Should Divots Be Considered Ground Under Repair?

[iacas]

18 minutes ago, HoganApexFan said:

Apparently I am no longer able to post in this thread, as I have requested that any and all refutations of my proposed definition address ALL3 paragraphs of this definition.  For example, some people reference the first paragraph and completely ignore the third wrt sand/seed.  Others completely disregard the second paragraph which eliminates most fatuous arguments about different lies, ground conditions, or barren areas.  As We All Know, divot holes have absolutely nothing to do with the natural contours of the fairway or barren areas anywhere on the course.

I replied to all three paragraphs of your definition.

The fact that you needed three paragraphs to define a nine-letter term should have told you something.

And, that's some pretty poor reading comprehension on your part, since I said:

53 minutes ago, iacas said:

Keep it up, keep up the name-calling with the "cults" and "elitists" and "holy warriors" crap, the incessant victim-playing, etc. and the new rule will be "no more posts from @HoganApexFan in this topic."

[HoganApexFan]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

To get back to the topic at hand, basically, your definition isn't going to work at all. It has numerous problems, includes a whole bunch of unnecessary words that serve to do nothing but confuse and begin to get into rules making itself (rather than just giving a definition of "divot hole"), and again, ultimately, would not be universally or consistently applied.

My proposed definition is not going to work because it "Includes a whole bunch of unnecessary words" might be why so many people are frustrated with this thread, which I thought was titled "Should Divots Be Considered Ground Under Repair?"  RUKM?  You MUST come up with a definition that WE can agree to, but don't use a whole bunch of unnecessary words...

[iacas]

Just now, HoganApexFan said:

My proposed definition is not going to work because it "Includes a whole bunch of unnecessary words" might be why so many people are frustrated with this thread, which I thought was titled "Should Divots Be Considered Ground Under Repair?"  RUKM?  You MUST come up with a definition that WE can agree to, but don't use a whole bunch of unnecessary words...

No, I'm not "KY."

Your definition of a nine-character term included stuff about how the committee can mark any area they want as GUR.

Please, what does this have to do with defining divot holes?

3 hours ago, HoganApexFan said:

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.

That sentence, along with some others, are unnecessary. They don't speak to the definition of "divot holes."

P.S. The question is rhetorical. Telling the Committee they can mark other areas as GUR is completely unnecessary in the definition of "divot holes."

[HoganApexFan]

You keep quoting portions of posts without context to support your position.  You still haven't presented a consistent or even remotely cogent argument regarding my complete post about defining "Divot Holes" ("a whole bunch of unnecessary words")  What is wrong with the complete definition I provided; not with single phrases, sentences, or paragraphs?  As others have complained here, you seem to have the habit of selectively quoting pieces from multiple posts and than using them in a rapid fire assault against members with differing views from you.

[Vinsk]

1 minute ago, HoganApexFan said:

You keep quoting portions of posts without context to support your position.  You still haven't presented a consistent or even remotely cogent argument regarding my complete post about defining "Divot Holes" ("a whole bunch of unnecessary words")  What is wrong with the complete definition I provided; not with single phrases, sentences, or paragraphs?  As others have complained here, you seem to have the habit of selectively quoting pieces from multiple posts and than using them in a rapid fire assault against members with differing views from you.

Wtf are you talking about? He’s listing statements you made and explaining how they don’t suffice for a good definition to support your opinion. And I’m not a rules expert and far from an elitist.
Anyone  with half a brain can read this debate and see that your arguments pale in comparison to the arguments of @iacas, @saevel25, @Shorty and others. And me delicate? Where did I show that? Offended? Where the hell did I show that? If anyone is butt-hurt here it’s certainly you.

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, HoganApexFan said:

You keep quoting portions of posts without context to support your position.  You still haven't presented a consistent or even remotely cogent argument regarding my complete post about defining "Divot Holes" ("a whole bunch of unnecessary words")  What is wrong with the complete definition I provided; not with single phrases, sentences, or paragraphs?  As others have complained here, you seem to have the habit of selectively quoting pieces from multiple posts and than using them in a rapid fire assault against members with differing views from you.

I'm sorry you feel that way. That's not the reality.

[Darkfrog]

Welp! @HoganApexFan sure picked a strange hill to die on.

I'm nothing close to a rules expert and it was obvious the definition didn't work.

I really didn't want to keep peeking into this thread, like driving by a car accident, but I couldn't help myself.

