Should Divots Be Considered Ground Under Repair?

[Rulesman]

Incidentally, Golf Australia allow 'teeing up' of the ball on the fairway when recording scores for handicap purposes in appropriate course/weather conditions. The only constraint is that it is judged that it would not affect the Course Rating. ie The conditions would offset the advantage.

[David in FL]

Incidentally, Golf Australia allow 'teeing up' of the ball on the fairway when recording scores for handicap purposes in appropriate course/weather conditions. The only constraint is that it is judged that it would not affect the Course Rating. ie The conditions would offset the advantage.

Really?!

That's just not right.....

[turtleback]

Really?!

That's just not right.....

I have to agree.  My long held impression that golf was somehow purer in the UK is turning out to be misplaced.  I understand the idea of protecting the course, but I think the USGA approach of not allowing off-season posting when the conditions are such that playing real golf is not possible is a better position.

[Dormie1360]

Really?!

That's just not right.....

You should ask your golfing buddy Graeme Mcdowell what he thinks.  He probably plays there a lot.

[David in FL]

You should ask your golfing buddy Graeme Mcdowell what he thinks.  He probably plays there a lot.

Actually, the one I want to ask is @Shorty .  He's always taking shots at the USGA and our self-reported rounds used for handicapping....

.....now we find out that they can tee it up in the fairway down under?!

[flopster]

Incidentally, Golf Australia allow 'teeing up' of the ball on the fairway when recording scores for handicap purposes in appropriate course/weather conditions. The only constraint is that it is judged that it would not affect the Course Rating. ie The conditions would offset the advantage.

Clearly an Austrailian thing, I remember watching a practice round at Olympic in 87' and Norman teed it up on the fairway of #16 to try and get there in two.
That is a very bold move there, I wonder what the conditions have to be? Obviously bad but if it's so bad that LFC isn't enough then imagine what the greens would be like.

[Rulesman]

I have to agree.  My long held impression that golf was somehow purer in the UK is turning out to be misplaced.

What has it got to do with the UK? Australia is as far away from the UK as you can get.

Further, if you are confusing Scotland with the UK; England, Wales and Northern Ireland might have something to say about that but the R&A; have nothing to do with handicap systems anyway.

[flopster]

Clearly an Austrailian thing, I remember watching a practice round at Olympic in 87' and Norman teed it up on the fairway of #16 to try and get there in two.

That is a very bold move there, I wonder what the conditions have to be? Obviously bad but if it's so bad that LFC isn't enough then imagine what the greens would be like.

Damn I need to check my posts better, sorry guys. LFC?
LCP Lift clean and Place.

[luu5]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rulesman

Incidentally, Golf Australia allow 'teeing up' of the ball on the fairway when recording scores for handicap purposes in appropriate course/weather conditions. The only constraint is that it is judged that it would not affect the Course Rating. ie The conditions would offset the advantage.

Here is the quote from GA HC manual:

Quote:

Tee Up and Preferred Lies
The operation at a club of the Preferred Lies local rule, or of the Tee Up local rule, does not automatically change a course rating. In most instances across Australia, the operation at a club of these local rules will essentially serve to ‘normalise’ course difficulty (ie the impact is to cancel out the increase in difficulty caused by heavy conditions or of decreased turf quality). However, where a club is operating either, or both, of these local rules, and it believes there is a resultant clear impact to the difficulty of the course, it should contact its Member Association to establish whether a change to a course rating would be appropriate.

Not much different in principle to using mats, which can be allowed (or mandatory) in UK, although CONGU manual specifically prohibits teeing up.

I do not see any problem with these during adverse conditions. Any effect on HC is most likely negligible but playing golf can be made enjoyable.

[Rulesman]

Here is the quote from GA HC manual:

Not much different in principle to using mats, which can be allowed (or mandatory) in UK, although CONGU manual specifically prohibits teeing up.

I do not see any problem with these during adverse conditions. Any effect on HC is most likely negligible but playing golf can be made enjoyable.

I think the difference is that, based on the words, it is GA's primary motive to make play more enjoyable and CONGU's is to protect the course. Both have the other as the secondary objective.

[ay33660]

Wow took me two days but I've just finished reading all 21 pages. Pretty intense level of debate. I can only imagine what the level of debate is on either the USGA or R&A; rules committees with respect to any change in rules. Then once those committees have come to a decision, the USGA and the R&A; try to come to an agreement. Amazed anything gets done. FIRSTLY before everyone jumps all over me I will be the first to admit that I AM NOT A RULES GEEK and I will not pretend to be. I try to play according to the rules but I will be the first to admit I do not know all the rules. I happen to be in a profession that require me to read and interpret legal statues and to follow precedents. IMHO any legislation, rules, codes created by man for government, religion or even sports will never be fair to everyone affected nor will they be consistent. Back on to the topic of this thread. Personally I don't think a divot should be treated as GUR but I do see some inequity in having a ball land into a divot especially a big crater of a divot. Some observations: Seems to me that if a ball lands right into a sand filled divot and is embedded in its own pitch mark rule 25-2 would apply

25-2 . Embedded Ball

A ball embedded in its own pitch-mark in the ground in any closely mown area through the green may be lifted, cleaned and dropped, without penalty, as near as possible to the spot where it lay but not nearer the hole . The ball when dropped must first strike a part of the course through the green . “Closely mown area” means any area of the course , including paths through the rough, cut to fairway height or less.

