Should Divots Be Considered Ground Under Repair?

[Phil McGleno]

You phoned them and got a response back in text?-Explain that one buddy. I was state chairman of the Rules committee many moons ago and this was never a legit local rule.-Never even came up despite our state championship being contested on a par four with a huge dip right int eh landing area where everyones drives went.-You had a 30% chance of winding up in ad ivot and this rule was never even mentioned. Some guys laid back with irons-Others risked it.

[Kenn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by David in FL

An animal scrape is not an abnormal ground condition and relief is not allowed.

I thought there was if caused by a burrowing animal?  Do the rules specify just how you make that determination?  What do you do if one says that's caused by a burrowing animal and your partner says no way?

Quote:

There is absolutely nothing in the rules that addresses fairness. As discussed in previous posts, do not confuse the principle of equity with fairness.

I do find it somewhat amusing that you get so bent out of shape over the otherwise good shot that, through bad luck lands in a divot, but are equally accepting of the terrible shot that through a stroke of good luck bounces out of the woods and lands in the fairway.  With the good must come the bad.  It's part of the game.

Maybe that's why some think the rules should include relief from someone's divot.  Nothing in the rules says anything about "with the good must come the bad", are you just making that part up?

Quote:

And I quote...... Golf is played, for the most part, without the supervision of a referee or umpire. The game relies on the integrity of the individual to show consideration for other players and to abide by the Rules.

Note, it says that individuals are expected to abide by the rules..... not make up their own based on some subjective sense of fairness.

Which is a very good reason why if relief from someone's divot were a part of the rules it would be no problem to follow.  At least not me, it sounds like some here would have a hard time determining what an unacceptable lie in someone's else's divot looks like, but I wouldn't.  The constant "play it as it lies" or "how you found it' excuse everyone here is using only applies for when the rules don't say otherwise so if the rules did state you could get relief from a divot you could still make your silly claim.

Quote:

Sorry, but you continue to demonstrate that not only do you not understand the rules of golf, but more importantly, you don't understand the principles by which the individual rules are developed.

I highly recommend the book The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf , by Richard Tufts.  You can get it from the USGA website for $2.  I think you'd find it informative and even entertaining. You'll certainly gain a better understanding of the game itself.

I understand the rules and principles of golf just fine and thinking there should be a rule allowing relief from someone's divot in no way means I don't understand either.  Your statement is phucking stupid and I could care less what Mr Tufts has to say about it.

[iacas]

I was going to respond to you, @Kenn , but then you had to go all "phucking stupid" on us."

I understand the rules and principles of golf just fine and thinking there should be a rule allowing relief from someone's divot in no way means I don't understand either. Your statement is phucking stupid and I could care less what Mr Tufts has to say about it.

Way to behave like an adult, buddy. And…

P.S. It's "couldn't care less."

[saevel25]

.

From page 1 in the Rules of Golf:

Play the ball as it lies,

play the course as you find it,

and if you cannot do either,

do what is fair.

But to do what is fair,

you need to know

the Rules of Golf.

Also, basically they are saying obey the rules of golf. That does not mean the rules of golf are fair, or should you make choices outside the rules of golf because you think they are unfair.

A a ball in a divot is playing the course as you find it. When they mention doing what is fair, that is in terms of when you are unsure about a ruling. Like exact location of were the ball entered a water hazard. Its sometimes hard to tell from 200+ yards away. Do what is fair, give it your best try.

[Rulesman]

You phoned them and got a response back in text?-Explain that one buddy.

I wasn't aware that I was your buddy but I asked my contact to email me with a statement that I could copy into this forum. Simple.

Perhaps someone would like to ask the USGA what they think.

Incidentally, just because it was permitted doesn't mean it was used. I am a national referee over here but wasn't aware that such a local rule was allowed.

It did not appear in the appendix nor as a decision under rule 33-8. Perhaps it was not used because most people assumed it was not permitted.

Without looking in the book, can anyone say they know just what local rules are or are not permitted in those decisions?

[iacas]

Perhaps someone would like to ask the USGA what they think.

I've already asked. The count is now up to four individuals.

I also wrote to Linda Miller, and though I don't know her standing, she writes Ask Linda: Golf Rules You Can Understand . I'm not including her response yet (I've pointed her to this thread after she answered, and given her the chance to speak for herself rather than quoting her). She is not one of the four individuals I'm counting.

Much of what she said mirrored the things I and others have said in this thread.