[saevel25]

5 minutes ago, Darkfrog said:

Welp! @HoganApexFan sure picked a strange hill to die on.

I'm nothing close to a rules expert and it was obvious the definition didn't work.

I really didn't want to keep peeking into this thread, like driving by a car accident, but I couldn't help myself.

At this point, it was never about the rule. 

[Shorty]

58 minutes ago, HoganApexFan said:

  As others have complained here, you seem to have the habit of selectively quoting pieces from multiple posts and than using them in a rapid fire assault against members with differing views from you.

Just an FYI, mate....

I have been around this forum for quite a few years and have been involved in my fair share of debates. I have (or had) the habit of looking for controversial subjects to post about because they're the ones that are interesting to me. This is one such thread. I avoid ones like  "Tiger or Jack for GOAT".

I have been on the receiving end of critique and censure from moderators and owner alike many times but you know what? I never took it personally and I will tell you that people here have VERY thick skins and are extremely accommodating and forgiving. I have been criticised and rewarded when others think I have deserved it and when I have stepped over the line I have always thought about why I was checked and am pretty sure that I take my medicine all the time because when I have been wrong people have explained why and I appreciate their reactions. It's all fun - but serious fun sometimes.

The owner of the site does not need my endorsement but I would be pretty sure that when he says "Shorty, grow up and don't be dick"  what always happens is that I consider my actions, move on and he spends zero seconds worrying about me and plotting an "assault" on my character. In fact I would go so far as to say that he makes a point of recognising the positives as much as he rejects the negatives in EVERY member AND he attacks the argument, not the member.

If this weren't the case, the site would have folded years ago.

My advice is to think about why people are not supporting your argument. They are not insupportive of you.

[Darkfrog]

15 hours ago, Shorty said:

Just an FYI, mate....

I have been around this forum for quite a few years and have been involved in my fair share of debates. I have (or had) the habit of looking for controversial subjects to post about because they're the ones that are interesting to me. This is one such thread. I avoid ones like  "Tiger or Jack for GOAT".

I have been on the receiving end of critique and censure from moderators and owner alike many times but you know what? I never took it personally and I will tell you that people here have VERY thick skins and are extremely accommodating and forgiving. I have been criticised and rewarded when others think I have deserved it and when I have stepped over the line I have always thought about why I was checked and am pretty sure that I take my medicine all the time because when I have been wrong people have explained why and I appreciate their reactions. It's all fun - but serious fun sometimes.

The owner of the site does not need my endorsement but I would be pretty sure that when he says "Shorty, grow up and don't be dick"  what always happens is that I consider my actions, move on and he spends zero seconds worrying about me and plotting an "assault" on my character. In fact I would go so far as to say that he makes a point of recognising the positives as much as he rejects the negatives in EVERY member AND he attacks the argument, not the member.

If this weren't the case, the site would have folded years ago.

My advice is to think about why people are not supporting your argument. They are not insupportive of you.

I think an enormous amount of restraint and patience was shown by the admin and moderators. I can only muster up that level when dealing with my young children.

Lee Westwood just hit out of another divot hole on #8 at the Honda Classic. Put it on the green, no problem.

[Billy Z]

1 hour ago, Darkfrog said:

I think an enormous amount of restraint and patience was shown by the admin and moderators. I can only muster up that level when dealing with my young children.

Lee Westwood just hit out of another divot hole on #8 at the Honda Classic. Put it on the green, no problem.

 

16 hours ago, Shorty said:

Just an FYI, mate....

I have been around this forum for quite a few years and have been involved in my fair share of debates. I have (or had) the habit of looking for controversial subjects to post about because they're the ones that are interesting to me. This is one such thread. I avoid ones like  "Tiger or Jack for GOAT".

I have been on the receiving end of critique and censure from moderators and owner alike many times but you know what? I never took it personally and I will tell you that people here have VERY thick skins and are extremely accommodating and forgiving. I have been criticised and rewarded when others think I have deserved it and when I have stepped over the line I have always thought about why I was checked and am pretty sure that I take my medicine all the time because when I have been wrong people have explained why and I appreciate their reactions. It's all fun - but serious fun sometimes.

The owner of the site does not need my endorsement but I would be pretty sure that when he says "Shorty, grow up and don't be dick"  what always happens is that I consider my actions, move on and he spends zero seconds worrying about me and plotting an "assault" on my character. In fact I would go so far as to say that he makes a point of recognising the positives as much as he rejects the negatives in EVERY member AND he attacks the argument, not the member.

