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

14 minutes ago, iacas said:

No, it isn’t.

Not always.

You have not done this yet.

It is not an opinion, and is not a matter of debate.

Please define when a replaced divot is “reattached,” or how much of a divot needs to be replaced and reattached… etc. etc.

How much sand? How filled in? What if a fresh divot is taken, filled with sand, and rain washes it out?

In other words: you’ve completely failed here.

This is why I didn't offer a definition in the first place, according to what you said, literally nothing was right about it, or acceptable, or probably never could be.  Strange, that's how I have felt often times, and that has influenced some of my posts. As far as divots are concerned, 42% want a rule added to get relief from them, so we are on to something. 

In other words: you’ve completely failed here. Thanks for appreciating my response!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
6 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

As far as divots are concerned, 42% want a rule added to get relief from them, so we are on to something.

It’s beyond tiring to keep responding to the same stupid shit time and time again.


Once again, in order to allow relief from a divot hole in a fairway, you’d have to clear two hurdles:

  • You’d have to get around the Principle discussed several times.
  • You’d have to be able to clearly define “divot hole.”

You can’t do the latter, let alone the former.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

4 minutes ago, Billy Z said:
27 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

This is why I didn't offer a definition in the first place, according to what you said, literally nothing was right about it, or acceptable, or probably never could be. 

What do you care? Just give us a damn definition. Enlighten us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

34 minutes ago, iacas said:

You’re discussing things here, are you not?

48 minutes ago, HoganApexFan said:

This entire thread is based on whether users SUPPORT a proposed rules change that PGA, LPGA, and many respondents to the USGA/R&A have fully supported (check out the recent posts!).

We’ve stipulated that many golfers would want to see the rule. That doesn’t mean that:

  • Such a rule follows the Principles of the Rules of Golf.
  • Such a rule is even possible to write without basically just allowing lift, clean, and place or lift, clean, and drop in the fairway at all times.

Thank you for allowing me to continue to discuss things here.  Sooner or later new rules will not follow the "Principles of the Rules of Golf", aka, play the ball as it lies.  The rules will evolve, whether you or I strenuously object or not (I was a golf rule fanatic in the 90's and knew the rules inside/out for stroke/medal/match play).  And much to OUR dismay, this may ultimately result in a rule that allows Lift, Clean, and Drop in the fairway at all times, like they regularly use for junior events (at least at my course).

Link to comment
Share on other sites


43 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

What do you care? Just give us a damn definition. Enlighten us.

I already did, but I guess you weren't paying attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

29 minutes ago, iacas said:

It’s not going to be a “pretty darn good one.” It’d be a terrible rule, applied nowhere near uniformly/consistently, and rife with abuse by players who will find any little imperfection and claim that it’s an old divot hole not fully restored. It would slow play, cause altercations, etc.

AND, once again, goes against one of the most basic Principles behind the Rules of Golf.

I think it's at least as "pretty darn good" as the other rules that allow for a player not being able to be sure or "know." Why is this one worse? If players abuse the rule, they aren't abiding by the spirt of the rules. If you include the ball not being on grass in your definition, that's pretty hard to abuse. If they aren't virtually certain (or whatever certainty you want to assign) then they're cheating. If we're going to ban cheaters from golf courses, at least I'll finally be able to get whatever tee time I want. 

As to slow play, it has been pointed out many times in this thread how rare a ball ending up in a divot in the fairway is. That tracks with my experience. It seems to me that that alone would minimize the effect on pace of play. Further, a better lie makes it less likely a crappy golfer will hit a 30 yard worm-burner requiring two shots for what should have been one. That seems like improved pace of play. Any altercations would be no more than any other rule over which two competitors disagree as to application. I disagree that a divot relief rule would be any more frought with peril than the embedded ball rule or the way we determine where to take a drop from a lateral hazzard (red penalty area - whatever) from a long distance away. I also think its a weak justification to not have a rule because people are going to fight over it.

I see and at least in part agree with your point about divot relief being counter to the principle of playing the course as you find it. That argument makes sense, though I think the embedded ball rule, for one, provides precedent for disregarding the principle when the powers that be so desire. That does not mean they should disregard it lightly though, which I think is (mostly) your point.

