Should Divots Be Considered Ground Under Repair?

[rehmwa]

Some courses prefer that you not replace divots. And again, what would be the point of replacing a few tufts of grass when a divot explodes. You can't penalize people for not replacing a divot just as you can't penalize someone for tripping and scuffing up the green. Or scuffing up the green on purpose. You can just consider them a jerk, and not play with them.

I was just making a conceptual point (aligns with your last couple sentences above).  and you had to go get all technicality on me

but it's good to know that it's legal to scruff up someone's putting line if you are so inclined (also just kidding for those literal people out there - you know who you are........or maybe you don't......)

I could just see some pro - tied for 1st, a couple Million Dollars on the line on the tie breaker hole - and he walks onto the green with crampons and trounces all over the other guy's line........(it's a cartoon bubble, not intended for discussions about rules for proper attire, YMMV, do not operate heavy machinery after reading the comment, weight loss does occur in some lab animals, offer void in New Jersey and Puerto Rice)

[iacas]

I was just making a conceptual point (aligns with your last couple sentences above).  and you had to go get all technicality on me

Yeah, sorry, I know what you mean. I risked sounding a bit like I was jumping on you a bit, but I'm not. I know what you were getting after. Just do us both a favor next time and call them jerks or say they should have their knees busted with a 9-iron or something, since this is the Rules portion of the site, where semantics and technicalities reign. :)

but it's good to know that it's legal to scruff up someone's putting line if you are so inclined (also just kidding for those literal people out there - you know who you are........or maybe you don't......)

I could just see pro - tied for 1st, a couple Million Dollars on the line on the tie breaker hole - and he walks onto the green with crampons and trounces all over the other guy's line........(it's a cartoon bubble, not intended for discussions about rules for proper attire, YMMV, do not operate heavy machinery after reading the comment, weight loss does occur in some lab animals)

You forgot to mention the explosive diarrhea.

[Ignorant]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

Originally Posted by Ignorant

Besides, how can you be so sure that R13-1 would not be changed in time (as it already was in 2010 as pointed out by Birly)?

The Rule was not changed in 2010. It was clarified. The rule itself (33-8, particularly 33-8b) remained the same.

If half of the golf clubs of Scotland were using an incorrect Rule, then that's surprising, but we also have only one lousy post which says this). The only instance I can find of this on the R&A; website after a quick search is this one: http://www.randa.org/en/RandA/News/News/2010/February/Why-is-there-no-relief-from-divots-on-the-fairway.aspx . It's dated 2010, so it's after the Decision clarified things.

Is it or is it not a fact that before 1.1.2010 it was allowed by the Rules of Golf to make a Local Rule allowing relief from a divot?

[rehmwa]

You forgot to mention the explosive diarrhea.

Some oily staining is noticed in test subjects.  Consult a doctor if symptoms persist for more than 4 hours.

[iacas]

Is it or is it not a fact that before 1.1.2010 it was allowed by the Rules of Golf to make a Local Rule allowing relief from a divot?

It was not allowed. Clubs that had such a local rule were doing so against the Rules of Golf.

[Rulesman]

Nobody said that the Local Rules on the Largs muni should be known worldwide. But it was common practice in the backyard of the R&A; - and the sky didn't fall in.

Really? So the golfers at half the courses in Scotland had invalid handicaps prior to 2010? When an argument leads to an absurd conclusion, it's reasonable (though to be fair, not conclusive) to suspect that the argument itself is absurd.

'Half the courses in Scotland'. Really? You played 290 of the 580 courses?

Odd courses may have got under the radar but not many. But it may well be that some courses allowed relief in social play. I will speak to my R&A; contact on Monday to see what the reaction is.

Of course, the website you got your information from has no official standing. It is just a journalist saying what he thinks.

[iacas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rulesman

'Half the courses in Scotland'. Really? You played 290 of the 580 courses?

I have taken the opportunity to contact a CONGU committee member who says your claim is nonsense. Odd courses may have got under the radar but not many. But it may well be that some courses allowed relief in social play. I will speak to the R&A; on Monday to see what their reaction is.

Of course, the website you got your information from has no official standing. It is just a journalist saying what he thinks.

I think he's getting that from here: http://www.scottishgolfview.com/2009/12/changes-to-decisions-on-rules-of-golf.html .

Quote:

New decision 33-8/34 now removes the authority for a committee to make a local rule “providing relief without penalty from a divot hole or a repaired divot hole (i.e. filled with sand or seed mix)”
At least half the golf clubs in Scotland have such a local rule and these must be withdrawn immediately before any qualifying competitions for handicap purposes can be played. Such a local rule contravenes Rule 13-1 which states that a ball must be played as it lies and has generally not been used in professional and major amateur competitions.
It is often mistakenly believed that this rule protects the golf course. If relief is given or indeed demanded from a seeded divot hole, a second divot hole is created and requires repair, leaving two seeded divots holes. If the ball is played from the original hole it may require repair but only one hole remains.

That's the "one source" I mentioned a few posts ago.