If this weren't the case, the site would have folded years ago.

My advice is to think about why people are not supporting your argument. They are not insupportive of you.

A lot of truth in these two posts! Just the same, are they not off topic?

[iacas]

For those wondering where a certain name-caller and intellectually dishonest member has gone… some details are here.

Here’s where I’ll put a bow on this discussion for now: we realize that a lot of golfers want relief from divot holes. But as I’ve said a few times, there are two hurdles to clear here:

• It’s against the Principles Behind the Rules of Golf.
• It’s impossible to define^ in a way that doesn’t basically make it a free-for-all with lift, clean, and drop (or place).

^ Nobody has yet, and for various reasons, I don’t think they ever will be able to find a definition that is universally applied consistently. “Universal” and “consistent” are what make any rule or law “fair,” after all.

So, while the topic isn’t “closed” or anything like that, if you’re a staunch “divot holes should be GUR!” advocate, and you’re making your third or fourth or fifth post in a row, you may be referred to this post, and this one Rule:

• For any further discussion of this specific topic here, you must first design a definition for “divot hole” that can be universally and consistently applied.

That will allow you to clear one hurdle, before encountering the second. But I suspect we won’t get past the first… so… good luck!

[boogielicious]

8 minutes ago, Billy Z said:

 

A lot of truth in these two posts! Just the same, are they not off topic?

Please let the moderators direct posters on off topic discussion. BTW, your post was also off topic.

[Golfingdad]

6 hours ago, iacas said:

• For any further discussion of this specific topic here, you must first design a definition for “divot hole” that can be universally and consistently applied.

That will allow you to clear one hurdle, before encountering the second. But I suspect we won’t get past the first… so… good luck!

OK, so disclaimer: I am NOT an advocate for this rule change - I like everything how it is, but I think I just figured out how to handle this (sorta kinda) 😉

You don't need to define the divot holes at all, just assign it as the duties of the maintenance guy to mark the previous days divot holes as GUR each morning.

Is this going to cover all divot holes?  Of course not, as they'll undoubtedly miss some and they won't get the ones from that day either.

Is it practical or even feasible?  I dunno, but probably not.  But, most importantly ...

Is it universal and consistent?  I believe it is, right?  Because there is no decision to be made; it's either marked or it's not.

Anyways, maybe that would be halfway decent workaround if you could get all of the golfers at your particular club who want this rule change to pay higher fees to cover the salary(ies) of whoever is tasked with doing this. 

[saevel25]

14 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Anyways, maybe that would be halfway decent workaround if you could get all of the golfers at your particular club who want this rule change to pay higher fees to cover the salary(ies) of whoever is tasked with doing this. 

I'll poke holes in this. 😉

If I am not mistaken, courses do not have to mark water hazards or OB. In the definition for OB, it says OB should be marked, not shall be marked. I believe water hazards is defined by the water it self, or by any markings. 

So, the rules are written in a way where the course is not mandated to mark these areas. I don't think creating a requirement to mark divots as GUR would be consistent. 

 

 

Edited March 19, 2021 by saevel25

[Golfingdad]

8 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I'll poke holes in this. 😉

If I am not mistaken, courses do not have to mark water hazards or OB. In the definition for OB, it says OB should be marked, not shall be marked. I believe water hazards is defined by the water it self, or by any markings. 

So, the rules are written in a way where the course is not mandated to mark these areas. I don't think creating a requirement to mark divots as GUR would be consistent. 

 

 

But how are the current areas that are GUR known if they’re unmarked? Isn’t that the only way to know if an area is GUR? It’s painted white, right?

 

[saevel25]

10 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

But how are the current areas that are GUR known if they’re unmarked? Isn’t that the only way to know if an area is GUR? It’s painted white, right?

 

That is up to the course (committee) discretion, not a requirement. If a course didn't want to, they could mark nothing as GUR. 

By your rule, they would be required to. 

The issue I have is the requirement, which is not consistent with other rules regarding markings. 

 

[David in FL]

4 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

That is up to the course (committee) discretion, not a requirement. If a course didn't want to, they could mark nothing as GUR. 

By your rule, they would be required to. 

The issue I have is the requirement, which is not consistent with other rules regarding markings. 

 

Not a requirement.  An option.  
 

But still, not something I would support in any event.

Edited March 19, 2021 by David in FL