Should Divots Be Considered Ground Under Repair?

[billchao]

7 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

Your post may set an all time record for most quotes!

Please keep to the topic, thanks.

[saevel25]

8 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

Also, if you can tell a fairway divot with your golf experience, I can't explain it to you!

That is the trouble with trying to implement your golf rule. You would need to have golfers try to identify what is a divot or not. 

Also, we are waiting for you to try to create a golf-like fair rule for getting a free drop from a divot in the fairway. 

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

Your post may set an all time record for most quotes!

It doesn’t, and that’s off topic. You’re stalling… or something.

12 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

Also, if you can tell a fairway divot with your golf experience, I can't explain it to you!

Once again… give us a definition.

One that everyone can apply pretty consistently across various types of grasses, with or without any repair having been attempted or done (successfully or not, and everything in between).

We’re still waiting.

[Shorty]

15 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

Your post may set an all time record for most quotes!

Also, if you can tell a fairway divot with your golf experience, I can't explain it to you!

You have walked a very fine line where people have wondered whether you are

A) having a bit of fun and a bit of rhetorical banter

B) actually obtuse and in need of carefully crafted explanations to your concerns

C) downright rude, oppositional and intransigent

Iacas is the forum owner, and a pretty busy person. When he has taken the time to respond to ANY member by meticulously multi-quoting and using logical arguments it's pretty bl**dy rude to be dismissive and flippant. What you said above was not in the spirit of fun and goodwill. Grow up.

We await your definition of a divot. AGAIN, I refer you to the photo I posted of the bunker and the ground conditions at 7 o'clock in the picture.

Edited March 17, 2021 by Shorty

[Billy Z]

1 minute ago, saevel25 said:

That is the trouble with trying to implement your golf rule. You would need to have golfers try to identify what is a divot or not. 

Also, we are waiting for you to try to create a golf-like fair rule for getting a free drop from a divot in the fairway. 

To me, you are concerning yourself with a trivial aspect of topic. Do you really think that golf could not figure out what a divot is defined as? or what a fairway is? Cmon, we are all play golf, and have for many years. I really think the main reason those in power don't want to change and make a rule is they feel the game will be compromised somehow, and that's the only reason. My point is, if rules authority wanted the change they would figure out the trivial aspects and get it done. Also, guess what, it could be done, as I have faith in humanity.

[iacas]

Just now, Billy Z said:

Do you really think that golf could not figure out what a divot is defined as? or what a fairway is?

It’s come to this: until you can provide us the definition of a divot hole, that can be universally and consistently applied, you are no longer allowed to post in this topic.

In other words, your next post had better be the definition we’ve asked for many, many times.

You’d be the first, so I’m not holding my breath.

[m052310]

The local rule explanation says "For purposes of this Local Rule, “fairway” means any area of grass in the general area that is cut to fairway height or less." I'm copying and pasting from here: https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules-hub/rules-modernization/major-changes/golfs-new-rules-stroke-and-distance.html. It can be argued that it isn't a good definition (its clearly circular, much like the definition of putting green which is the surface specifically prepared for putting - I'm paraphrasing but I think that's pretty close), and it is not found in the definitions section of the rules of golf, but if saying what a word "means" isn't a definition of the word, then the rules of golf aren't the only thing misunderstood in this thread. To be clear, I understand fairway is not currently defined in the Rules of Golf; this would be an addition. I thought it was raised by some arguing against changing the rule that the inability to sufficiently define fairway was one of many reasons a divot relief rule wouldn't work, which is why I included it. I agree that defining "divot" is more difficult, if that's what you're saying. 

I agree that people take relief from animal holes far, far less often than their ball ends up in a divot. I do not know what that has to do with the definitions I suggested. I don't think you're saying the frequency with which the condition comes into play impacts the clarity we require of the definition, but I think I'm missing what you're putting down here. 

 

Sorry, new to the quoting function. I was responding to this. Nice website, btw.

28 minutes ago, iacas said:

That’s not a definition of “fairway.”

