Should Divots Be Considered Ground Under Repair?

[Billy Z]

54 minutes ago, Ole Duffer said:

Speaking of unfair, what seems unfair is to cherry-pick posts, take portions out of context, and just show the portion you think will make your point, without showing the rest of the post, which clearly shows that the person really doesn't have a preference one way or the other, just that he understands why 42.2% would be in favor of a rule change. 

😁

My thought as well. The anti's make good points, but I also think the pro-changers make solid points. I will say this, it's hard to respond to a previous comment I have made when it's broken up 5 ways expecting an answer to 5 different points. When this is done, it often takes the message out of context and makes it difficult to reply to. In retrospect, I don't think this topic can find new input, it's basically rehashing and rehashing the same thing over and over. I will be content playing by the rules as they are, even in a divot. With nothing new for me to say I will not post in this thread anymore, nothing will change. Thanks to all who posted here!

[Shorty]

15 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Sure. But it isn’t unfair.

One of Australia's most aloof and unpopular Prime Ministers, Malcolm Fraser,  was widely lampooned and criticised for famously staing "Life wasn't meant to be easy".

It certainly wasn't for him when he "lost his trousers" and was locked out of his hotel room in a seedy Memphis hotel in 1986.

11 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

 but I also think the pro-changers make solid points.

I'm yet to see a single one. Please elaborate.

I challenge you to say why my bunker photo and example doesn't make the proposition impossible to implement.

Edited March 16, 2021 by Shorty

[Billy Z]

14 minutes ago, Shorty said:

One of Australia's most aloof and unpopular Prime Ministers, Malcolm Fraser,  was widely lampooned and criticised for famously staing "Life wasn't meant to be easy".

It certainly wasn't for him when he "lost his trousers" and was locked out of his hotel room in a seedy Memphis hotel in 1986.

I'm yet to see a single one. Please elaborate.

I challenge you to say why my bunker photo and example doesn't make the proposition impossible to implement.

There's nothing new for me to say, I feel like I'm talking for nothing. We should just agree to disagree.

[Ole Duffer]

What do the Lady PGA Players have to say?

If there is one rule in golf that you could change by fiat, what would it be?

https://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/19865737/lpga-confidential-survey-speaking-golf-inequalities

I would not have even thought about this issue if I had not seen this discussion about it, and I would not have even investigated to see how others feel about it if there wasn't such a criticism of someone in favor of a rule change in this discussion. 

But, then, when I looked, 42.2% of this forum is in favor of a rule change, more than 50% in a larger poll favor relief, and it's the #1 thing lady pros would like to see changed.

So, it appears to be a valid concern.  If there was a rule change, I would not expect an outcry.

 - - - - - - -

Folks can argue this until they're blue in the face, and I expect there's some blue faces around here, but when you google-search the topic, what you find is that the the major expected change that did not happen in 2018, when so many rules were changed, is relief from a divot in the fairway.

Edited March 16, 2021 by Ole Duffer

[Darkfrog]

13 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

but I also think the pro-changers make solid points.

I have yet to hear a solid point for taking relief from a fairway divot. The fact that fairway has the word fair in it is not a solid point. A poll of golfers that would like to see this rule changed is not a solid point. Conflating fair/unfair and lucky/unlucky is not a solid point.

18 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

I don't think this topic can find new input, it's basically rehashing and rehashing the same thing over and over.

Yes, this thread has been stuck in an infinite loop, mostly because of the same "unfair" argument being stated over and over again as justification for getting relief from a fairway divot.

Note: At one point in my history as a golfer, I was firmly on the side of taking relief from fairway divots, so it's not like I don't understand the origin of the other side's stance. I also thought the the OB stroke and distance penalty was dumb. And many other things along these lines. Frankly, I still have a limited understanding of the rules and purpose of the rules, but the better I understand them, the more I get out of the game.

[boogielicious]

10 minutes ago, Ole Duffer said:

What do the Lady PGA Players have to say?