That same "Ron Menzies" seems to get around, though:

http://rlcga.blogspot.com/2009_12_01_archive.html

http://clubnewsinrenfrewshire.blogspot.com/2009_12_01_archive.html

http://www.gilliankirkwood.com/ercn86/2009/12/changes-to-decisions-on-rules-of-golf.htm

The original is likely here:

http://www.ross-shirejournal.co.uk/Sport/Golf/Golf-is-out-of-bounds-so-nows-the-time-for-rule-check-7219.htm

It's word-for-word. There's no author on that article, so either Ron Menzies is the author, or he "borrowed" it and published it in several other places.

P.S. The Google Search for the phrase: "At least half the golf clubs in Scotland have such a local rule and these must be withdrawn immediately" .

P.P.S. I'm also taking the rare step of over-ruling (at least temporarily) the moderator who restricted @birlyshirly from this thread. He can see the answers, but that requires logging out. Now he can see them in the thread. I will caution that my earlier warnings remain in effect, and the moderators are free to determine once again that he's not accepting facts as facts.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Quote:

Originally Posted by birlyshirly

Really? So the golfers at half the courses in Scotland had invalid handicaps prior to 2010? When an argument leads to an absurd conclusion, it's reasonable (though to be fair, not conclusive) to suspect that the argument itself is absurd.

I rather doubt that "half the courses in Scotland" used this rule, or it would have been heard of long before this.  The question of relief from divots comes up on this forum at least twice a year, and we have a number of members from the UK, and from Scotland in particular who would have mentioned such a local rule had they known about it.  You are way off the target on this topic and you can't possibly win.  Any courses which used such a local rule were in direct conflict with the Rules of Golf, and any handicap scores from such courses would be invalid.  Although I'm not totally conversant with the handicap policy in the UK, I do know that it is more strict about posting qualification than the USGA policy.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but you're quite pigheaded in your unwillingness to accept the facts of what was happening on the ground in a country of which you have evidently limited experience.

http://www.scottishgolfview.com/2009/12/changes-to-decisions-on-rules-of-golf.html

I know this states that divot relief contravenes Rule 13.1, but it's also described as a "change" (ie from previous practice) and the authority of the Committee to make the local rule is "withdrawn" (not simply invalid). And of course, the Decision only came into effect on 1 Jan 2010 - so how anyone can argue that a prospective Decision retrospectively invalidated handicaps is beyond logic.

You say that the authority was "withdrawn", I say that the authority was never there.  What you refer to was an incorrect assumption made by those clubs that they had such authority - an assumption which was proven wrong when Decision 33-8/34 was added to the rules.  Those clubs were overstepping their rights, and the R&A; and USGA were forced to write a decision to end that practice.

It's no different from the courses here in the US which have enacted the unauthorized local rule that all forested areas lining the holes are to be treated as lateral water hazards, even if not so marked, and despite the fact than they do not fit the definition of a water hazard.  This practice is also specifically forbidden under the Rules of Golf and in my opinion is a worse case because it comes into play far more frequently than your divot rule does.  Golfers playing under this unauthorized rule are setting lower handicaps than they will be able to play to on any properly marked course, and many of those players aren't even aware of the fact that it's wrong.  They think that because the course makes the rule that it must be right.

[turtleback]

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Correct me if I'm wrong, but UK handicap only applies scores from tournament play and Rulesman stated that no course would impose such a local rule during tournament play.  If Rulesman is correct then anyone playing under such a rule at a muni in Scotland was only playing a practice round and the rule allowing a golfer to move their ball from a divot would be no different than if they permitted foot wedges and mulligans too.

If they have to change their rules for a tournament then it shows an awareness that they aren't playing under proper rules the rest of the time.  It puts it more into the category of those who would say, "OK, it is a tournament, no mulligans."

Quote:

Originally Posted by birlyshirly

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but you're quite pigheaded in your unwillingness to accept the facts of what was happening on the ground in a country of which you have evidently limited experience.

http://www.scottishgolfview.com/2009/12/changes-to-decisions-on-rules-of-golf.html

I know this states that divot relief contravenes Rule 13.1, but it's also described as a "change" (ie from previous practice) and the authority of the Committee to make the local rule is "withdrawn" (not simply invalid). And of course, the Decision only came into effect on 1 Jan 2010 - so how anyone can argue that a prospective Decision retrospectively invalidated handicaps is beyond logic.

What the devil does what some article says have anything to do with anything?  Are we going to accept what a journalist says about the recent ballmoving decision if they get it wrong,as they most surely will?  Are we going to believe all of the articles that said Tiger was not DQed because of Decision 33-7/4.5 when the Masters Committee made it clear that it was a straight 33-7 waiver of DQ based on precedents that had been around for years?  Next thing you will be quoting TV commentators on rules issues.

It isn't what the article says that counts it is what the decision says, which is:

Quote:

Q. May a Committee make a Local Rule providing relief without penalty from divot holes or repaired divot holes (e.g., holes that have been filled with sand and/or seed mix)?

A. No. Such a Local Rule would modify Rule 13-1 and is not authorized.

Nowhere in the decision does it give the slightest hint that this is a change of any kind.  It doesn't say that the local rule is no longer authorized, it ways they are not authorized.  As in never were and never will be authorized.  It is making clear what anyone should have known at the time.