And the issue isn’t determining “where the fairway is.” It’s in writing a definition for what a divot hole is, when it ceases to be one, etc.

No. People take relief from animal holes far, far less often than they are in divot holes.

 

 

[saevel25]

4 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

To me, you are concerning yourself with a trivial aspect of topic. Do you really think that golf could not figure out what a divot is defined as? or what a fairway is?

A fairway is easily defined. A divot is not. You just can't say, "A damaged area of fairway caused by a golfers swing." That doesn't address that some golfers might consider something that as a divot when it isn't or vice versa. 

5 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

I really think the main reason those in power don't want to change and make a rule is they feel the game will be compromised somehow, and that's the only reason.

It doesn't help your argument that you are reaching for ways to blame the USGA for not making such a rule, with out any evidence to support such a claim. 

 

[Billy Z]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

It’s come to this: until you can provide us the definition of a divot hole, that can be universally and consistently applied, you are no longer allowed to post in this topic.

In other words, your next post had better be the definition we’ve asked for many, many times.

You’d be the first, so I’m not holding my breath.

Fair enough. Sorry for the posts that may have been off track, I do appreciate your responses. Part of the reason I don't explain what a divot is is because it would be unofficial, and probably to brief to be acceptable. I think a definition is something those who actually write the rules. I don't have that experience, but briefly, any abnormally made by the stroke of a club that has been left unattended, filled in with sand, filled with loose, that doesn't have grass grown back on it will be considered a divot, and allow a golfer relief.

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

any abnormally made by the stroke of a club that has been left unattended, filled in with sand, filled with loose, that doesn't have grass grown back on it will be considered a divot, and allow a golfer relief.

Nope.

• This definition requires the user to know what made the “abnormality.”
• (And we’ve already shown how divot holes are not abnormal at all on a golf course.)
• Not all divot holes are filled with sand (I don’t know what “filled with loose” means).
• To what point should the grass have grown back?

Your definition fails quite poorly to be one that can be universally or consistently applied.

[m052310]

7 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

You just can't say, "A damaged area of fairway caused by a golfers swing." That doesn't address that some golfers might consider something that as a divot when it isn't or vice versa. 

 

I know this wasn't directed at me. I hope you don't mind me jumping into the discussion; slow night here. I don't completely see why its a problem that some golfers might flub it on applying the definition as long as the definition makes it clear to the vast majority of reasonable golfers. This reminds me of when Bryson tried to get relief from the fire ant (I think he went with trying to call it a dangerous animal?) and everyone just laughed at him, including, I assume, the rules official that made the ruling once the cameras weren't around. If you're reasonably certain the spot the ball lies on was damaged by a golfers swing, take the relief. (I'd consider throwing in something about the ball not being on grass and possibly relating it specifically to the club if you want to exclude some sort of crazy footprint on a very wet day situation, but I think the definition is workable).

[billchao]

3 minutes ago, m052310 said:

To be clear, I understand fairway is not currently defined in the Rules of Golf; this would be an addition. I thought it was raised by some arguing against changing the rule that the inability to sufficiently define fairway was one of many reasons a divot relief rule wouldn't work, which is why I included it.

I won’t speak for others here, but the reason I brought up that a fairway isn’t a defined area of the golf course is in rebuttal to the argument for relief from divot holes on the fairway being similar to the rule change to allow repairing spike marks on the green. The green is a defined area where repairs of certain things are allowed; they simply expanded upon that. The definition of a fairway is certainly not in question.

[Billy Z]

17 minutes ago, iacas said:

Nope.

• This definition requires the user to know what made the “abnormality.”
• (And we’ve already shown how divot holes are not abnormal at all on a golf course.)
• Not all divot holes are filled with sand (I don’t know what “filled with loose” means).
• To what point should the grass have grown back?

Your definition fails quite poorly to be one that can be universally or consistently applied.

