Should Divots Be Considered Ground Under Repair?

[Gunther]

8 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

I don't see the argument about casual water.  It's either there or it isn't.  There is no room for anyone's opinion.  

The same would have to be true for your idea on divot holes but I don't see any way to be certain.  Unless I saw the divot taken, I cannot say with absolute certainty that a mark on the fairway is from a divot.  The farther the mark goes in the healing process, the less becomes the certainty.  In trying to regulate such irregularities out of the game you create a germ of indecision that really doesn't clarify anything.  

As mentioned by several posters above, actually landing in an alleged divot hole is a relatively rare occurrence.  To the one who said that in a 100 rounds he lands in 40 divots.... you must play the most poorly maintained course in the world.  That would make you the all time champ for landing in divot holes.  

One other thought which I don't believe has been brought up.  I think that a rule allowing relief from divot holes would tend to make players even less likely to replace or repair their excavations than they already are.  It's easier to blow it off when you think that it isn't going to be a problem for anyone following you.  

So, due to the relative rarity of the issue, and the difficulty of determining an end point to the condition, I don't see why it always seems to become such a big deal for some people.  It can't possibly have any effect on a player's handicap, and only very rarely even effect the outcome of a game.  It's a non-starter for me, and I daresay, for the USGA and R&R too.  I'd say that they don't address it as a problem because they don't see it as a problem any more than I do.

I don't think anyone who advocates for this rule change would fall on their sword over it.  Actually, it's the folks who are against that are more passionate, at least in this forum.  

It is a rare situation, think I was in 2 divots all last year so it's not a big deal.  But, if I had one rule I could change, this would be it, that's all.  I haven't heard an argument against that can't be accommodated.

[imsys0042]

3 minutes ago, Gunther said:

I don't think anyone who advocates for this rule change would fall on their sword over it.  Actually, it's the folks who are against that are more passionate, at least in this forum.  

It is a rare situation, think I was in 2 divots all last year so it's not a big deal.  But, if I had one rule I could change, this would be it, that's all.  I haven't heard an argument against that can't be accommodated.

To further add, if it's so rare then why not define it explicitly as bets as possible and give people relief from it?   Another rare case is the 10 second rule for putts falling in on the lip?   Anyone want to argue with someone in a match over whether it was 11 seconds or more?   Anyone start counting at the exact time?   

It's not exactly on the top of my "things that must change" list either, but it seems a reasonable thing to discuss and bring up.

[Asheville]

59 minutes ago, Gunther said:

As I said, it would be written similar to other rules where a player requires confirmation to proceed such as green pitch marks, embedded ball, where a ball crosses a hazard, etc.  It might be that the playing partner cannot confirm in which case an official would be consulted.

Could you please point out where in the Rules this "confirmation" practice is required.

[Gunther]

1 minute ago, Asheville said:

Could you please point out where in the Rules this "confirmation" practice is required.

I cannot.

[imsys0042]

I would like to know as well where the fellow player ok'ing it is.   For as long as I've played, I've always addressed (and gone by) what a competitor or fellow player wrt things like casual water.   I am uncomfortable doing it unless obvious (puddle) or I am standing on a cart path.   

[Abu3baid]

I went back and I read my previous position and I would like to change it.  I don't think divots should be treated as GUR and no one should be granted relief for it.  

I will add that I am also now 100% against LCP in any condition as it truly violates both principles of playing the course as you find it and the ball as it lay.

It's just not golf when you allow people to just decide to replace their ball whenever they want, but they can always do that by just taking a stroke penalty that's all.

I can't say why I had the change of heart, but I did.  

[Rulesman]

45 minutes ago, imsys0042 said:

 

1)  Yes, you will get the people who try and claim a spec of sand gets a re-drop within one club length, but there are plenty of opportunities to do so already.  

 

2) Additionally when looking at this, what about an embedded ball in it's own hole.   That's subjective if it's only embedded a small amount.

 

1) Which rule is this?

2) There is a decision which clearly explains this.

 

[imsys0042]

14 minutes ago, Rulesman said:

1) Which rule is this?

2) There is a decision which clearly explains this.

 

1 )   If you add, as I stated, definitions saying that the ball touching any part of a sand filled divot (hypothetically).

2 )  25.2/0.5?   Thanks for not citing it and making me look it up.   It covers the case where there is disagreement, basically against the player.    That's as subjective as anything else.   if someone else wants to "cast doubt" then someone can be prevented from taking relief when they should get it.   Which is exactly the point with divots as AGC, it relies on the fact that people be honorable and then there isn't concern that someone is getting away with something.,

[David in FL]

53 minutes ago, Gunther said:

I don't think anyone who advocates for this rule change would fall on their sword over it.  Actually, it's the folks who are against that are more passionate, at least in this forum.  

It is a rare situation, think I was in 2 divots all last year so it's not a big deal.  But, if I had one rule I could change, this would be it, that's all.  I haven't heard an argument against that can't be accommodated.

Less than a month ago I was in a narrow depression that I had no doubt was the result of a very old divot.  Probably over a year old.  I would have loved relief from that nasty little lie...

