Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
IGNORED

Should Divots Be Considered Ground Under Repair?


Note: This thread is 1208 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

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

130 members have voted

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



Recommended Posts

Posted
[LEFT][/LEFT][quote name="Gunther" url="/t/70984/should-divots-be-considered-ground-under-repair/450#post_1020333"] At what point is a pitch mark deemed nit to be repairable? Same scenario.[/quote] A pitch mark on the green is always repairable. Regardless, it's irrelevant. A divot is not repairable, and repairing a pitch mark on the green does not require that the ball be moved or that the lie be improved. Apples and oranges.

In David's bag....

Driver: Titleist 910 D-3;  9.5* Diamana Kai'li
3-Wood: Titleist 910F;  15* Diamana Kai'li
Hybrids: Titleist 910H 19* and 21* Diamana Kai'li
Irons: Titleist 695cb 5-Pw

Wedges: Scratch 51-11 TNC grind, Vokey SM-5's;  56-14 F grind and 60-11 K grind
Putter: Scotty Cameron Kombi S
Ball: ProV1

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

A pitch mark on the green is always repairable.

Regardless, it's irrelevant. A divot is not repairable, and repairing a pitch mark on the green does not require that the ball be moved or that the lie be improved.

Apples and oranges.

Yep, because the rules of golf has specified the green as a different entity than the rest of the course.

Matt Dougherty, P.E.
 fasdfa dfdsaf 

What's in My Bag
Driver; :pxg: 0311 Gen 5,  3-Wood: 
:titleist: 917h3 ,  Hybrid:  :titleist: 915 2-Hybrid,  Irons: Sub 70 TAIII Fordged
Wedges: :edel: (52, 56, 60),  Putter: :edel:,  Ball: :snell: MTB,  Shoe: :true_linkswear:,  Rangfinder: :leupold:
Bag: :ping:

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
Further, why does this have to be the "snag" that keeps them from calling divot holes GUR?  Why can't it simply be "That's a stupid idea, and it's not golf?" I just don't buy that the application and definitions are really what the problem is.

The definition is only part of the issue. As has been said before, GUR by definition is an abnormal course condition. A divot is not an abnormal condition on the golf course, it's as much a part of the game as any other challenge we face.

In David's bag....

Driver: Titleist 910 D-3;  9.5* Diamana Kai'li
3-Wood: Titleist 910F;  15* Diamana Kai'li
Hybrids: Titleist 910H 19* and 21* Diamana Kai'li
Irons: Titleist 695cb 5-Pw

Wedges: Scratch 51-11 TNC grind, Vokey SM-5's;  56-14 F grind and 60-11 K grind
Putter: Scotty Cameron Kombi S
Ball: ProV1

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
[LEFT][/LEFT] A pitch mark on the green is always repairable. Regardless, it's irrelevant. A divot is not repairable, and repairing a pitch mark on the green does not require that the ball be moved or that the lie be improved. Apples and oranges.

Yes, as the rules are written. I totally get that. I'm providing potential alternatives because I don't like the rule. My point relative to divots is exactly the same as a pitch mark. One could always get relief from a divot regardless of its state of repair, if one deemed it necessary. He would consult with a partner or official if unsure whether the imperfection was in fact, a divot, just like a pitch mark.

In my Bag: Driver: Titelist 913 D3 9.5 deg. 3W: TaylorMade RBZ 14.5 3H: TaylorMade RBZ 18.5 4I - SW: TaylorMade R7 TP LW: Titelist Vokey 60 Putter: Odyssey 2-Ball

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
Yes, as the rules are written. I totally get that. I'm providing potential alternatives because I don't like the rule. My point relative to divots is exactly the same as a pitch mark. One could always get relief from a divot regardless of its state of repair, if one deemed it necessary. He would consult with a partner or official if unsure whether the imperfection was in fact, a divot, just like a pitch mark.

No, you don't "get relief" from a ball mark. You're allowed to repair it, and doing so does not allow you to change the location of your ball, nor improve your lie. In other words, it maintains the core principles behind the rules, it doesn't violate them.

In David's bag....

Driver: Titleist 910 D-3;  9.5* Diamana Kai'li
3-Wood: Titleist 910F;  15* Diamana Kai'li
Hybrids: Titleist 910H 19* and 21* Diamana Kai'li
Irons: Titleist 695cb 5-Pw

Wedges: Scratch 51-11 TNC grind, Vokey SM-5's;  56-14 F grind and 60-11 K grind
Putter: Scotty Cameron Kombi S
Ball: ProV1

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

Yes, as the rules are written. I totally get that.