For the record, I don't actually mind the rules requiring us to hit out of divots. I'd rather not and lean towards the change, but I don't feel strongly about it. I'm OK with the tradition and the need to deal with adversity even after hitting a (usually) good, or at least well aimed, shot; I can see that it adds something to the game. Thems the breaks, as they say. But, I think many here overstate the the strength of the case against change.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites


39 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

What do you care? Just give us a damn definition. Enlighten us.

Why should @Billy Z have to define anything?  He is advocating for a position that is supported by a multitude of professional and amateur golfers (yeah, go ahead and question that despite all of the previous posts).  Why don't YOU, @Vinsk give us a definition of what is NOT a divot???  There are so many of you that are so smug claiming that we need to convince you to change the rules; how about you trying to convince us (and a plurality of ALL golfers) on why we shouldn't change the rules!

1 minute ago, HoganApexFan said:

we

Not why "we" shouldn't change the rules, but why the "USGA/R&A" shouldn't change the rules.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


3 minutes ago, HoganApexFan said:

Why should @Billy Z have to define anything?  He is advocating for a position that is supported by a multitude of professional and amateur golfers (yeah, go ahead and question that despite all of the previous posts).  Why don't YOU, @Vinsk give us a definition of what is NOT a divot???  There are so many of you that are so smug claiming that we need to convince you to change the rules; how about you trying to convince us (and a plurality of ALL golfers) on why we shouldn't change the rules!

Just because some people feel like you should be rewarded with a perfect lie in the fairway doesn't mean they are right in a number of ways. 

1. Can you actually create a rule that can be self enforced and not ambiguous to be abused?

2. Not all golf courses are pristine and bad lies can happen in a fairway, why should divots count differently? Isn't poor maintenance of a course just man made similar to a divot if you reduce it down to who takes care of the course.

3. If the logic is based on rewarding good drives, because it is a bad break to end up in a divot. Why should we benefit from a good break in golf? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

(edited)
9 minutes ago, HoganApexFan said:

There are so many of you that are so smug claiming that we need to convince you to change the rules.........

Not why "we" shouldn't change the rules, but why the "USGA/R&A" shouldn't change the rules.

 

Because  no-one can define "divot" in such a way  that would encompass all situations and all golfers in all conditions on all courses in an unambiguous fashion, pleasing all golfers all of the time. Easy.

 

Oh.....and just to be super smug...... because no real golfer thinks that being in a divot is an outrageously unjust predicament in which to find oneself.

They just don't like it and even get pi**ed off by it. 

Edited by Shorty
Link to comment
Share on other sites


2 minutes ago, Shorty said:

Because  no-one can define "divot" in such a way  that would encompass all situations and all golfers in all conditions on all courses in an unambiguous fashion, pleasing all golfers all of the time. Easy.

Edited just now by Shorty

Shorty, You so funny!  I edited my post to change the "we" to "USGA/R&A".   If you really think they can't define "divot" then maybe they shouldn't be able to write the Rules of Golf!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


(edited)
8 minutes ago, HoganApexFan said:

 If you really think they can't define "divot" then maybe they shouldn't be able to write the Rules of Golf!

But this is the whole point!!!!!!! They can't! And........beside the point.......don't need to because divots are part of golf.

It's hard enough for a lot of golfers to define a wheel track or casual water or even point of entry consistently - and these rules should be easy to navigate.

I want to call a shitty lie a partially but not full recovered divot. I swear that I believe it to be true. Are we going to get along when you think you know for sure that I'm exaggerating? Of course we all think we know what a real divot is. That's not the same as incorporating a definition into rules which are open to interpretation - for whatever reason and despite the intent, honourable or otherwise of the player - and have to be administered in the favour of the player.

Edited by Shorty
Link to comment
Share on other sites


26 minutes ago, HoganApexFan said:

@Vinsk give us a definition of what is NOT a divot??? 

First ...it’s divot hole. Second, here’s the simple definition you requested:

Any divot hole that wasn’t made by a golf club. And that could be.....pretty long list. Therein lies the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

2 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

First ...it’s divot hole. Second, here’s the simple definition you requested:

Any divot hole that wasn’t made by a golf club. And that could be.....pretty long list. Therein lies the problem.

LOL!  Have you paid the least bit of attention to your compatriots who relentlessly attacked these loose definitions?  LOL*10!  You can't define a "divot hole" by declaring that it's a "divot hole" that wasn't made by a golf club. Maybe you should check out @Billy Z to figure out how to define things that the USGA can't...But then again, that's not our job!!!  Let the USGA do it!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


12 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

First ...it’s divot hole. Second, here’s the simple definition you requested:

Any divot hole that wasn’t made by a golf club. And that could be.....pretty long list. Therein lies the problem.

