Should Divots Be Considered Ground Under Repair?

[Billy Z]

14 minutes ago, iacas said:

No, it isn’t.

Not always.

You have not done this yet.

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

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

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.

This is why I didn't offer a definition in the first place, according to what you said, literally nothing was right about it, or acceptable, or probably never could be.  Strange, that's how I have felt often times, and that has influenced some of my posts. As far as divots are concerned, 42% want a rule added to get relief from them, so we are on to something. 

In other words: you’ve completely failed here. Thanks for appreciating my response!

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

As far as divots are concerned, 42% want a rule added to get relief from them, so we are on to something.

It’s beyond tiring to keep responding to the same stupid shit time and time again.

---

Once again, in order to allow relief from a divot hole in a fairway, you’d have to clear two hurdles:

• You’d have to get around the Principle discussed several times.
• You’d have to be able to clearly define “divot hole.”

You can’t do the latter, let alone the former.

[Vinsk]

4 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

27 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

This is why I didn't offer a definition in the first place, according to what you said, literally nothing was right about it, or acceptable, or probably never could be. 

What do you care? Just give us a damn definition. Enlighten us.

[HoganApexFan]

34 minutes ago, iacas said:

You’re discussing things here, are you not?

48 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.

Thank you for allowing me to continue to discuss things here.  Sooner or later new rules will not follow the "Principles of the Rules of Golf", aka, play the ball as it lies.  The rules will evolve, whether you or I strenuously object or not (I was a golf rule fanatic in the 90's and knew the rules inside/out for stroke/medal/match play).  And much to OUR dismay, this may ultimately result in a rule that allows Lift, Clean, and Drop in the fairway at all times, like they regularly use for junior events (at least at my course).

[Billy Z]

43 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

What do you care? Just give us a damn definition. Enlighten us.

I already did, but I guess you weren't paying attention.

[m052310]

29 minutes ago, iacas said:

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.

I think it's at least as "pretty darn good" as the other rules that allow for a player not being able to be sure or "know." Why is this one worse? If players abuse the rule, they aren't abiding by the spirt of the rules. If you include the ball not being on grass in your definition, that's pretty hard to abuse. If they aren't virtually certain (or whatever certainty you want to assign) then they're cheating. If we're going to ban cheaters from golf courses, at least I'll finally be able to get whatever tee time I want. 

As to slow play, it has been pointed out many times in this thread how rare a ball ending up in a divot in the fairway is. That tracks with my experience. It seems to me that that alone would minimize the effect on pace of play. Further, a better lie makes it less likely a crappy golfer will hit a 30 yard worm-burner requiring two shots for what should have been one. That seems like improved pace of play. Any altercations would be no more than any other rule over which two competitors disagree as to application. I disagree that a divot relief rule would be any more frought with peril than the embedded ball rule or the way we determine where to take a drop from a lateral hazzard (red penalty area - whatever) from a long distance away. I also think its a weak justification to not have a rule because people are going to fight over it.

I see and at least in part agree with your point about divot relief being counter to the principle of playing the course as you find it. That argument makes sense, though I think the embedded ball rule, for one, provides precedent for disregarding the principle when the powers that be so desire. That does not mean they should disregard it lightly though, which I think is (mostly) your point.

For the record, I don't actually mind the rules requiring us to hit out of divots. I'd rather not and lean towards the change, but I don't feel strongly about it. I'm OK with the tradition and the need to deal with adversity even after hitting a (usually) good, or at least well aimed, shot; I can see that it adds something to the game. Thems the breaks, as they say. But, I think many here overstate the the strength of the case against change.    

[HoganApexFan]

39 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

What do you care? Just give us a damn definition. Enlighten us.

Why should @Billy Z have to define anything?  He is advocating for a position that is supported by a multitude of professional and amateur golfers (yeah, go ahead and question that despite all of the previous posts).  Why don't YOU, @Vinsk give us a definition of what is NOT a divot???  There are so many of you that are so smug claiming that we need to convince you to change the rules; how about you trying to convince us (and a plurality of ALL golfers) on why we shouldn't change the rules!

1 minute ago, HoganApexFan said:

we

Not why "we" shouldn't change the rules, but why the "USGA/R&A" shouldn't change the rules.