I'm providing potential alternatives because I don't like the rule. My point relative to divots is exactly the same as a pitch mark. One could always get relief from a divot regardless of its state of repair, if one deemed it necessary. He would consult with a partner or official if unsure whether the imperfection was in fact, a divot, just like a pitch mark.

But you don't consult your opponent for a pitch mark. Also notice one of the key rules with this is that you are allowed to mark your ball on the green. Which then permits you to fix the ball mark.

Once the pitch marked is fix the ball must go back to the same spot. You can not fix a divot, so you can not move the ball from a divot. Different locations, different rules, different application. They do not match up at all.

Matt Dougherty, P.E.
 fasdfa dfdsaf 

What's in My Bag
Driver; :pxg: 0311 Gen 5,  3-Wood: 
:titleist: 917h3 ,  Hybrid:  :titleist: 915 2-Hybrid,  Irons: Sub 70 TAIII Fordged
Wedges: :edel: (52, 56, 60),  Putter: :edel:,  Ball: :snell: MTB,  Shoe: :true_linkswear:,  Rangfinder: :leupold:
Bag: :ping:

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

The definition is only part of the issue.

As has been said before, GUR by definition is an abnormal course condition. A divot is not an abnormal condition on the golf course, it's as much a part of the game as any other challenge we face.

But it's the only part of the issue I was getting involved in.  On the rest of it, I agree with you fully. :beer:

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
But you don't consult your opponent for a pitch mark. Also notice one of the key rules with this is that you are allowed to mark your ball on the green. Which then permits you to fix the ball mark.  Once the pitch marked is fix the ball must go back to the same spot. You can not fix a divot, so you can not move the ball from a divot. Different locations, different rules, different application. They do not match up at all.

You do consult your partner on a pitch mark. I do it regularly to ensure I'm not about to inadvertently repair something other than a pitch mark. I see the pros do it as well, from time to time. I get the difference between relief and repair; again, just offering a potential option.

In my Bag: Driver: Titelist 913 D3 9.5 deg. 3W: TaylorMade RBZ 14.5 3H: TaylorMade RBZ 18.5 4I - SW: TaylorMade R7 TP LW: Titelist Vokey 60 Putter: Odyssey 2-Ball

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

You do consult your partner on a pitch mark. I do it regularly to ensure I'm not about to inadvertently repair something other than a pitch mark. I see the pros do it as well, from time to time.

I get the difference between relief and repair; again, just offering a potential option.

I have never consulted my partner on a pitch mark. I have never been consulted by someone about a pitch mark, and I have never seen a PGA tour player consult anyone on fixing a pitch mark.

Matt Dougherty, P.E.
 fasdfa dfdsaf 

What's in My Bag
Driver; :pxg: 0311 Gen 5,  3-Wood: 
:titleist: 917h3 ,  Hybrid:  :titleist: 915 2-Hybrid,  Irons: Sub 70 TAIII Fordged
Wedges: :edel: (52, 56, 60),  Putter: :edel:,  Ball: :snell: MTB,  Shoe: :true_linkswear:,  Rangfinder: :leupold:
Bag: :ping:

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunther

You do consult your partner on a pitch mark. I do it regularly to ensure I'm not about to inadvertently repair something other than a pitch mark. I see the pros do it as well, from time to time.

I get the difference between relief and repair; again, just offering a potential option.

I have never consulted my partner on a pitch mark. I have never been consulted by someone about a pitch mark, and I have never seen a PGA tour player consult anyone on fixing a pitch mark.

I have - quite a few times in fact.

Rick

"He who has the fastest cart will never have a bad lie."

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
I have never consulted my partner on a pitch mark. I have never been consulted by someone about a pitch mark, and I have never seen a PGA tour player consult anyone on fixing a pitch mark.

Have to admit, it's fairly common. But again, complete apples and oranges to the divot question.

In David's bag....

Driver: Titleist 910 D-3;  9.5* Diamana Kai'li
3-Wood: Titleist 910F;  15* Diamana Kai'li
Hybrids: Titleist 910H 19* and 21* Diamana Kai'li
Irons: Titleist 695cb 5-Pw

Wedges: Scratch 51-11 TNC grind, Vokey SM-5's;  56-14 F grind and 60-11 K grind
Putter: Scotty Cameron Kombi S
Ball: ProV1

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

Have to admit, it's fairly common.

But again, complete apples and oranges to the divot question.

I guess it must be more of a tournament thing to ask your opponent when fixing a pitch mark.