1st bullet: To me, and most every golf, it is evident what has made the abnormality. Divots are always an elongated hole in the ground that is shallower at the beginning and deeper towards the middle to end in the direction of the green. (it's really strange to define what a divot is to experienced golfers)

2nd bullet: that is a matter of debate imo. A golf course designer doesn't design divots into the course. They are unwanted damage that maintenance tries to repair, not leave unrepaired.

3rd bullet: a bit of a typo on my behalf. What was meant to said was any loose filling, like replacing the torn out grass before it reattaches itself back.

4th bullet: when it is not filled with loose grass filling or sand.

 

[saevel25]

23 minutes ago, m052310 said:

If you're reasonably certain the spot the ball lies on was damaged by a golfers swing, take the relief. (I'd consider throwing in something about the ball not being on grass and possibly relating it specifically to the club if you want to exclude some sort of crazy footprint on a very wet day situation, but I think the definition is workable).

Reasonably certain leaves area where golfers will get into trouble. The best rules are those that are clear, specific, and apply equally. Those tend to not be subjective (reasonably certain). 

[HoganApexFan]

23 minutes ago, iacas said:

It’s come to this: until you can provide us the definition of a divot hole, that can be universally and consistently applied, you are no longer allowed to post in this topic.

In other words, your next post had better be the definition we’ve asked for many, many times.

You’d be the first, so I’m not holding my breath.

 

7 minutes ago, iacas said:

13 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

any abnormally made by the stroke of a club that has been left unattended, filled in with sand, filled with loose, that doesn't have grass grown back on it will be considered a divot, and allow a golfer relief.

Nope.

• This definition requires the user to know what made the “abnormality.”
• (And we’ve already shown how divot holes are not abnormal at all on a golf course.)
• Not all divot holes are filled with sand (I don’t know what “filled with loose” means).
• To what point should the grass have grown back?

Your definition fails quite poorly to be one that can be universally or consistently applied.

I really just do NOT get this!  This site is advertised as "The best site on the internet to talk golf with your fellow golfers."  Apparently that's only if you completely agree with us.  I am fully expecting to be censored or kicked off of this site for my honest opinions because they dare to be different from the authoritarians...about a freaking GAME!

This entire thread is based on whether users SUPPORT a proposed rules change that PGA, LPGA, and many respondents to the USGA/R&A have fully supported (check out the recent posts!).  Why is there tolerance of any user of this site being bullied into having to provide a definition of any aspect of this rule change, that can be "universally and consistently applied" in order to justify his/her support of a damn proposed rule change? 

Get over your ELITIST selves! Anyone should be able to support a proposed rules change without having to define every single aspect of it themselves.  The USGA/R&A have consistently exhibited their incompetence in this matter, as evidenced by their bastardized anchor rule instead of a universal ban against long putters (Adam Scott and Bernhard Langer's long putters are 100% legal).  

(For the "purists" who clutch their pearls over long putters I actually have 4 of these legal weapons...the Horror...)

[iacas]

19 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

1st bullet: To me, and most every golf, it is evident what has made the abnormality.

No, it isn’t.

19 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

Divots are always an elongated hole in the ground that is shallower at the beginning and deeper towards the middle to end in the direction of the green.

Not always.

19 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

(it's really strange to define what a divot is to experienced golfers)

You have not done this yet.

19 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

2nd bullet: that is a matter of debate imo.

It is not an opinion, and is not a matter of debate.

19 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

3rd bullet: a bit of a typo on my behalf. What was meant to said was any loose filling, like replacing the torn out grass before it reattaches itself back.

Please define when a replaced divot is “reattached,” or how much of a divot needs to be replaced and reattached… etc. etc.

19 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

4th bullet: when it is not filled with loose grass filling or sand.

How much sand? How filled in? What if a fresh divot is taken, filled with sand, and rain washes it out?

In other words: you’ve completely failed here.

[m052310]

30 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Reasonably certain leaves area where golfers will get into trouble. The best rules are those that are clear, specific, and apply equally. Those tend to not be subjective (reasonably certain). 