 

[saevel25]

3 minutes ago, HoganApexFan said:

Why should @Billy Z have to define anything?  He is advocating for a position that is supported by a multitude of professional and amateur golfers (yeah, go ahead and question that despite all of the previous posts).  Why don't YOU, @Vinsk give us a definition of what is NOT a divot???  There are so many of you that are so smug claiming that we need to convince you to change the rules; how about you trying to convince us (and a plurality of ALL golfers) on why we shouldn't change the rules!

Just because some people feel like you should be rewarded with a perfect lie in the fairway doesn't mean they are right in a number of ways. 

1. Can you actually create a rule that can be self enforced and not ambiguous to be abused?

2. Not all golf courses are pristine and bad lies can happen in a fairway, why should divots count differently? Isn't poor maintenance of a course just man made similar to a divot if you reduce it down to who takes care of the course.

3. If the logic is based on rewarding good drives, because it is a bad break to end up in a divot. Why should we benefit from a good break in golf? 

 

[Shorty]

9 minutes ago, HoganApexFan said:

There are so many of you that are so smug claiming that we need to convince you to change the rules.........

Not why "we" shouldn't change the rules, but why the "USGA/R&A" shouldn't change the rules.

 

Because  no-one can define "divot" in such a way  that would encompass all situations and all golfers in all conditions on all courses in an unambiguous fashion, pleasing all golfers all of the time. Easy.

 

Oh.....and just to be super smug...... because no real golfer thinks that being in a divot is an outrageously unjust predicament in which to find oneself.

They just don't like it and even get pi**ed off by it. 

Edited March 17, 2021 by Shorty

[HoganApexFan]

2 minutes ago, Shorty said:

Because  no-one can define "divot" in such a way  that would encompass all situations and all golfers in all conditions on all courses in an unambiguous fashion, pleasing all golfers all of the time. Easy.

Edited just now by Shorty

Shorty, You so funny!  I edited my post to change the "we" to "USGA/R&A".   If you really think they can't define "divot" then maybe they shouldn't be able to write the Rules of Golf!

[Shorty]

8 minutes ago, HoganApexFan said:

 If you really think they can't define "divot" then maybe they shouldn't be able to write the Rules of Golf!

But this is the whole point!!!!!!! They can't! And........beside the point.......don't need to because divots are part of golf.

It's hard enough for a lot of golfers to define a wheel track or casual water or even point of entry consistently - and these rules should be easy to navigate.

I want to call a shitty lie a partially but not full recovered divot. I swear that I believe it to be true. Are we going to get along when you think you know for sure that I'm exaggerating? Of course we all think we know what a real divot is. That's not the same as incorporating a definition into rules which are open to interpretation - for whatever reason and despite the intent, honourable or otherwise of the player - and have to be administered in the favour of the player.

Edited March 17, 2021 by Shorty

[Vinsk]

26 minutes ago, HoganApexFan said:

@Vinsk give us a definition of what is NOT a divot??? 

First ...it’s divot hole. Second, here’s the simple definition you requested:

Any divot hole that wasn’t made by a golf club. And that could be.....pretty long list. Therein lies the problem.

[HoganApexFan]

2 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

First ...it’s divot hole. Second, here’s the simple definition you requested:

Any divot hole that wasn’t made by a golf club. And that could be.....pretty long list. Therein lies the problem.

LOL!  Have you paid the least bit of attention to your compatriots who relentlessly attacked these loose definitions?  LOL*10!  You can't define a "divot hole" by declaring that it's a "divot hole" that wasn't made by a golf club. Maybe you should check out @Billy Z to figure out how to define things that the USGA can't...But then again, that's not our job!!!  Let the USGA do it!!!

[Shorty]

12 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

First ...it’s divot hole. Second, here’s the simple definition you requested:

Any divot hole that wasn’t made by a golf club. And that could be.....pretty long list. Therein lies the problem.

I like the direction we're going in. I'm going to call my sh*t lie a hole made by a burrowing animal if you don't give me relief.  Rules are easy to write!