Matt Dougherty, P.E.
 fasdfa dfdsaf 

What's in My Bag
Driver; :pxg: 0311 Gen 5,  3-Wood: 
:titleist: 917h3 ,  Hybrid:  :titleist: 915 2-Hybrid,  Irons: Sub 70 TAIII Fordged
Wedges: :edel: (52, 56, 60),  Putter: :edel:,  Ball: :snell: MTB,  Shoe: :true_linkswear:,  Rangfinder: :leupold:
Bag: :ping:

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
I guess it must be more of a tournament thing to ask your opponent when fixing a pitch mark.

. Absolutely. In a friendly, casual match there's no problem. In a tournament, when in doubt ask, to avoid any question that could result in a penalty.

In David's bag....

Driver: Titleist 910 D-3;  9.5* Diamana Kai'li
3-Wood: Titleist 910F;  15* Diamana Kai'li
Hybrids: Titleist 910H 19* and 21* Diamana Kai'li
Irons: Titleist 695cb 5-Pw

Wedges: Scratch 51-11 TNC grind, Vokey SM-5's;  56-14 F grind and 60-11 K grind
Putter: Scotty Cameron Kombi S
Ball: ProV1

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
Question- how is a sand/seed filled divot hole not considered ground under repair? Is not the purpose of the mixture to repair?

Colin P.

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

Question- how is a sand/seed filled divot hole not considered ground under repair? Is not the purpose of the mixture to repair?

A divot is always in the process of growing back in.....the sand just speeds the process along.

GUR, by definition, is an abnormal course condition.  The presence of divots has been deemed to be a "normal" part of any golf course.

In David's bag....

Driver: Titleist 910 D-3;  9.5* Diamana Kai'li
3-Wood: Titleist 910F;  15* Diamana Kai'li
Hybrids: Titleist 910H 19* and 21* Diamana Kai'li
Irons: Titleist 695cb 5-Pw

Wedges: Scratch 51-11 TNC grind, Vokey SM-5's;  56-14 F grind and 60-11 K grind
Putter: Scotty Cameron Kombi S
Ball: ProV1

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
So the actual wording of "ground under repair" doesn't really explain the term as defined by the rules?

Colin P.

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
Quote:
Originally Posted by colin007 View Post

So the actual wording of "ground under repair" doesn't really explain the term as defined by the rules?

Ground under repair is an area designated by the course as abnormal ground conditions. Not all abnormal ground conditions are ground under repair, such as casual water or a hole created by a burrowing create (GOPHER!!)

Quote:

Ground Under Repair

Ground under repair ” is any part of the course so marked by order of the Committee or so declared by its authorized representative. All ground and any grass, bush, tree or other growing thing within the ground under repair are part of the ground under repair . Ground under repair includes material piled for removal and a hole made by a greenkeeper, even if not so marked. Grass cuttings and other material left on the course that have been abandoned and are not intended to be removed are not ground under repair unless so marked.

When the margin of ground under repair is defined by stakes, the stakes are inside the ground under repair , and the margin of the ground under repair is defined by the nearest outside points of the stakes at ground level. When both stakes and lines are used to indicate ground under repair , the stakes identify the ground under repair and the lines define the margin of the ground under repair . When the margin of ground under repair is defined by a line on the ground, the line itself is in the ground under repair . The margin of ground under repair extends vertically downwards but not upwards.

A ball is in ground under repair when it lies in or any part of it touches the ground under repair .

Stakes used to define the margin of or identify ground under repair are obstructions .

Matt Dougherty, P.E.
 fasdfa dfdsaf 

What's in My Bag
Driver; :pxg: 0311 Gen 5,  3-Wood: 
:titleist: 917h3 ,  Hybrid:  :titleist: 915 2-Hybrid,  Irons: Sub 70 TAIII Fordged
Wedges: :edel: (52, 56, 60),  Putter: :edel:,  Ball: :snell: MTB,  Shoe: :true_linkswear:,  Rangfinder: :leupold:
Bag: :ping:

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
So the actual wording of "ground under repair" doesn't really explain the term as defined by the rules?

Good question, and it helps demonstrate how important it is to understand the actual definitions in applying the rules, because there may be differences from what you and I might consider common usage.

In this case, the term isn't necessarily all-inclusive, nor does it mean that anything in the process of being repaired, or repairing itself necessarily meets the definition.  By definition, GUR must be declared and marked as such by the committee (outside of tournament play, by the course).....

Ground Under Repair

Ground under repair ” is any part of the course so marked by order of the Committee or so declared by its authorized representative. All ground and any grass, bush, tree or other growing thing within the ground under repair are part of the ground under repair . Ground under repair includes material piled for removal and a hole made by a greenkeeper, even if not so marked. Grass cuttings and other material left on the course that have been abandoned and are not intended to be removed are not ground under repair unless so marked.