I like the direction we're going in. I'm going to call my sh*t lie a hole made by a burrowing animal if you don't give me relief. :-) Rules are easy to write!

 

BB15bF89.img.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites


As the USGA/R&A have said:

A fundamental challenge of the sport is to deal with whatever position your ball comes to rest in – whether good or bad. While there are some necessary exceptions (such as obstructions and other abnormal course conditions), the essential nature of golf means these must remain exceptions rather than the norm. Therefore, the new Rules do not provide relief without penalty from situations that some golfers complain about, such as when their ball comes to rest in a divot hole on a fairway or in footprints in a poorly raked bunker. In addition to being contrary to the fundamental principle of playing the ball as it lies, providing free relief in such circumstances would make the Rules harder to apply (for example, what is the difference between an irregularity of surface and an old divot hole?) and would slow down play.

  • Like 2
  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Moderator
7 hours ago, HoganApexFan said:

Thank you for allowing me to continue to discuss things here.  Sooner or later new rules will not follow the "Principles of the Rules of Golf", aka, play the ball as it lies.  The rules will evolve, whether you or I strenuously object or not (I was a golf rule fanatic in the 90's and knew the rules inside/out for stroke/medal/match play).  And much to OUR dismay, this may ultimately result in a rule that allows Lift, Clean, and Drop in the fairway at all times, like they regularly use for junior events (at least at my course).

But why would we not want to follow the Principles of the Rules of Golf? I see no reason. To deviate from the principles because some people don’t like when their ball lands in a divot hole once every 30 rounds. 

Lift, clean and place is usually only applied when balls are also plugging due to excessive water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
7 hours ago, HoganApexFan said:

Sooner or later new rules will not follow the "Principles of the Rules of Golf", aka, play the ball as it lies.

Once again, I'll express my frustration in trying to discuss the Rules of Golf with people  who do not understand the Rules of Golf.

And by "discussing the Rules of Golf" in this sense, I don't mean to educate, answer questions, etc. I mean to discuss in an oppositional way why something is the way it is, why it will remain roughly that way, etc.

NO, the "new rules will not follow the Principles of the Rules of Golf." You're literally discussing that which you are ignorant of.

7 hours ago, HoganApexFan said:

The rules will evolve, whether you or I strenuously object or not (I was a golf rule fanatic in the 90's and knew the rules inside/out for stroke/medal/match play).

I doubt that.

7 hours ago, HoganApexFan said:

And much to OUR dismay, this may ultimately result in a rule that allows Lift, Clean, and Drop in the fairway at all times, like they regularly use for junior events (at least at my course).

"Your" course should improve the conditions if LCP is needed that often. Those juniors should learn to play the ball as it lies.

7 hours ago, Billy Z said:

I already did, but I guess you weren't paying attention.

You did not provide a definition that passes even a few seconds of examination.

7 hours ago, m052310 said:

I think it's at least as "pretty darn good" as the other rules that allow for a player not being able to be sure or "know."

See above. Two bullet points.

7 hours ago, m052310 said:

If players abuse the rule, they aren't abiding by the spirt of the rules.

There's no such thing as "the spirit of the rules." The Rules are the Rules.

There's the "spirit of the game," but that includes… following the Rules. And so if the Rules allowed relief from a "divot hole," then following it would be within the spirit of the game.

Here's a good (well, at least decent) read for many of you here:

cropped-rgfavicon.png?fit=240%2C240&ssl=

I apologize for the length of this post. If I had more time I’d have written a shorter one. – Erik J. Barzeski “That Haotong Li penalty was an outrage! He didn’t gain an adv…

@Billy Z, @HoganApexFan, and others, there's your reading assignment.

7 hours ago, m052310 said:

If they aren't virtually certain

Once again more into the breach…

… if you can't define a divot hole in a way that's universally and consistently applied, nobody is virtually certain. If 30 people think something isn't a divot hole, and 40 people do…

We play golf on surfaces that are not perfect. Even Augusta National, you may be surprised to learn, has imperfections everywhere when you're standing on it and not just looking at it from a TV camera 200 yards away (albeit zoomed in a bit).

7 hours ago, m052310 said:

As to slow play, it has been pointed out many times in this thread how rare a ball ending up in a divot in the fairway is.