 

[Rulesman]

As the USGA/R&A have said:

A fundamental challenge of the sport is to deal with whatever position your ball comes to rest in – whether good or bad. While there are some necessary exceptions (such as obstructions and other abnormal course conditions), the essential nature of golf means these must remain exceptions rather than the norm. Therefore, the new Rules do not provide relief without penalty from situations that some golfers complain about, such as when their ball comes to rest in a divot hole on a fairway or in footprints in a poorly raked bunker. In addition to being contrary to the fundamental principle of playing the ball as it lies, providing free relief in such circumstances would make the Rules harder to apply (for example, what is the difference between an irregularity of surface and an old divot hole?) and would slow down play.

[boogielicious]

7 hours ago, HoganApexFan said:

Thank you for allowing me to continue to discuss things here.  Sooner or later new rules will not follow the "Principles of the Rules of Golf", aka, play the ball as it lies.  The rules will evolve, whether you or I strenuously object or not (I was a golf rule fanatic in the 90's and knew the rules inside/out for stroke/medal/match play).  And much to OUR dismay, this may ultimately result in a rule that allows Lift, Clean, and Drop in the fairway at all times, like they regularly use for junior events (at least at my course).

But why would we not want to follow the Principles of the Rules of Golf? I see no reason. To deviate from the principles because some people don’t like when their ball lands in a divot hole once every 30 rounds. 

Lift, clean and place is usually only applied when balls are also plugging due to excessive water.

[iacas]

7 hours ago, HoganApexFan said:

Sooner or later new rules will not follow the "Principles of the Rules of Golf", aka, play the ball as it lies.

Once again, I'll express my frustration in trying to discuss the Rules of Golf with people  who do not understand the Rules of Golf.

And by "discussing the Rules of Golf" in this sense, I don't mean to educate, answer questions, etc. I mean to discuss in an oppositional way why something is the way it is, why it will remain roughly that way, etc.

NO, the "new rules will not follow the Principles of the Rules of Golf." You're literally discussing that which you are ignorant of.

7 hours ago, HoganApexFan said:

The rules will evolve, whether you or I strenuously object or not (I was a golf rule fanatic in the 90's and knew the rules inside/out for stroke/medal/match play).

I doubt that.

7 hours ago, HoganApexFan said:

And much to OUR dismay, this may ultimately result in a rule that allows Lift, Clean, and Drop in the fairway at all times, like they regularly use for junior events (at least at my course).

"Your" course should improve the conditions if LCP is needed that often. Those juniors should learn to play the ball as it lies.

7 hours ago, Billy Z said:

I already did, but I guess you weren't paying attention.

You did not provide a definition that passes even a few seconds of examination.

7 hours ago, m052310 said:

I think it's at least as "pretty darn good" as the other rules that allow for a player not being able to be sure or "know."

See above. Two bullet points.

7 hours ago, m052310 said:

If players abuse the rule, they aren't abiding by the spirt of the rules.

There's no such thing as "the spirit of the rules." The Rules are the Rules.

There's the "spirit of the game," but that includes… following the Rules. And so if the Rules allowed relief from a "divot hole," then following it would be within the spirit of the game.

Here's a good (well, at least decent) read for many of you here:

“That Rule is So Unfair!” A Rules Geek’s Generalized Guide to Hot Takes and Overreactions | Rules Geeks

---

I apologize for the length of this post. If I had more time I’d have written a shorter one. – Erik J. Barzeski “That Haotong Li penalty was an outrage! He didn’t gain an adv…

@Billy Z, @HoganApexFan, and others, there's your reading assignment.

7 hours ago, m052310 said:

If they aren't virtually certain

Once again more into the breach…

… if you can't define a divot hole in a way that's universally and consistently applied, nobody is virtually certain. If 30 people think something isn't a divot hole, and 40 people do…

We play golf on surfaces that are not perfect. Even Augusta National, you may be surprised to learn, has imperfections everywhere when you're standing on it and not just looking at it from a TV camera 200 yards away (albeit zoomed in a bit).

7 hours ago, m052310 said:

As to slow play, it has been pointed out many times in this thread how rare a ball ending up in a divot in the fairway is.

Because you don't get relief right now.

If you got relief, "divot holes" would begin appearing everywhere. See the above about how we play on an imperfect surface.

7 hours ago, m052310 said:

Any altercations would be no more than any other rule over which two competitors disagree as to application.

Then write the definition.

You're now in the same bucket as @Billy Z, and you must overcome the first hurdle, because the rest of your argument is bogus. You have no idea what the pace of play implications are until you write the rule. And writing the rule starts with the definition.