When the margin of ground under repair is defined by stakes, the stakes are inside the ground under repair , and the margin of the ground under repair is defined by the nearest outside points of the stakes at ground level. When both stakes and lines are used to indicate ground under repair , the stakes identify the ground under repair and the lines define the margin of the ground under repair . When the margin of ground under repair is defined by a line on the ground, the line itself is in the ground under repair . The margin of ground under repair extends vertically downwards but not upwards.

A ball is in ground under repair when it lies in or any part of it touches the ground under repair .

Stakes used to define the margin of or identify ground under repair are obstructions .

edited to add that Matt beat me.  Damn,  I'm getting slow in my old age!

In David's bag....

Driver: Titleist 910 D-3;  9.5* Diamana Kai'li
3-Wood: Titleist 910F;  15* Diamana Kai'li
Hybrids: Titleist 910H 19* and 21* Diamana Kai'li
Irons: Titleist 695cb 5-Pw

Wedges: Scratch 51-11 TNC grind, Vokey SM-5's;  56-14 F grind and 60-11 K grind
Putter: Scotty Cameron Kombi S
Ball: ProV1

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 1208 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • Day 470 - 2026-01-13 Got some work in while some players were using the sim, so I had to stick around. 🙂 Good thing too, since… I hadn't yet practiced today until about 6:45 tonight. 😛 
    • That's not quite the same thing as what some people messaged me today.
    • Day 152 1-12 More reps bowing wrists in downswing. Still pausing at the top. Making sure to get to lead side and getting the ball to go left. Slow progress is better than no progress.  
    • Yea, if I were to make a post arguing against the heat map concept, citing some recent robot testing would be my first point. The heat map concept is what I find interesting, more on that below. The robot testing I have looked at, including the one you linked, do discreet point testing then provide that discrete data in various forms. Which as you said is old as the hills, if you know of any other heat map concept type testing, I would be interested in links to that though! No, and I did say in my first post "if this heat map data is valid and reliable" meaning I have my reservations as well. Heck beyond reservations. I have some fairly strong suspicions there are flaws. But all I have are hunches and guesses, if anyone has data to share, I would be interested to see it.  My background is I quit golfing about 9 years ago and have been toying with the idea of returning. So far that has been limited to a dozen range sessions in late Summer through Fall when the range closed. Then primarily hitting foam balls indoors using a swing speed monitor as feedback. Between the range closing and the snow flying I did buy an R10 and hit a few balls into a backyard net. The heat map concept is a graphical representation of efficiency (smash factor) loss mapped onto the face of the club. As I understand it to make the representation agnostic to swing speed or other golfer specific swing characteristics. It is more a graphical tool not a data tool. The areas are labeled numerically in discrete 1% increments while the raw data is changing at ~0.0017%/mm and these changes are represented as subtle changes in color across those discrete areas. The only data we care about in terms of the heat map is the 1.3 to 1.24 SF loss and where was the strike location on the face - 16mm heal and 5mm low. From the video the SF loss is 4.6% looking up 16mm heal and 5mm low on the heat map it is on the edge of where the map changes from 3% loss to 4%. For that data point in the video, 16mm heal, 5mm low, 71.3 mph swing speed (reference was 71.4 mph), the distance loss was 7.2% or 9 yards, 125 reference distance down to 116. However, distance loss is not part of a heat map discussion. Distance loss will be specific to the golfers swing characteristics not the club. What I was trying to convey was that I do not have enough information to determine good or bad. Are the two systems referencing strike location the same? How accurate are the two systems in measuring even if they are referencing from the same location? What variation might have been introduced by the club delivery on the shot I picked vs the reference set of shots? However, based on the data I do have and making some assumptions and guesses the results seem ok, within reason, a good place to start from and possibly refine. I do not see what is wrong with 70mph 7 iron, although that is one of my other areas of questioning. The title of the video has slow swing speed in all caps, and it seems like the videos I watch define 7i slow, medium, and fast as 70, 80, and 90. The whole question of mid iron swing speed and the implications for a players game and equipment choices is of interest to me as (according to my swing speed meter) over my ~decade break I lost 30mph swing speed on mine.
    • Maxfli, Maltby, Golfworks, all under the Dicks/Golf Galaxy umbrella... it's all a bit confounding. Looking at the pictures, they all look very, very similar in their design. I suspect they're the same club, manufactured in the same factory in China, just with different badging.  The whacky pricing structure has soured me, so I'll just cool my heels a bit. The new Mizuno's will be available to test very soon. I'm in no rush.  
×
×
  • 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.