Absolutely agree the best rules are the most clear, specific, and equally applied. But I don't think the inability to draft a perfect rule is a strong argument against having a better than pretty darn good one. We all know that there are rules in golf that require some judgment/estimation, especially for everyone playing without the benefit of spotters (stuff like where a ball crossed a penalty area or OB, for example).

Also agree that reasonably certain leaves some wiggle room. You could go with virtually certain (95% sure a players swing caused it) since known is pretty unlikely in this scenario. I concede a divot relief rule would necessarily have a small degree of uncertainty to it; it's pretty unlikely anyone could "know" the messed up ground their ball is in/on was caused by a players swing unless they saw the previous swing up close and somehow hit into that nearby divot.

    

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, HoganApexFan said:

I really just do NOT get this!  This site is advertised as "The best site on the internet to talk golf with your fellow golfers."  Apparently that's only if you completely agree with us.  I am fully expecting to be censored or kicked off of this site for my honest opinions because they dare to be different from the authoritarians...about a freaking GAME!

You’re discussing things here, are you not?

5 minutes ago, HoganApexFan said:

This entire thread is based on whether users SUPPORT a proposed rules change that PGA, LPGA, and many respondents to the USGA/R&A have fully supported (check out the recent posts!).

We’ve stipulated that many golfers would want to see the rule. That doesn’t mean that:

• Such a rule follows the Principles of the Rules of Golf.
• Such a rule is even possible to write without basically just allowing lift, clean, and place or lift, clean, and drop in the fairway at all times.

5 minutes ago, HoganApexFan said:

Why is there tolerance of any user of this site being bullied into having to provide a definition of any aspect of this rule change, that can be "universally and consistently applied" in order to justify his/her support of a damn proposed rule change? 

Because the member in question has been intellectually dishonest multiple times, and has said that such a definition would be easy to write. As a definition is one of the main sticking points, he’s been challenged multiple times to provide one.

He has failed to meet the challenge. And until there’s a good definition, it’s pointless to consider whether such a rule should be in place, because if you cannot write such a rule, you can’t even begin to get into the first bullet point above.

5 minutes ago, HoganApexFan said:

Get over your ELITIST selves!

There’s nothing elitist about understanding the Rules of Golf, and discussing those.

There is something wrong with intellectual dishonesty, ducking questions posed to you, debating in bad faith, etc.

5 minutes ago, HoganApexFan said:

Anyone should be able to support a proposed rules change without having to define every single aspect of it themselves.

“Supporting a proposed rules change” would have been a post or two or three. That’s not what’s happened here.

5 minutes ago, HoganApexFan said:

The USGA/R&A have consistently exhibited their incompetence in this matter

Oy.

5 minutes ago, HoganApexFan said:

Get over your ELITIST selves! Anyone should be able to support a proposed rules change without having to define every single aspect of it themselves.  The USGA/R&A have consistently exhibited their incompetence in this matter, as evidenced by their bastardized anchor rule instead of a universal ban against long putters (Adam Scott and Bernhard Langer's long putters are 100% legal).

The butt end of the club is not attached to the body, basically. What’s this got to do with the topic here?

---

There’s no need to be personally offended by a difference of opinion, but to pretend that @Billy Z is somehow being persecuted really, really ignores how this whole discussion has gone.

He’s said repeatedly that he can define divot holes in a way that makes it easy to understand how to take relief, and he’s been challenged to share that definition.

And that’s only one of two hurdles. He’s not cleared that one. Nor will he.

2 minutes ago, m052310 said:

Absolutely agree the best rules are the most clear, specific, and equally applied. But I don't think the inability to draft a perfect rule is a strong argument against having a better than pretty darn good one.    

It’s not going to be a “pretty darn good one.” It’d be a terrible rule, applied nowhere near uniformly/consistently, and rife with abuse by players who will find any little imperfection and claim that it’s an old divot hole not fully restored. It would slow play, cause altercations, etc.

AND, once again, goes against one of the most basic Principles behind the Rules of Golf.