So have at it.

7 hours ago, m052310 said:

That argument makes sense, though I think the embedded ball rule, for one, provides precedent for disregarding the principle when the powers that be so desire.

It does not. Please read about the embedded ball stuff IN the Principles booklet.

7 hours ago, HoganApexFan said:

Why should @Billy Z have to define anything?

I've answered THIS question now several times.

7 hours ago, HoganApexFan said:

He is advocating for a position that is supported by a multitude of professional and amateur golfers (yeah, go ahead and question that despite all of the previous posts).

OMFG. I've literally stipulated to the fact that many, many golfers want this to be changed.

It's frustrating to discuss this topic with people:

• Who don't actually read what's written back to them.
• Who don't understand the Rules of Golf.

You're now, with @Billy Z, in both categories.

Popularity has almost nothing to do with justifying changing a Rule. The Rules of Golf are not decided by popular vote.

7 hours ago, HoganApexFan said:

Why don't YOU, @Vinsk give us a definition of what is NOT a divot???

Please read this: https://thesandtrap.com/how-to/mention-members/.

And the entire point is that when a divot HOLE ceases to be a divot HOLE is ambiguous. If I could define what is "not" a divot hole, then I could define what IS a divot hole.

7 hours ago, HoganApexFan said:

There are so many of you that are so smug

Nope, here's where you're reading something into this text that simply, 100%, isn't there.

7 hours ago, HoganApexFan said:

how about you trying to convince us (and a plurality of ALL golfers) on why we shouldn't change the rules!

Not why "we" shouldn't change the rules, but why the "USGA/R&A" shouldn't change the rules.

You cannot reason people out of something they were not reasoned into.

7 hours ago, saevel25 said:

1. Can you actually create a rule that can be self enforced and not ambiguous to be abused?

No, hell, they can't even create a definition.

7 hours ago, saevel25 said:

2. Not all golf courses are pristine and bad lies can happen in a fairway, why should divots count differently? Isn't poor maintenance of a course just man made similar to a divot if you reduce it down to who takes care of the course.

First divots, then brown spots. Or little bare spots. Or a patch of clover in the fairway. Or an oil streak from a mower on the green.

7 hours ago, saevel25 said:

3. If the logic is based on rewarding good drives, because it is a bad break to end up in a divot. Why should we benefit from a good break in golf?

Oh they don't want to hear about logical arguments, Matt!

7 hours ago, Shorty said:

Oh.....and just to be super smug...... because no real golfer thinks that being in a divot is an outrageously unjust predicament in which to find oneself.

7 hours ago, HoganApexFan said:

Shorty, You so funny!  I edited my post to change the "we" to "USGA/R&A".   If you really think they can't define "divot" then maybe they shouldn't be able to write the Rules of Golf!

3 hours ago, Rulesman said:

As the USGA/R&A have said:

A fundamental challenge of the sport is to deal with whatever position your ball comes to rest in – whether good or bad. While there are some necessary exceptions (such as obstructions and other abnormal course conditions), the essential nature of golf means these must remain exceptions rather than the norm. Therefore, the new Rules do not provide relief without penalty from situations that some golfers complain about, such as when their ball comes to rest in a divot hole on a fairway or in footprints in a poorly raked bunker. In addition to being contrary to the fundamental principle of playing the ball as it lies, providing free relief in such circumstances would make the Rules harder to apply (for example, what is the difference between an irregularity of surface and an old divot hole?) and would slow down play.

@Rulesman, you will find that those arguing here will once again just skip or gloss over or, frankly, misunderstand the inconvenient truth of your post, but I appreciate the effort.

[jsgolfer]

33 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

But why would we not want to follow the Principles of the Rules of Golf? I see no reason. To deviate from the principles because some people don’t like when their ball lands in a divot hole once every 30 rounds. 

Lift, clean and place is usually only applied when balls are also plugging due to excessive water.

I'm not sure it's even once every 30 rounds, I played over 125 rounds last year and I remember it happening once.    

The only way to have everyone play by the same rule would be to make the entire fairway, a lift, clean, and drop on all shots from the fairway, like we do after aeration occurs or lots of rain. That would be the only way to take out the ambiguity of what is and isn't a divot hole, but then that just doesn't seem like golf anymore.