Because you don't get relief right now.

If you got relief, "divot holes" would begin appearing everywhere. See the above about how we play on an imperfect surface.

7 hours ago, m052310 said:

Any altercations would be no more than any other rule over which two competitors disagree as to application.

Then write the definition.

You're now in the same bucket as @Billy Z, and you must overcome the first hurdle, because the rest of your argument is bogus. You have no idea what the pace of play implications are until you write the rule. And writing the rule starts with the definition.

So have at it.

7 hours ago, m052310 said:

That argument makes sense, though I think the embedded ball rule, for one, provides precedent for disregarding the principle when the powers that be so desire.

It does not. Please read about the embedded ball stuff IN the Principles booklet.

7 hours ago, HoganApexFan said:

Why should @Billy Z have to define anything?

I've answered THIS question now several times.

7 hours ago, HoganApexFan said:

He is advocating for a position that is supported by a multitude of professional and amateur golfers (yeah, go ahead and question that despite all of the previous posts).

OMFG. I've literally stipulated to the fact that many, many golfers want this to be changed.

It's frustrating to discuss this topic with people:

  • Who don't actually read what's written back to them.
  • Who don't understand the Rules of Golf.

You're now, with @Billy Z, in both categories.

Popularity has almost nothing to do with justifying changing a Rule. The Rules of Golf are not decided by popular vote.

7 hours ago, HoganApexFan said:

Why don't YOU, @Vinsk give us a definition of what is NOT a divot???

Please read this: https://thesandtrap.com/how-to/mention-members/.

And the entire point is that when a divot HOLE ceases to be a divot HOLE is ambiguous. If I could define what is "not" a divot hole, then I could define what IS a divot hole.

Jim Carrey Alrighty Then GIF by Ace Ventura

7 hours ago, HoganApexFan said:

There are so many of you that are so smug

Nope, here's where you're reading something into this text that simply, 100%, isn't there.

7 hours ago, HoganApexFan said:

how about you trying to convince us (and a plurality of ALL golfers) on why we shouldn't change the rules!

Not why "we" shouldn't change the rules, but why the "USGA/R&A" shouldn't change the rules.

You cannot reason people out of something they were not reasoned into.

7 hours ago, saevel25 said:

1. Can you actually create a rule that can be self enforced and not ambiguous to be abused?

No, hell, they can't even create a definition.

7 hours ago, saevel25 said:

2. Not all golf courses are pristine and bad lies can happen in a fairway, why should divots count differently? Isn't poor maintenance of a course just man made similar to a divot if you reduce it down to who takes care of the course.

First divots, then brown spots. Or little bare spots. Or a patch of clover in the fairway. Or an oil streak from a mower on the green.

7 hours ago, saevel25 said:

3. If the logic is based on rewarding good drives, because it is a bad break to end up in a divot. Why should we benefit from a good break in golf?

Oh they don't want to hear about logical arguments, Matt!

7 hours ago, Shorty said:

Oh.....and just to be super smug...... because no real golfer thinks that being in a divot is an outrageously unjust predicament in which to find oneself.

Khloe Kardashian Winner GIF by Bunim/Murray Productions

7 hours ago, HoganApexFan said:

Shorty, You so funny!  I edited my post to change the "we" to "USGA/R&A".   If you really think they can't define "divot" then maybe they shouldn't be able to write the Rules of Golf!

face palm GIF

3 hours ago, Rulesman said:

As the USGA/R&A have said:

A fundamental challenge of the sport is to deal with whatever position your ball comes to rest in – whether good or bad. While there are some necessary exceptions (such as obstructions and other abnormal course conditions), the essential nature of golf means these must remain exceptions rather than the norm. Therefore, the new Rules do not provide relief without penalty from situations that some golfers complain about, such as when their ball comes to rest in a divot hole on a fairway or in footprints in a poorly raked bunker. In addition to being contrary to the fundamental principle of playing the ball as it lies, providing free relief in such circumstances would make the Rules harder to apply (for example, what is the difference between an irregularity of surface and an old divot hole?) and would slow down play.

@Rulesman, you will find that those arguing here will once again just skip or gloss over or, frankly, misunderstand the inconvenient truth of your post, but I appreciate the effort.

  • Funny 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

33 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

But why would we not want to follow the Principles of the Rules of Golf? I see no reason. To deviate from the principles because some people don’t like when their ball lands in a divot hole once every 30 rounds. 