Incidentally, just because it was permitted doesn't mean it was used. I am a national referee over here but wasn't aware that such a local rule was allowed.

It did not appear in the appendix nor as a decision under rule 33-8. Perhaps it was not used because most people assumed it was not permitted.

Without looking in the book, can anyone say they know just what local rules are or are not permitted in those decisions?

I contend that it was not permitted. I think we've established that it wasn't widely used (though how widely used it was in Scotland remains in question).

I can say that without looking in the book I can tell you that relief from divots is not a permissible Local Rule. Permissible Local Rules are not exhaustive, but they certainly don't supersede the Rules of Golf, as relief from a divot hole would as a divot hole does not meet the definition of abnormal ground condition nor does it meet other Local Rules like "Preferred Lies" or "Winter Rules."

And fortunately, we don't need to add the provision of "without looking in the book." The book is available to anyone discussing the Rules and use of it helps safeguard against silly mistakes. There's no reason to go "without looking in the book."

[Ignorant]

Originally Posted by iacas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignorant

.

From page 1 in the Rules of Golf:

Play the ball as it lies,

play the course as you find it,

and if you cannot do either,

do what is fair.

But to do what is fair,

you need to know

the Rules of Golf.

That's not in the USGA's Rules of Golf, and though it appears in the R&A;'s versions, that statement carries no weight under the Rules of Golf (or it would appear in both and in the listed Rules or Decisions).

And @Kenn and @Fourputt are in the U.S. (Fourputt is when he golfs, anyway.)

So golf is fair only outside USA and Mexico ?

That statement carries all the weight there is to it as it reflects the fairness principle of golf. It is not saying that golf should be fair but the actions players take on the course must be fair. Also it says that Rules are fair. Makes a lot of sense, IMO.

[Rulesman]

I've already asked. The count is now up to four individuals.

I also wrote to Linda Miller, and though I don't know her standing, she writes Ask Linda: Golf Rules You Can Understand. I'm not including her response yet (I've pointed her to this thread after she answered, and given her the chance to speak for herself rather than quoting her). She is not one of the four individuals I'm counting.

Much of what she said mirrored the things I and others have said in this thread.

I contend that it was not permitted. I think we've established that it wasn't widely used (though how widely used it was in Scotland remains in question).

I can say that without looking in the book I can tell you that relief from divots is not a permissible Local Rule. Permissible Local Rules are not exhaustive, but they certainly don't supersede the Rules of Golf, as relief from a divot hole would as a divot hole does not meet the definition of abnormal ground condition nor does it meet other Local Rules like "Preferred Lies" or "Winter Rules."

And fortunately, we don't need to add the provision of "without looking in the book." The book is available to anyone discussing the Rules and use of it helps safeguard against silly mistakes. There's no reason to go "without looking in the book."

Have you actually contacted the USGA Rules Department directly?

Whilst I respect Linda, she is not the authority any more than any other non R&A; or USGA rule committee or department member.

I am more inclined to go with the R&A; than your contention.

The reason for suggesting that the book be not referenced is that many club and non-national tournament officials do not get involved in the details of rule 33-8 and I suspect that goes for many posters here. I was curious about how au fait people are about the less obvious local rules. Many, I know are not aware of LCP as opposed to LCR.

[iacas]

That statement carries all the weight there is to it as it reflects the fairness principle of golf. It is not saying that golf should be fair but the actions players take on the course must be fair. Also it says that Rules are fair. Makes a lot of sense, IMO.

It defines "fairness" as "playing under the Rules of Golf."

Have you actually contacted the USGA Rules Department directly?

Yes, of course. And I sent you the response so that you can see it. It backs all that I and others have said, and does so with certainty.

Whilst I respect Linda, she is not the authority any more than any other non R&A; or USGA rule committee or department member.

As I've said, I've heard from, besides the USGA Rules department, four individuals who rank at various levels, but who are all very involved in the Rules of Golf for the USGA. One is at a regional golf association level. The others I will not share their ranks as they start to get slim enough that reasonable guesses at their identities could be made.

I am more inclined to go with the R&A; than your contention.

I am not, particularly given how the R&A; official to which you are supposedly speaking is stating things which conflict so dramatically with the vast majority of everything available on the Internet, everything understandable in the Rules of Golf, and the statements of Linda, the USGA's "Rules Associate," and the four separate individuals with whom I've talked. And you've not gotten any response that qualifies as "the R&A.;"

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rulesman

Grovel, grovel

I have now had a response from the R&A; and they confirm that it was a permissible rule prior to 2010.

