Should Divots Be Considered Ground Under Repair?

[boogielicious]

5 hours ago, jsgolfer said:

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.  

With great coincidence, I played my first round this year. Low and behold, one of my shots ended in a divot. It looked to be older. I did not do carbon dating. So instead of griping about it, I played it as it lay and got it to just short of the green. From there I parred the hole.

[Shorty]

4 hours ago, Billy Z said:

I gave my definition of what I thought constituted a fw divot, brief, but accurate.

You did not!

It was brief, highly inaccurate and totally open to interpretation.

You persist in this thread as if you have made points that are solid, fair and not subject to debate.

In the picture below, if I am a dick and I want to call any area in the middle a divot, tell me how I am wrong, according to your definition.

What about that little spot at 7 o'clock? Looks shitty, but......could be  a divot........I want relief.

I am not talking about obvious GUR which should be marked but isn't - and that only exacerbates the problem - and underlines why the rule can never be changed. For the sake of your argument, assume that course in the picture has management that has a thing about never playing preferred lies.

 

 

[woodzie264]

3 hours ago, boogielicious said:

With great coincidence, I played my first round this year. Low and behold, one of my shots ended in a divot. It looked to be older. I did not do carbon dating. So instead of griping about it, I played it as it lay and got it to just short of the green. From there I parred the hole.

C’mon, that’s not being fair to yourself...You could’ve taken relief and made Eagle with the hole-out. 

[Billy Z]

6 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

Again, this isn't adequate for a number of reasons  Here are a few.  

A player cannot know what caused the cause of the "abnormality", although I agree that we can generally make a reasonable conclusion based on the appearance.  I'm not sure we can achieve KVC (knowledge or virtual certainty).

You want relief from divot holes that have been properly repaired (could be with sand, or by replacing the divot itself), even though there is absolutely no impact on the shot faced by the golfer.  Is that right?

You haven't defined the "doesn't have grass grown back" clearly enough.  Does this mean that initial regrowth is enough to disqualify it from relief?  50% regrowth?  Unfilled divot holes re-grow from the edges, it could be months before these are completely healed, relief that entire time?  Many courses use a combination of sand and seed for divots, does the initial sprouting of the seed mean something?  

Going back, you've claimed that it would be easy to write this rule.  See if you can fix these things.  

ok, whatever makes you happy, but I am satisfied with my effort. 

[Vinsk]

33 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

ok, whatever makes you happy, but I am satisfied with my effort. 

🤦‍♂️

[Shorty]

37 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

ok, whatever makes you happy, but I am satisfied with my effort. 

That's a convenient way to accept defeat without admitting it. Weird.

[Billy Z]

9 minutes ago, Shorty said:

That's a convenient way to accept defeat without admitting it. Weird.

Man, you guys are something. I am not admitting defeat, what I do admit is an successful effort. I am not asking you to change your opinion, because your opinion is just your opinion.

[HoganApexFan]

OK, here's my try at a definition of a divot hole that might help:

A divot hole in the fairway is any disruption in an otherwise smooth contour of soil that even appears to have resulted from a torn-up piece of turf:  e.g. by a club in making a stroke (including practice strokes), by a horse's hoof, or any similar damage that may have been caused by golfers, golf carts, vehicles, animals, or any landscaping or mowing equipment.

 Mere disruptions in the surface area where the ball rests, differences in lie or conditions of grass, or even the complete absence of grass without the disruption in the soil shall NOT be considered a divot hole for relief purposes under this rule.  Barren areas of any course, including on or adjacent to greens, should be evaluated by the committee to determine their eligibility as grounds under repair.

 Furthermore, if any part of the ball is resting in a sand/seed filled area in the fairway (or ANY closely mown area through the green), then it is presumed to be resting in Ground Under Repair and entitled to full relief under this rule.  Whether the sand/seed completely or partially fills this area is irrelevant; once the sand/seed is placed into any disruption in a fairway it shall be deemed as Ground Under Repair.

 

[DaveP043]

1 minute ago, Billy Z said:

what I do admit is an successful effort.

I'm not sure many people would call it a successful effort until you've managed to address the issues reasonably raised by other people in their review.

2 minutes ago, HoganApexFan said:

OK, here's my try at a definition of a divot hole that might help:

A divot hole in the fairway is any disruption in an otherwise smooth contour of soil that even appears to have resulted from a torn-up piece of turf:  e.g. by a club in making a stroke (including practice strokes), by a horse's hoof, or any similar damage that may have been caused by golfers, golf carts, vehicles, animals, or any landscaping or mowing equipment.

 Mere disruptions in the surface area where the ball rests, differences in lie or conditions of grass, or even the complete absence of grass without the disruption in the soil shall NOT be considered a divot hole for relief purposes under this rule.  Barren areas of any course, including on or adjacent to greens, should be evaluated by the committee to determine their eligibility as grounds under repair.