Lift, clean and place is usually only applied when balls are also plugging due to excessive water.

I'm not sure it's even once every 30 rounds, I played over 125 rounds last year and I remember it happening once.    

The only way to have everyone play by the same rule would be to make the entire fairway, a lift, clean, and drop on all shots from the fairway, like we do after aeration occurs or lots of rain. That would be the only way to take out the ambiguity of what is and isn't a divot hole, but then that just doesn't seem like golf anymore.  

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

    • I was able to pay off my loans early all by myself, so everyone else should too.  Of course I was only paying $1200 per year in tuition for a chemical engineering degree. Now get off my lawn. It does "feel" like colleges compete based on amenities more than cost than they did when I was in school. In addition to the added cost of those amenities, state governments have reduced funding per student to the schools which forced the schools to rely on  tuition more. The availability of student loans allowed the states to cut the funding. I don't know which happened first, the loans or the funding cuts. I assume there is also some waste at schools in the form of a higher administrator to student ratio. I don't know what to do about the high cost of college and the debt burden on students.  I don't think that the ROI is high enough for some degrees. Many would be better off learning a trade.  In addition to the limits Erik mentioned, I think loan forgiveness for certain degrees in certain locations could help.  In the mean time I recommend everyone use the plan that I used for my kids to graduate college debt free. I have 2 single siblings who make good money who started contributing to a 529 for my kids when they were little.  I only paid about $4K per year which was in order to get the max tax credits. Each kid did/does get some scholarships that covered around 25% of total costs. My son is currently in school and plays on the golf team, but he does not get any money for it. Maybe he can earn a little next year with some continued improvement. My back up plan was for my wife to get a full time job after having been a SAHM and then substitute teacher for all of our kids' lives.
    • I remember last summer, when he complained that a cameraman was "damaging my brand" by having the temerity to video Bryson's actions.  Same here, its not Bryson's fault, its everyone else.  If you care about other people's opinions of you, you better think before you open your mouth and give them a reason to think you're a doofus.
    • Well those are actual numbers for one school, so it’s a small sample. And it’s more years. 1957 was $600, 1978 was $6000 and WPI was $60,000 when my son graduated from HS in 2013. When I was in school it went from $6k to $8K in 4 years.
    • Technically yesterday- 80, Woodley Lakes from the whites - 38-42 with a horrendous 7 on the easy par 5 13th after hitting a great drive AND a very nice 3 wood to about 91 yards short…then the carnage began - 56 degree fat to the collar…square strike (yep, have on - love it) caught the seam of the collar and went 25 feet past…first putt burned the edge but slipped 4 feet by…4 footer right in the heart but only traveled 3 feet 11 inches…BOOM double bogey…   Tomorrow is Balboa - usually break 80 there, but we will see…   good round to all playing today!
    • Scale back the Federal backing of student loans. Allow students to default like any other loan. Universities can offer loans in conjunction with private banks. The universities would be responsible for making sure they have good, sound programs and solid students who can then get appropriate jobs after graduation to repay the loans. If a university pushes too many marginal degree programs to students who have questionable academic talents, they will pay the price with high defaults that hurts their bottom line. That is the only way to change this. There is nothing stopping universities coming up with endless silly programs, recruiting foolish or desperate people to take out huge loans that they will never be able to repay. We have laws against the payday loan people abusing the poorest in society, but here we are abusing the naïve youth of our nation who lack experience at life. Additionally, too many people go to universities. Some schools have programs for the mentally challenged and learning disabled. Why saddle them and their parents with useless debt? In some cases this has become a system rigged to fleece a class of people and the government is complicit. We are allowing the government at the state and federal level take advantage of its citizenry. With the government backing this scheme, prices naturally go up. If the government allows these loans to be written off, the prices will go higher thereby compounding the problem. I have 4 children who have earned a total of 7 university degrees and none have had any student debt, so I have thought a lot about this. I have also interviewed a lot of new graduates some of who have had loan amounts that are ridiculous. Two guys in particular with BS in mechanical engineering with loans just under $200k. To me that is a red flag they won't be able to solve basic engineering problems.  
  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Augie
      Augie
      (63 years old)
    2. Dukes1304
      Dukes1304
      (36 years old)
    3. Mmgolfwiz
      Mmgolfwiz
      (58 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...