I then asked them to send me the reasoning for a change of heart and this is the response.

However, the Committee took a change in position as divots are not abnormal ground conditions - they are prevalent on any golf course.

If relief is permitted from any type of divot (seeded or otherwise), there is the strong possibility that the player will create another divot in playing the stroke from the new location.  This exasperates (sic) and further adds to the number of divots and potential bad lies.  It also doubles the course maintenance problems in repairing more divots.  Whereas playing from the divot hole does not damage any good ground and the only down side is some sand/seed being scattered, which can be easily replaced.

So whilst it is appreciated from the golfer’s point of view that a "good" lie is their priority, divots, although created by other players, are not abnormal on the course and should not be afforded any more consideration than a ball that lies in an equally difficult position created by nature

I don't buy it for a minute.  If the R&A; allowed this it was a travesty on the rules.  Having to play from divot holes is too common a complaint for this to never have been mentioned before in any of the many golf forums which I am or have been a member of.  It is such a basic undermining of two of the most fundamental principles of the game that I can't see the R&A; and USGA joint rules committee ever agreeing on such a practice.

Since the unification in 1952, and the more recent rewrite of the rules and further unifying action (to include the list of specimen local rules) in 1980, all such critical decisions are supposed to have been made jointly.  For the USGA to deny any knowledge of this practice is just too telling for me to believe that your source knows what he is talking about.  If the R&A; did indeed allow this unilaterally, then they simply come up looking foolish.  One indeed wonders which side of the Atlantic the impetus for the 2010 decision comes from.

This is from the Rules of Golf 1968-1970 (note what I put in bold):

Quote:

Local Rules
Committees in charge of courses shall, when considered necessary:-

1. Make Local Rules for such abnormal conditions as:

a. Existence of mud.
b. Accumulation of leaves.
c. Unusual damage to course.
d. Local conditions which could be held to interfere with the proper playing of the Game. If this necessitates modification of a Rule of Golf the approval of the Governing Authority must be obtained.
e. Conditions which make a Local Rule necessary for the preservation of the course; this includes prohibition, where necessary, of playing a ball lying in ground under repair.
f. Obstructions, their limits and the extent of relief if the application of Rule 31 is impracticable.
g. Any construction which the Committee considers an integral part of the course (Def. 20d ), and defines as not an obstruction.
h. Subject to the approval of the Governing Authority, permitting play of a provisional ball for a ball which may be in a water hazard of such character that it would be impracticable to determine whether the ball is in the hazard or to do so would unduly delay play.

In 1968, the governing authority in the UK was the R&A;, and nothing is mentioned about making such decisions jointly.  In 1984 and going forward that phrase was modified to specify a few areas or rules where there was a poss ibility for local rules .  It included a more comprehensive list of allowed conditions for local rules and included specimen local rules with wording which was authorized.  It was similar to, but shorter than what is in the Appendix today .  Nothing is ever mentioned about divots or divot holes, so such authority would have to be sought specifically.  If the R&A; gave such authority to modify such a fundamental principle without further consultation, then they were abusing their authority.

Lastly, this is the statement as it exists in the rules today:

Quote:

If local abnormal conditions interfere with the proper playing of the game and the Committee considers it necessary to modify a Rule of Golf, authorization from the USGA must be obtained.

Note the wording "local abnormal conditions".  The word "abnormal" was added in the 2000 RoG, agreed to jointly by the USGA and the R&A.;  Since there is nothing abnormal about divots or divot holes on a golf course, at that time any such relief allowed by local rule was invalidated,  Those clubs were in direct opposition to the rules from 2000 to 2010 when the decision was added to reinforce that statement.

[Rulesman]

....   the R&A; official to which you are supposedly speaking ....

I take that as a very offensive comment. You are accusing me of lying. If that was said about you by anyone else you would ban them from the site.

Given that I was one strongly opposing the suggestion that the LR was permitted, why would I now change my opinion unless I had very good grounds.

I now have had a formal statement from the R&A.; Take it or leave it.

When you have a formal statement from the USGA no doubt you will post it here.

[iacas]

I take that as a very offensive comment. You are accusing me of lying. If that was said about you by anyone else you would ban them from the site.

I've said that you can feel similarly about the sources I've said that I've talked to (#229). Be offended all you want. We don't even know your name. And I could have substituted the word "allegedly" as is popular among legal dramas, but the use remains the same: you've not proven that you've talked to someone that can give a legitimate answer within the R&A;, and so it is "supposedly" or "allegedly"… just as my conversations have been.