 Furthermore, if any part of the ball is resting in a sand/seed filled area in the fairway (or ANY closely mown area through the green), then it is presumed to be resting in Ground Under Repair and entitled to full relief under this rule.  Whether the sand/seed completely or partially fills this area is irrelevant; once the sand/seed is placed into any disruption in a fairway it shall be deemed as Ground Under Repair.

 

A reasonable start, although you've increased the scope of this to include any kind of damage caused by anyone or anything.  Hopefully you understand you're now including a number of situations that are not divot holes, and are not generally considered justification for being labelled as GUR.

But what you've definitely not done is to define when this area ceases to be considered GUR.  

[HoganApexFan]

While I am patiently waiting for the inevitable attacks from the holy warriors, I am convinced that even the GOAT, Mr. Jack Nicklaus, would agree with this definition and also would not be so kind in telling former USGA (whatever his position was) and lawyer Mike Davis to stick it where the sun doesn't shine.

[Shorty]

15 minutes ago, HoganApexFan said:

OK, here's my try at a definition of a divot hole that might help:

OK - so basically any bit of ground where I don't want to be. I can claim that it is MY BELIEF that those conditions exist.

So.... preferred lies all the time. Great.

And.....you can be as snarky as you like, all you have done is make thngs hardy. There is a big difference between observing that your ball is in a divot and defining one so you'd get relief.

[HoganApexFan]

3 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

A reasonable start, although you've increased the scope of this to include any kind of damage caused by anyone or anything.  Hopefully you understand you're now including a number of situations that are not divot holes, and are not generally considered justification for being labelled as GUR.

LOL!  Who give a rat's tail?  DON'T Care!  We are talking about relief n a Fairway! This thread is 100% about relief under GUR in the FAIRWAY!  And your response includes false statements.  I do not care what some of the "purist/elitist" consider "divot holes" and are trying to limit the definition to support their position.  I wanted to present a definition that DEFIED all of the nitpicking so that we could get back to the original question of whether the rule should be changed.  HINT:  It Should!

[Shorty]

24 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

Man, you guys are something. I am not admitting defeat, what I do admit is an successful effort. I am not asking you to change your opinion, because your opinion is just your opinion.

That was irony. We know you're not admitting defeat. The consensus is that you are "defeated". The general "opinion" is that it is  a fact that no definition that will cover everything is possible.

[HoganApexFan]

3 minutes ago, Shorty said:

OK - so basically any bit of ground where I don't want to be. I can claim that it is MY BELIEF that those conditions exist.

So.... preferred lies all the time. Great.

Please read the entire post...I even specifically stated that  "Mere disruptions in the surface area where the ball rests, differences in lie or conditions of grass, or even the complete absence of grass without the disruption in the soil shall NOT be considered a divot hole for relief purposes under this rule.  Barren areas of any course, including on or adjacent to greens, should be evaluated by the committee to determine their eligibility as grounds under repair."  Wake up and smell the coffee...

[Shorty]

5 minutes ago, HoganApexFan said:

LOL!  Who give a rat's tail?  DON'T Care!  We are talking about relief n a Fairway! This thread is 100% about relief under GUR in the FAIRWAY! 

Just a reminder, divots are not GUR and have never been considered to be so.

[HoganApexFan]

Just now, Shorty said:

Just a reminder, divots are not GUR and have never been considered to be so.

Love You Shorty, but read the title of this topic/thread.

Should Divots Be Considered Ground Under Repair?

[Shorty]

1 minute ago, HoganApexFan said:

 "Mere disruptions in the surface area where the ball rests, differences in lie or conditions of grass, or even the complete absence of grass without the disruption in the soil shall NOT be considered a divot hole for relief purposes under this rule.  Barren areas of any course, including on or adjacent to greens, should be evaluated by the committee to determine their eligibility as grounds under repair."  

Nah - I am certain that's a divot at 7 o'clock. I really believe that it is - (even though I secretly don't) You can't prove it isn't.

[saevel25]

7 minutes ago, HoganApexFan said:

LOL!  Who give a rat's tail?  DON'T Care!  We are talking about relief n a Fairway! This thread is 100% about relief under GUR in the FAIRWAY!  And your response includes false statements.  I do not care what some of the "purist/elitist" consider "divot holes" and are trying to limit the definition to support their position.  I wanted to present a definition that DEFIED all of the nitpicking so that we could get back to the original question of whether the rule should be changed.  HINT:  It Should!

Nice try on shifting the goal posts. Divots have never been considered ground under repair. I have never seen a divot, with the GUR marking around them EVER. 

Your constant use of the word Purist/Elitist doesn't help your argument and makes you look petty. Like, is the only way you have to discuss your side is to try to label people? Maybe you resort to that because you have nothing to stand on in this discussion.