If there is one rule in golf that you could change by fiat, what would it be?

https://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/19865737/lpga-confidential-survey-speaking-golf-inequalities

I would not have even thought about this issue if I had not seen this discussion about it, and I would not have even investigated to see how others feel about it if there wasn't such a criticism of someone in favor of a rule change in this discussion. 

But, then, when I looked, 42.2% of this forum is in favor of a rule change, more than 50% in a larger poll favor relief, and it's the #1 thing lady pros would like to see changed.

So, it appears to be a valid concern.  If there was a rule change, I would not expect an outcry.

They got the second one, fixing spike marks. The first one is part of the course and will not be changed and I agree.

[Ole Duffer]

14 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

They got the second one, fixing spike marks. The first one is part of the course and will not be changed and I agree.

A pro-changer would argue that repairing spike marks is undoing golfer-induced damage to the course, and taking relief from a divot in the fairway is also undoing golfer-induced damage to the course.

A pro-changer can justifiably contend that a fairway divot was not "part of the course" until it was golfer-induced.

So, yes, those top two issues Lady Pros wanted to address are very similar. 

In 2018, they either got it right, half-right, or wrong.

But, in essence, this is a 50/50 issue, and both leaving it or changing it would be accepted.

Edited March 16, 2021 by Ole Duffer

[boogielicious]

1 minute ago, Ole Duffer said:

A pro-changer would argue that repairing spike marks is undoing golfer-induced damage to the course, and taking relief from from a divot in the fairway is also undoing golfer-induced damage to the course.

So, yes, those top two issues Lady Pros wanted to address are very similar.

But, in essence, this is a 50/50 issue, and both leaving it or changing it would be accepted.

Disagree. The putting surface has always been treated differently than the rest of the course. 

[StuM]

1 hour ago, Ole Duffer said:

Can we agree that landing in a divot in a perfectly manicured fairway is unfortunate?

I most certainly agree it is unfortunate, but I'm still not giving you relief.  

38 minutes ago, Ole Duffer said:

What do the Lady PGA Players have to say?

If there is one rule in golf that you could change by fiat, what would it be?

https://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/19865737/lpga-confidential-survey-speaking-golf-inequalities

I would not have even thought about this issue if I had not seen this discussion about it, and I would not have even investigated to see how others feel about it if there wasn't such a criticism of someone in favor of a rule change in this discussion. 

But, then, when I looked, 42.2% of this forum is in favor of a rule change, more than 50% in a larger poll favor relief, and it's the #1 thing lady pros would like to see changed.

So, it appears to be a valid concern.  If there was a rule change, I would not expect an outcry.

 - - - - - - -

Folks can argue this until they're blue in the face, and I expect there's some blue faces around here, but when you google-search the topic, what you find is that the the major expected change that did not happen in 2018, when so many rules were changed, is relief from a divot in the fairway.

One note on the above, Yes, relief from divots was the top vote getter, but it failed to get anywhere near 50%.  It was @ 35% meaning 65% chose something else and the "One thing they would change".

[Ole Duffer]

18 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

Disagree. The putting surface has always been treated differently than the rest of the course. 

Always . . . yet you couldn't repair spike marks until 2018.

I bet it gets revisited, and, like I've said a few times, it could go either way, and both sides will accept it.  If it gets changed, to allow relief, I doubt that many will choose not to take it, or complain when they take it.

😷

[Ole Duffer]

35 minutes ago, StuM said:

I most certainly agree it is unfortunate, but I'm still not giving you relief.  

 

If the rule changed, would you take relief?

[billchao]

45 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

Disagree. The putting surface has always been treated differently than the rest of the course. 

It’s more than that. The putting green is a defined area of the course. The fairway is not. A lot of people are failing to make that distinction when posing their arguments for changing the rule.