Though, unlike my conversations, it does not help lend any credence to the response given how directly it conflicts with the Rules of Golf, and not even complex, nuanced portions of the Rules, but the very principles on which the Rules are based.

Given that I was one strongly opposing the suggestion that the LR was permitted, why would I now change my opinion unless I had very good grounds.

I don't know, and don't care to speculate.

I'm glad you have a "formal statement," but at this point you've not shared it. I've gotten a "formal response" from the USGA too, and I've shared it with you.

Feel free to address @Fourputt 's response to you above as well.

[Phil McGleno]

Why take you at your word?-You want to end the discussion as if youre the authority but others can make that claim as well and yer free to not believe em too.-So that leaves us with thefacts, and the principles, and common sense and figurin stuff out.[quote name="Rulesman" url="/t/70984/should-divots-be-considered-ground-under-repair/234#post_923392"] I take that as a very offensive comment. You are accusing me of lying. If that was said about you by anyone else you would ban them from the site.  Given that I was one strongly opposing the suggestion that the LR was permitted, why would I now change my opinion unless I had very good grounds. I now have had a formal statement from the R&A.; Take it or leave it. When you have a formal statement from the USGA no doubt you will post it here. [/quote]

[Asheville]

Gentlemen, beating up on Rulesman just isn't good. He's relaying what he was told.

[bkuehn1952]

a. Ground Under Repair; Play Prohibited

If the Committee wishes to protect any area of the course , it should declare it to be ground under repair and prohibit play from within that area.

A course’s greenskeeper is concerned about the damage to his course when players hit from a filled and seeded divot hole. In the absence of Decision 33-8/34 , would the establishment of the following Local Rule appear to be within the power of the Committee?

“The area of any divot hole which has been filled & seeded within the closely mown areas of the course is ground under repair from which play is prohibited. If a player’s ball lies in the area, or if it interferes with the player’s stance or the area of his intended swing, the player must take relief under Rule 25-1 .

Of course, Decision 33-8/34 clarifies the fact that no Committee is authorized to establish a Local Rule allowing relief from unrepaired or filled and seeded divot holes.  Further, I am sure the creators of the specimen Local Rule intended the LR to apply to a larger area than a single divot hole.

[Rulesman]

a. Ground Under Repair; Play Prohibited

If the Committee wishes to protect any area of the course, it should declare it to be ground under repair and prohibit play from within that area.

A course’s greenskeeper is concerned about the damage to his course when players hit from a filled and seeded divot hole.  In the absence of Decision 33-8/34, would the establishment of the following Local Rule appear to be within the power of the Committee?

“The area of any divot hole which has been filled & seeded within the closely mown areas of the course is ground under repair from which play is prohibited. If a player’s ball lies in the area, or if it interferes with the player’s stance or the area of his intended swing, the player must take relief under Rule 25-1.

Of course, Decision 33-8/34 clarifies the fact that no Committee is authorized to establish a Local Rule allowing relief from unrepaired or filled and seeded divot holes.  Further, I am sure the creators of the specimen Local Rule intended the LR to apply to a larger area than a single divot hole.

That really doesn't help. That is simply the decision from 2010 which started the discussion about the situation prior to 2010

[Rulesman]

I don't buy it for a minute.

.

I am not attempting to justify their stance prior to 2010. Just relaying information.

Don't shoot the messenger. All I can do is cut and paste the email confirming what I have already posted.

I gather you are in the R&A; area. Go to their website and ask the question yourself.

I cannot get anything more formal from the R&A; than a reply to my question asked in my official capacity. I doubt that they will respond to a request that they post the statement on their website.

[Phil McGleno]

None of the emails the "messenger" gave us said that the local rule was legit.-Those were your words then you wrote in blue about how they changed their position on divots-NOt divot holes-because theyre not abnormal ground conditions-Something everybody knows and which they would know since they wrote the definition. Nobodys shooting any one. Just dont believe what your guy said or think that was the official policy.[quote name="Rulesman" url="/t/70984/should-divots-be-considered-ground-under-repair/234#post_923414"] I am not attempting to justify their stance prior to 2010. Just relaying information. Don't shoot the messenger. All I can do is cut and paste the email confirming what I have already posted. I gather you are in the R&A; area. Go to their website and ask the question yourself. I cannot get anything more formal from the R&A; than a reply to my question asked in my official capacity. I doubt that they will respond to a request that they post the statement on their website. [/quote]