This would imply that indeed there is one circumstance whereby one gets a free drop from a divot. I know this has nothing to do with GUR just a something that I am looking for some confirmation of by the knowledgeable rules guys on here.

2. So carrying on from my first observation, it seems odd that if my ball were to roll into a crater of a divot and 1/2 of the ball is below the surface of the fairway I would not get any relief. But if my ball were to land in a soft area of the fairway and embed into its own pitch-mark such that again 1/2 of the ball is below the surface of the fairway I get a free drop. To me the divot is "less natural" than a soft area of the fairway and I cannot see why "the rub of the green" application is so different? I know that the concept of "natural" may not be part of the rules but to me a divot is caused in the playing of golf and would not have otherwise been there whereas a wet spot is due to the natural contours of the course and hence more applicable to "the rub of the green". 3. Why is the repairing of ball marks on the green allowed to be repaired? To me, it could it be argued that an unfixed ball mark in the line of your putt is just "the rub of the green". It is again caused by the playing of golf and would not otherwise be there just like a divot. As a further aside (and more off topic) why is it OK to fix a ball mark but not a spike mark? Just some observations from an uninformed golfer.

[iacas]

1.  Seems to me that if a ball lands right into a sand filled divot and is embedded in its own pitch mark rule 25-2 would apply -

This would imply that indeed there is one circumstance whereby one gets a free drop from a divot. I know this has nothing to do with GUR just a something that I am looking for some confirmation of by the knowledgeable rules guys on here.

No - that would be relief from an embedded ball. That's not relief from a divot. And if your ball rolls into a divot it's highly unlikely to have made a pitch mark in which it can embed itself.

Also, "rub of the green" doesn't mean luck. It's a defined term in the Rules of Golf.

[ay33660]

No - that would be relief from an embedded ball. That's not relief from a divot. And if your ball rolls into a divot it's highly unlikely to have made a pitch mark in which it can embed itself.

Also, "rub of the green" doesn't mean luck. It's a defined term in the Rules of Golf.

I actually did not say that the ball would roll into a sand filled divot but that it must landed directly into it and embedded in it because I actually knew that if it the ball does not embed into its own pitch mark it is not eligible for the embedded ball relief.

But then off topic but does the ball actually have to land and not roll to be eligible for the embedded ball rule what does in its own pitch mark mean. I remember watching a tournament on TV where they painstakingly watch a reply over and over again to ensure that the ball landed straight into the green and did not roll out.

And I did say that this was relief using the embedded ball rule and not any divot rule.

I just wanted to point out a circumstance (not using any divot relief rule) but just a circumstance whereby relief is given (though thru another rule) when a ball miraculously lands directly into a sand filled divot and embeds itself.

Sorry I wasn't clear in my original posting.

And yes "rub of the green" only refers to a ball hitting another ball on the green.

I have been using it wrong this whole time.

[iacas]

I just wanted to point out a circumstance (not using any divot relief rule) but just a circumstance whereby relief is given (though thru another rule) when a ball miraculously lands directly into a sand filled divot and embeds itself.

You could be standing on a cart path with your ball in a divot hole too - it doesn't speak at all to the relief you get from a divot hole at all. It's just a coincidence or something.

[David in FL]

I actually did not say that the ball would roll into a sand filled divot but that it must landed directly into it and embedded in it because I actually knew that if it the ball does not embed into its own pitch mark it is not eligible for the embedded ball relief. But then off topic but does the ball actually have to land and not roll to be eligible for the embedded ball rule what does in its own pitch mark mean. I remember watching a tournament on TV where they painstakingly watch a reply over and over again to ensure that the ball landed straight into the green and did not roll out.   And I did say that this was relief using the embedded ball rule and not any divot rule. I just wanted to point out a circumstance (not using any divot relief rule) but just a circumstance whereby relief is given (though thru another rule) when a ball miraculously lands directly into a sand filled divot and embeds itself. Sorry I wasn't clear in my original posting. And yes "rub of the green" only refers to a ball hitting another ball on the green. I have been using it wrong this whole time.

Nope, sorry, still wrong.

[iacas]

And yes "rub of the green" only refers to a ball hitting another ball on the green.

Rub Of The Green

A “ rub of the green ’’ occurs when a ball in motion is accidentally deflected or stopped by any outside agency (see Rule 19-1 ).

[WhiteLightning]

Yes I believe it is ground under repair because when a course puts sod down the grass is growing, same in a divot.

[iacas]

Yes I believe it is ground under repair because when a course puts sod down the grass is growing, same in a divot.

Laid sod is not a normal condition. It's something done by superintendents. Divots are a normal, expected condition.