...so I'll ask once more.  At what exact point in time is a divot, subject to relief, no longer subject to that relief?  Remember that in order for the rule to be applied in equally and consistently to every golfer, in every situation.

[Abu3baid]

4 minutes ago, imsys0042 said:

1 )   If you add, as I stated, definitions saying that the ball touching any part of a sand filled divot (hypothetically).

2 )  25.2/0.5?   Thanks for not citing it and making me look it up.   It covers the case where there is disagreement, basically against the player.    That's as subjective as anything else.   if someone else wants to "cast doubt" then someone can be prevented from taking relief when they should get it.   Which is exactly the point with divots as AGC, it relies on the fact that people be honorable and then there isn't concern that someone is getting away with something.,

I was on that side of the fence before, and what turned me is basically where does it stop before you get to lift clean and place when ever you want?  Dead patch of grass in the middle of the fairway?  What about dead grass in the rough?  What about if you end up in the trees and in a divot there?  It's just such a slippery slop until you aren't playing golf anymore.

[Gunther]

9 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Less than a month ago I was in a narrow depression that I had no doubt was the result of a very old divot.  Probably over a year old.  I would have loved relief from that nasty little lie...

...so I'll ask once more.  At what exact point in time is a divot, subject to relief, no longer subject to that relief?  Remember that in order for the rule to be applied in equally and consistently to every golfer, in every situation.

If you feel like it impedes your shot and are certain it's from a divot, take your relief.  If your playing partner does not agree, call for an official.  But, if it's a year old, I doubt you would actually try to take relief from it. 

[imsys0042]

3 minutes ago, Abu3baid said:

I was on that side of the fence before, and what turned me is basically where does it stop before you get to lift clean and place when ever you want?  Dead patch of grass in the middle of the fairway?  What about dead grass in the rough?  What about if you end up in the trees and in a divot there?  It's just such a slippery slop until you aren't playing golf anymore.

There is plenty to prevent that based on how you define it.   Defining as an unfilled hole or that it has to be touching sand in a sand-filled divot restricts that.   And to restrict to the fairway, 25-2 pretty much describes the fairway since there must be higher than what it states.

From 25-2:  Note 2: "Closely-mown area" means any area of the course, including paths through the rough, cut to fairway height or less.

So I really think that this ultimately comes down to some people want it and defend it vigorously, and other people don't want it and defend it just as vigorously.   But there is certainly a way to define it, if golf's governing bodies wanted to address it, to restrict it to actual, valid occurrences.   People who try to game it are the same people that won't follow many of the rules anyway.

[Lihu]

I'm amazed at the number of pages on this topic. If it changes, it would be great! Also, guessing that if people are playing the same course all the time that the divots they end up in are possibly the ones they made themselves?

[imsys0042]

23 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Less than a month ago I was in a narrow depression that I had no doubt was the result of a very old divot.  Probably over a year old.  I would have loved relief from that nasty little lie...

...so I'll ask once more.  At what exact point in time is a divot, subject to relief, no longer subject to that relief?  Remember that in order for the rule to be applied in equally and consistently to every golfer, in every situation.

My feeling is that a replaced divot is part of the course, and would not be if there was such a rule.   Since we have rules that define OB by inches (by drawing a line between two poles) and rules that generally deal with "any part of the ball touching ..." then I'd define it like this:

1 -  any part of the ball is touching an unfilled divot, or the unfilled part of a partially replaced divot.

2 -  any part of the ball is touching the sand of a sand filled divot.

That requires as much as whether part of the ball is touching any part of the green, whether any part of the ball is in-bounds, or whether 10 seconds has passed before a ball on the edge of a cup falls in.   The first two require the same criteria.

And since it tends to be rare, I doubt this, if properly applied, affects score or handicap.   People try to abuse causal water and other relief situations, it meets the same standard.

Edited January 12, 2016 by imsys0042

[David in FL]

Just now, Gunther said:

If you feel like it impedes your shot and are certain it's from a divot, take your relief.  If your playing partner does not agree, call for an official.  But, if it's a year old, I doubt you would actually try to take relief from it. 

Completely subjective, and as such it cannot be applied equally and consistently to every golfer/situation.   You're simply saying that if you want to move your ball, you can do so.  Again, back to the first Principle of the game.  

[luu5]

2 minutes ago, Lihu said:

I'm amazed at the number of pages on this topic. If it changes, it would be great! Also, guessing that if people are playing the same course all the time that the divots they end up in are possibly the ones they made themselves?

Hopefully it makes them better at replacing divots or filling the holes.

[imsys0042]

13 minutes ago, Lihu said:

I'm amazed at the number of pages on this topic. If it changes, it would be great! Also, guessing that if people are playing the same course all the time that the divots they end up in are possibly the ones they made themselves?

I've done that.   It went into a sand filled divot, but I'm sure it happened!

[Lihu]

21 minutes ago, luu5 said:

Hopefully it makes them better at replacing divots or filling the holes.

That's what I feel.