[Ole Duffer]

This is probably one of the more disliked rules in the game by golfers of all skill levels.

https://www.liveabout.com/relief-from-divot-hole-1565982

- - - - - -

Golf's 13 Most Ridiculous Rules and How We'd Change Them

2. Divots

12 OF 13

Group being addressed: Both

Rule in question: No relief from divots

How to change it: Treat divots as ground under repair

 

1. (The only "worse" rule is:)

                                                    1. Armchair Referees

13 OF 13

Group being addressed: Tour pros

Rule in question: Game-changing decisions made by TV viewers

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/758624-golf-rules-the-sports-13-most-ridiculous-rules-and-how-wed-change-them

 

 

Let me point out, once again, that I am not advocating one side or the other, just pointing that there appears to be as much support for changing this rule as there is for not changing it, which I didn't feel was being communicated in this thread.

Pointing that out, and citing sources, does not mean that I am posing arguments for changing the rule.

It is, simply, something that a lot of golfers do not like, even though it seldom happens.

It would be easy to argue that changing the rule would improve the game, and few would likely fight the change by refusing to take relief.

[DaveP043]

1 hour ago, Ole Duffer said:

Folks can argue this until they're blue in the face, and I expect there's some blue faces around here, but when you google-search the topic, what you find is that the the major expected change that did not happen in 2018, when so many rules were changed, is relief from a divot in the fairway

As far as I remember, the divot non-change was the only non-change that was specifically addressed at the time the new rules were released.  Obviously the Ruling Bodies took a close look and made a conscious decision to keep the status quo.  I don't know if that means they're getting closer to making a change, or if the issue gets so much press that they felt the need to talk about it.  I suspect the latter is closer to the truth.

[Ole Duffer]

16 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

As far as I remember, the divot non-change was the only non-change that was specifically addressed at the time the new rules were released.  Obviously the Ruling Bodies took a close look and made a conscious decision to keep the status quo.  I don't know if that means they're getting closer to making a change, or if the issue gets so much press that they felt the need to talk about it.  I suspect the latter is closer to the truth.

Yup.

& as long as it remains unchanged, and every time a drive on TV gets close to a divot, and the announcer makes a big deal out of it, it will continue to be an issue.

If the rule gets changed, so an announcer never gets his panties in a bunch, it will cease being an issue there, or here, or anywhere.

Edited March 16, 2021 by Ole Duffer

[Golfingdad]

10 minutes ago, Ole Duffer said:

and every time a drive on TV gets close to a divot, and the announcer makes a big deal out of it, it will continue to be an issue.

Well I tend to agree with you on this point, however, a rule change is not the solution I see.  What should happen is for the announcers to calm down, and stop being so prone to hyperbole all the time.  Roger Maltbie (and the rest of 'em too) watches these guys day in and day out from 10' away and yet is somehow flabbergasted by their ability to hits soft and tricky shots.  How often they see a shot that they claim is "unbelievable" is a bit nuts.

So, on that note, if they just calmed down and didn't overanalyze, maybe we'd let it die too.  I mean its not like Westwood was really bothered by it either.  The shot he hit out of that divot would've been considered a good shot under the circumstances even with a perfect lie.

[Ole Duffer]

33 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

As far as I remember, the divot non-change was the only non-change that was specifically addressed at the time the new rules were released.  Obviously the Ruling Bodies took a close look and made a conscious decision to keep the status quo.  I don't know if that means they're getting closer to making a change, or if the issue gets so much press that they felt the need to talk about it.  I suspect the latter is closer to the truth.

A detailed document was prepared to explain why rules were changed, but not to explain why rules were not changed:

https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/images/rules/rules-modernization/golf-new-rules/Explanation for Each Major Change in the New Rules of Golf for 2019 (1).pdf

[HoganApexFan]

19 hours ago, iacas said:

Another good point. The fairway is just part of the general area.

But it hasn't always been that way.  Prior to the latest rules changes the USGA/R&A only allowed relief from embedded balls in closely mown areas through the green (meaning any area of the course, including the rough, cut to fairway height or less).  So there seems to be a distinction regarding balls hit into the fairways for some time.  Despite our governing bodies "Rules" on this matter, the PGA Tour and other Pro tours have had local rules for years allowing relief from embedded balls in what is now called that "general area".