Ball comes to rest in a dirt hole 2 feet off cart path.

[golfmaniac007]

I played in a golf tournament in which the following incident happened:  the ball came to rest in a dirt hole in a dirt area couple feet away from cart path which fit the golf ball perfectly with only the upper half of the golf ball showing.  Do i get free relief or play it as it lies?  Anybody know the ruling on this?      I was thinking abnormal condition may apply.  I ended up just playing it as it lies.  Thinking back i should have played two balls and got some type of ruling at the scoring tent.

[flopster]

Sounds like abnormal course condition to me and yes you should have played the second ball and got your ruling.

[bubble]

if the area is not indicated as ground under repair I dont se why you would get a free drop.

[Rulesman]

If it is not declared or marked as GUR, no free relief.

[Abu3baid]

I have never seen it so I don't know the answer, how do they usually mark GUR like that?

[ColinL]

As said above,  but was there a possibility that the cart path interfered with your stance?  If so, you maybe had a lucky and could take relief from that.

[David in FL]

I have never seen it so I don't know the answer, how do they usually mark GUR like that?

They don't. It sounds like an unfortunate lie that happened to be in a weird depression/gouge in a bare spot. Pain in the butt and bad luck, but nothing particularly "abnormal". Such is golf....

[Fourputt]

Sounds like abnormal course condition to me and yes you should have played the second ball and got your ruling.

Abnormal ground/ground under repair is a designated condition, not something a player can just decide for himself.  If it wasn't marked, then it's just part of the course and the has to deal with it.  Unless the area was properly marked as ground under repair, or the cart path interfered with his stance or swing, no relief without penalty.

I have never seen it so I don't know the answer, how do they usually mark GUR like that?

Ground under repair is usually marked with a white line to define the boundary of the area designated as abnormal.

[Asheville]

I played in a golf tournament in which the following incident happened:  the ball came to rest in a dirt hole in a dirt area couple feet away from cart path which fit the golf ball perfectly with only the upper half of the golf ball showing.  Do i get free relief or play it as it lies?  Anybody know the ruling on this?      I was thinking abnormal condition may apply.  I ended up just playing it as it lies.  Thinking back i should have played two balls and got some type of ruling at the scoring tent.

Your inclination to play a second ball iaw 3-3 is spot on! Though, the Committee makes an honest attempt to properly mark the course, small areas of GUR do get overlooked.

[acerimusdux]

Depends on what caused the hole. If it was caused by a groundskeep working on the course, it's ground under repair even if not marked. And if it's caused by a burrowing animal, reptile, or bird, it's also an abnormal ground condition.  Anything else, play it as it lies.

[joekelly]

Here, where i play, if we find the ground all tore up by the feral pigs, we take 'abnormal conditions' and move the ball.

[ColinL]

Is there a local rule in place to permit that?  It is allowable to have one.  See Decision 33-8/32.5

http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Rules-of-Golf/Decision-33/#d33-8-32.5

[Ignorant]

Depends on what caused the hole. If it was caused by a groundskeep working on the course, it's ground under repair even if not marked.

Only if that hole is to be filled by the staff, i.e. it is a temporary hole (or temporarily unfilled hole, such as a hole made for a stake) and made on purpose. For example a hole on the ground created by pulling a rock or a stump of a fallen tree out may or may not be GUR. If it is to be filled it is GUR, if not, then no.

[Rulesman]

If it is to be filled it is GUR,

Where does it say that? How would anyone know that a hole from a tree stump was going to be reinstated or not.

[Ignorant]

Originally Posted by Ignorant

. If it is to be filled it is GUR, if not, then no.

Where does it say that? How would anyone know that a hole from a tree stump was going to be reinstated or not.

This I have been told my experienced referees and it all comes down to the fact that the Committee should ensure all GUR's are properly marked. Let us take an example.

A greenkeeper decides to remove a rock from rough. Removing that rock leaves a void/hole in the ground but the greenkeeper feels that it is such a minor hole and pretty far away from the closely mown area that he decides to leave it as it is and let the grass eventually fill it. Strictly reading the Definition this hole would be GUR regardless how much grass there is and how old that hole is. Is that the purpose of the Definition? I've been taught no. There is clear similarity to stuff piled for removal / not to be removed.

I admit this leaves room for interpretation but it is the responsibility of the Committee to mark the course properly. How do you know if material is piled for removal or just left there to rot?