And let's see what the rules have to say about local rules:

Quote:

All defined terms are in italics and are listed alphabetically in the Definitions section.

As provided in Rule 33-8a , the Committee may make and publish Local Rules for local abnormal conditions if they are consistent with the policy established in this Appendix. In addition, detailed information regarding acceptable and prohibited Local Rules is provided in “Decisions on the Rules of Golf” under Rule 33-8 and in “How to Conduct a Competition.”

If local abnormal conditions interfere with the proper playing of the game and the Committee considers it necessary to modify a Rule of Golf, authorization from the USGA must be obtained.

Of course in Scotland, USGA in the final clause would be replaced with R&A.;  But the point is the same.  Local Rules are not some free for all, they have to be consistent with the appendix and be authorized by a ruling body.  Unless you can show us where the R&A; ever authorized that local rule then you are flat out wrong, as were those clubs that adopted such a procedure (which I won't dignify with calling a rule)

If some Scottish courses were allowing this then they were a bunch of wusses not worthy of the same of golfer, IMO.  Old Tom must have been turning over in his grave when they were doing this.

[Fourputt]

Of course in Scotland, USGA in the final clause would be replaced with R&A.;  But the point is the same.  Local Rules are not some free for all, they have to be consistent with the appendix and be authorized by a ruling body.  Unless you can show us where the R&A; ever authorized that local rule then you are flat out wrong, as were those clubs that adopted such a procedure (which I won't dignify with calling a rule)

If some Scottish courses were allowing this then they were a bunch of wusses not worthy of the same of golfer, IMO.  Old Tom must have been turning over in his grave when they were doing this.

I have a hunch that Old Tom spends a lot of time spinning these days.  He might love the growth of the game, but he'd have a lot of trouble with the direction it has grown in.

[Golfingdad]

I have a hunch that Old Tom spends a lot of time spinning these days.  He might love the growth of the game, but he'd have a lot of trouble with the direction it has grown in.

No way, he has no time, what with all the tee times he's making with goats and birds and such.

[phan52]

Nothing on a golf course drives me crazier than to hit a well executed golf shot down the center and then walk up to see my ball in an unrepaired, or even a seed/sand filled divot hole.

Oh well, it is what it is. Play on.

[Ignorant]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignorant

Is it or is it not a fact that before 1.1.2010 it was allowed by the Rules of Golf to make a Local Rule allowing relief from a divot?

It was not allowed. Clubs that had such a local rule were doing so against the Rules of Golf.

Great, now we finally agree on something!

Next question: Is it possible that people somewhere around the globe had misunderstood the Rule in question and drafted a Local Rule that was against the Rules?

Further question: Having an erroneous Local Rule in effect what should the players have done about it taking into account that they were no Rules Experts?

And the final question: Is it possible that there have been clubs where such a Local Rule may have been in effect and people in good faith have played by it?

[wils5150]

Some courses prefer that you not replace divots. And again, what would be the point of replacing a few tufts of grass when a divot explodes. You can't penalize people for not replacing a divot just as you can't penalize someone for tripping and scuffing up the green. Or scuffing up the green on purpose. You can just consider them a jerk, and not play with them.

how true!

[iacas]

Great, now we finally agree on something!

I see no need to answer your further questions. This was never allowed under the Rules of Golf despite people (or one person) saying it was.

Why should I care about people who do something wrong? You really shouldn't have to ask questions of the form "Is it possible for people to be stupid?"

[Ignorant]

I see no need to answer your further questions. This was never allowed under the Rules of Golf despite people (or one person) saying it was.

Why should I care about people who do something wrong? You really shouldn't have to ask questions of the form "Is it possible for people to be stupid?"

I see no need to answer your further questions.

Satisfied?

(great discussion forum...)

[newtogolf]

Great, now we finally agree on something!

Next question: Is it possible that people somewhere around the globe had misunderstood the Rule in question and drafted a Local Rule that was against the Rules?

Further question: Having an erroneous Local Rule in effect what should the players have done about it taking into account that they were no Rules Experts?

And the final question: Is it possible that there have been clubs where such a Local Rule may have been in effect and people in good faith have played by it?

You claim to be a great referee but you don't seem to be objective and impartial.  Multiple people here have pointed out that moving the ball from a divot was never authorized by the Rules of Golf while one person claims it was done in Scotland as a local rule and provides a link to a blogger and these are the best questions you can come up with?

[iacas]

(great discussion forum...)

You asked me about people who misunderstood the rules. Why should I care about them? It's not relevant to the conversation.

You claim to be a great referee but you don't seem to be objective and impartial.  Multiple people here have pointed out that moving the ball from a divot was never authorized by the Rules of Golf while one person claims it was done in Scotland as a local rule and provides a link to a blogger and these are the best questions you can come up with?

See @Ignorant , they're not even good questions. Again, why the hell should I care about someone who applied the rules incorrectly? You agreed that the rule never let you move your ball from a divot hole. That's that.