprinkler head and takes a bad bounce into water. I do not get relief for that, why should I get relief for a divot when I can still make a shot?

Another comparison that doesn't hold water. Good night!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Just now, Billy Z said:

Another comparison that doesn't hold water. Good night!

It does hold water, there are hundreds of chance things that impact a ball in play.  Where do you draw the line?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
14 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

It is really getting old how many justify not getting relief from a fw divot base on the idea of good fortune of bouncing off a tree and into the fairway. One cannot justify the other.

They're not "justifications." They're examples. You started this whole thing by talking about what's "fair."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Just now, iacas said:

They're not "justifications." They're examples. You started this whole thing by talking about what's "fair."

Wow!  So you really don't like being on the wrong side of any discussions, do you?  @Billy z was talking about what's "fair" on the "FAIR"WAY; not what happens if you hit a tree, a sprinkler head, a cart, a cart path, a spectator, a bird, or whatever.  If you hit a flag and bounce in the water (like Tiger at the Masters or DJ at the Players) that's a tough and unavoidable break.  Completely unrelated to landing in some A-holes unrepaired (or even sand filled) divot hole in the middle of a fairway.  Please stay on topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Administrator
Just now, HoganApexFan said:

Wow!  So you really don't like being on the wrong side of any discussions, do you?

There's no "wrong" side here. They're opinions.

Mine are well supported with a background in understanding the Rules, yours are full of basic errors about simple things. 😄

Just now, HoganApexFan said:

@Billy z was talking about what's "fair" on the "FAIR"WAY; not what happens if you hit a tree, a sprinkler head, a cart, a cart path, a spectator, a bird, or whatever.

And once again, those are examples of other things that one might consider "fair" or "unfair." They're not "justifying" anything.

Just now, HoganApexFan said:

If you hit a flag and bounce in the water (like Tiger at the Masters or DJ at the Players) that's a tough and unavoidable break.

So are divot holes in the fairway. Learn to deal with them.

Just now, HoganApexFan said:

Completely unrelated to landing in some A-holes unrepaired (or even sand filled) divot hole in the middle of a fairway.

Now they're an a-hole for taking a divot? Have you played on Bermuda fairways? It's not like there's always a divot to replace.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I'm sure this has been mentioned in the 48 (!) pages of this thread, but I think the basic assumption underlying the "relief from divotholes" argument is that golfers somehow "deserve" a good lie in the fairway, just like they do on the green (where you can move loose impediments, etc).

The difference is that the fairway isn't a defined area of the course in the RoG.  That's what I think people who argue for relief from divot holes miss.  If you think of the fairway as an area that just happens to be cut shorter because the golf course designer wanted to, it makes a lot less sense to argue for relief from divotholes.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

17 minutes ago, Hardspoon said:

I'm sure this has been mentioned in the 48 (!) pages of this thread, but I think the basic assumption underlying the "relief from divotholes" argument is that golfers somehow "deserve" a good lie in the fairway, just like they do on the green (where you can move loose impediments, etc).

Agree that that is the assumption.  I'm curious if Miss Paige (who I think basically spearheaded the resurrection of this topic with her tweet last week) has any proposed rule change regarding this:

 

I mean he certainly didn't deserve that result, right?  Maybe if you hit the pin you should be allowed to place the ball on the edge of the cup? 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

8 hours ago, Hardspoon said:

I'm sure this has been mentioned in the 48 (!) pages of this thread, but I think the basic assumption underlying the "relief from divotholes" argument is that golfers somehow "deserve" a good lie in the fairway, just like they do on the green (where you can move loose impediments, etc).

The difference is that the fairway isn't a defined area of the course in the RoG.  That's what I think people who argue for relief from divot holes miss.  If you think of the fairway as an area that just happens to be cut shorter because the golf course designer wanted to, it makes a lot less sense to argue for relief from divotholes.

Wow! I just learned something.

Thanks, @Hardspoon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

My apologies for incorrectly stating that relief must be taken from GUR.  In our rules class for new members and in pre-tournament briefs our Asst Pro emphasized that any abnormal ground conditions that they outlined with white paint were designated as GUR and were strict No Play Zones (the penalty referenced was for failing to take complete relief).  I did not realize that this was just a Local Rule, esp since it seemed logical to prohibit play on any ground being repaired by a course superintendent or maintenance crew.

Again, I apologize for this incorrect statement.  

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Moderator
12 minutes ago, HoganApexFan said:

My apologies for incorrectly stating that relief must be taken from GUR.  In our rules class for new members and in pre-tournament briefs our Asst Pro emphasized that any abnormal ground conditions that they outlined with white paint were designated as GUR and were strict No Play Zones (the penalty referenced was for failing to take complete relief).  I did not realize that this was just a Local Rule, esp since it seemed logical to prohibit play on any ground being repaired by a course superintendent or maintenance crew.

Again, I apologize for this incorrect statement.  

I'll pick a nit just to clarify, not to attack you.  The definition of No Play Zones is a Committee decision in setting up a golf course, as opposed to a Local Rule.  I know it accomplishes the same thing, but if anyone were to go read the Rules, they'll find information about NPZs in the Course Marking portion of Committee Procedures, not in Model Local Rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
40 minutes ago, HoganApexFan said:

Again, I apologize for this incorrect statement.  