[ColinL]

Is there a local rule in pl

This I have been told my experienced referees and it all comes down to the fact that the Committee should ensure all GUR's are properly marked. Let us take an example.

A greenkeeper decides to remove a rock from rough. Removing that rock leaves a void/hole in the ground but the greenkeeper feels that it is such a minor hole and pretty far away from the closely mown area that he decides to leave it as it is and let the grass eventually fill it. Strictly reading the Definition this hole would be GUR regardless how much grass there is and how old that hole is. Is that the purpose of the Definition? I've been taught no. There is clear similarity to stuff piled for removal / not to be removed.

I admit this leaves room for interpretation but it is the responsibility of the Committee to mark the course properly. How do you know if material is piled for removal or just left there to rot?

I cannot see that a player or a referee coming across a hole of some kind would be able to determine whether the ground staff were planning to fill it in.  And in any case there is no indication in the rules that this is a criterion.  The only determination you can make is that a hole has or has not been made by a greenskeeper. and relief is allowed or not on that basis.  For example, at my own club the holes of last winter's temporary greens are still on the fairway although the areas are no longer wrong putting greens.*  If a player finds interference from one of these holes, is he only allowed relief from what is evidently a hole made by a greenkeeper if it is known that it is eventually going to be filled in?  Clearly that would not be the case.

*I know this is a confusing situation re wrong putting greens  and have asked for the holes to be filled or capped, but that's another story.

[Ignorant]

I cannot see that a player or a referee coming across a hole of some kind would be able to determine whether the ground staff were planning to fill it in.  And in any case there is no indication in the rules that this is a criterion.  The only determination you can make is that a hole has or has not been made by a greenskeeper. and relief is allowed or not on that basis.  For example, at my own club the holes of last winter's temporary greens are still on the fairway although the areas are no longer wrong putting greens.*  If a player finds interference from one of these holes, is he only allowed relief from what is evidently a hole made by a greenkeeper if it is known that it is eventually going to be filled in?  Clearly that would not be the case.

*I know this is a confusing situation re wrong putting greens  and have asked for the holes to be filled or capped, but that's another story.

For a player or a referee it would also be difficult so say who has made a particular hole on the ground.

The root of this interpretation is that not any hole made/created by greenkeeping staff is subject to free relief without any proper markings. Naturally it puts emphasis on the work by the Committee in marking the course but it also prevents players from taking free drops out of accidentally created holes and indentations, such as tire marks. I already described the example of a rock removed and hole left unattended. How long would you consider that hole to be GUR? One season? Two? Until there is no clear hole? Until there is no indentation? Same thing with tree stumps teared off the ground. Depending on the type of the tree it may leave a deep hole (to be filled) or just a minor hole in most cases left as it is awaiting the nature take its course. How do you distinguish those?

I find it easier to picture this issue from the purpose of the hole created by greenkeeping stuff. But then again, the Committee should mark those places anyway and not to leave the ultimate judgement on the player.

The example of a winter green hole is not a good one as those holes are supposed to be filled after they have been taken out of use. But how about a small hole created by a showel stuck on the ground for the duration of a lunch break and taken off again causing a chunk of dirt coming off? Depending on the nature of the course (and quality of the staff...) minor irregularities in the areas ball is not normally meant to be played on may be more of a common practice than an exception and bad lies occur from lots of different reasons. Around here it is customary to limit marking of GUR to the areas ball is expected to be played and leave areas in poor condition way off those areas unmarked. So why should each and every hole made by greenkeeping staff be an automatic GUR regardless of its location and purpose? After all Ground Under Repair says it all, it is ground under repair, i.e. something is supposed to be done about that area within a decent time frame.

Sometimes I have asked the staff whether they are going to fill a hole or an indentation (or remove a pile of material), and if the answer has been no I have not given relief from those holes/piles. It seems the right thing to do as those things are then part of the course as they are.

[ColinL]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you or missing something in a Decision somewhere that qualifies the basic definition that a hole made by a greenkeeper is ground under repair whether marked or not.  I thought you were saying that a hole made by a greenskeeper is only GUR if there is an intention to fill it in. The Rules don't say that unless I have missed something you can point me to.

I know our winter green holes should be filled in, but they haven't been.  They are a good example of a hole that has unarguably been made by a greenskeeper.  As a player or referee deciding whether relief from one  was permissible, I wouldn't for a moment be asking whether it was going to be filled in or not as that would have no relevance to deciding that it was GUR.  Yet you  seem to be saying I would only get or allow relief if it were known that they were to be filled in?