In one sentence you made three factually incorrect statements.

That's not to attack you either, just to state a fact, and back my assertion about how frustrating it can be to try to discuss the Rules of Golf with people who don't appear to "get" the Rules of Golf.

I'm not claiming "elitist" status here or anything, but I understand and largely "get" the Rules, while you do not. If you were a lawyer and I tried telling you why certain laws don't make sense, and you kept explaining to me why they did, and why my proposals make no sense at all or are non-workable "fixes," you'd get frustrated too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I wonder how many other illegitimate analogies we can find to justify not getting relief from a fairway divot? Was a flagstick there because an individual golfer put it there? no, because it is meant to be there. How can one compare a flagstick to a manmade gouge in the fairway to justify their stance on a particular situation? Sadly, many people try. Although, bouncing off a tree branch and landing in the fairway justifies no relief from a divot, right? No!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

7 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

Was a flagstick there because an individual golfer put it there? no, because it is meant to be there. How can one compare a flagstick to a manmade gouge in the fairway to justify their stance on a particular situation?

The analogy is meant to describe a bad break that happens after a person hit a good shot. Which is the core argument on why people think you need to get relief from a divot in the fairway. This based on the assumption that you need to be rewarded for hitting the fairway with a good lie. So, this gets taken back to, since you hit a good shot you need a good lie. 

It has been pointed out, you don't need to hit a good shot to have a good lie. I've had a ball hit a tree and end up in the fairway more often then I have had a ball end up in a divot. Should I throw my ball back into the trees because I hit a poor shot and got lucky? 

The analogy works because it addressed the main criticism of the divot situation, someone gets unlucky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

3 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

The analogy is meant to describe a bad break that happens after a person hit a good shot. Which is the core argument on why people think you need to get relief from a divot in the fairway. This based on the assumption that you need to be rewarded for hitting the fairway with a good lie. So, this gets taken back to, since you hit a good shot you need a good lie. 

It has been pointed out, you don't need to hit a good shot to have a good lie. I've had a ball hit a tree and end up in the fairway more often then I have had a ball end up in a divot. Should I throw my ball back into the trees because I hit a poor shot and got lucky? 

The analogy works because it addressed the main criticism of the divot situation, someone gets unlucky.

I understand the comparison, I just think it doesn't support the effort. It's that the ROG considers divots as a useful tool to add difficulty to a course. Maybe we should not have relief from MMH's, LCP, or embedded balls? We could always use one situation to support another if we wanted to, but I like sticking to the idea of just the subject at hand, that being relief from a unrepaired fairway divot. I know, we can put a man on the moon but can't figure out what constitutes a fairway divot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Moderator
9 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

I know, we can put a man on the moon but can't figure out what constitutes a fairway divot.

Go ahead, write a definition that takes all factors into account, that can be consistently enforced, and that stops short of allowing preferred lies in every fairway.  You want the rule change, you can try to make it happen.  We'll help you trouble-shoot it before you send it to the Ruling Bodies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • Support TST Affiliates

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    FlightScope Mevo
    Use the code "iacas" for 10% off Mevo after clicking this link. For Mevo+, click this link or the image above.
  • Posts

    • The guy pretty much knows what he's doing.  But as you said, possibly not for us mere mortals.  Though I do use this swing sometimes in the wind.  And I'm as mortal as anyone...
    • From what I've heard him say in interviews, it comes from the fact that he drills loads of punch shots, and it just kind of stuck in the full swing... It does work for him and I assume his coaching staff are cool with it, but I'm fully invested in the idea that what works for pros might not be a good idea for the rest of us mortals. I've seen some coaches say that working on post-impact positions (such as "straighten your arms in the follow-through") can lead to tension, which can be harmful. I certainly notice some tension when doing this finish in a full swing (it feels as if I need to decelerate the club more consciously),  but at first glance it hasn't had any negative effect on my shots, but rather the opposite...
    • Looks good to me too. It obviously works well for him. I suppose it keeps the ball under the wind better for those European courses?  I happen to like his putting grip as well….I’ve adapted it lately
    • I really like Tommy Fleetwood's three-quarter finish, both aesthetically and in terms of the feeling of control it provides. I haven't found any good technical discussions on potential trade-offs and risks. My current instructor is not against it, but he hasn't elaborated on the topic.  I plan to do a little statistical experiment where I try a three-quarter vs. a full finish at the range. In the meantime, what are your thoughts?
    • It's not the handicaps we're concerned about....we know that's going to be accurate. It's the weekly and overall year-end competition we're concerned about. We're thinking average scores will be artificially lower than they actually should be. Players just turn in their gross scores and the software does all the calculating after someone (meaning me) plugs in everyone's gross scores hole by hole. There's no way 99% of these guys would be able to figure out which holes they get strokes on and how many. Since I'm considered the numbers guru, I'm the one elected to figure this stuff out and will ultimately be the one who makes the decision (and get the bitching afterwards). I'm leaning towards agreeing with @iacas though.   
  • Today's Birthdays

    1. bm85
      bm85
      (36 years old)
    2. canadianpro
      canadianpro
      (76 years old)
    3. deryl50
      deryl50
      (54 years old)
    4. Facialman
      Facialman
      (74 years old)
    5. lowtidecharters
      lowtidecharters
      (42 years old)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...