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

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

It isn't up to "us" or "we" to interpret the rules.  That is the job of the USGA and R&A.;  They document what they feel are necessary interpretations in the Decisions, and then we make our rulings based on the Rules and Decisions.  If further interpretation is needed, we apply to the ruling bodies for assistance.

In the interest of finishing a competition, we may try an interpretation in the heat of battle, but if there is a significant question, then we should immediately apply to the appropriate ruling body for an authorized procedure or interpretation.

The way I/we see this is that I/we are not interpreting the Rules but giving rulings based on Rules and course conditions. A hole made by a greenkeeper has not been scrupulously determined in the Rules so ad hoc interpretations are a must.

It seems that as well as Colin you are also missing the concept, but as with Colin I will not spend time trying to convert you as I know from previous experience that is not worth a shot.

However, I will throw in a question for you:

On a straight 394 meter long par4 there is an area in the deep rough 30 meters left from the left edge of the green partially 'ruined' by maintenance vehicles (tire marks and such) and it might be very difficult to play a ball from that area, depending on the lie the ball takes. The green is 20 meters wide and the hole is in the middle. Would you as a referee mark that area as GUR?

What if that area would be in the woods where there are sticks & stones as well as big trees, would that make a difference?

What if that hole would be 320 meters in length and the flag would be in the right side of the green?

Just curious to understand your thinking...

If the area is considered as being "in play" - that is, in an area which is otherwise mowed rough - then I would definitely mark it as GUR.  It would be unfair to force some players to play from what is clearly abnormal ground.  That's a no brainer.

If it is out in the trees with other problems than just the tire ruts, then no I would not.  That would be giving relief from a condition which occurs naturally in untended rough on many courses.

The length of the hole makes no difference.

[Rulesman]

Quote:

Well, it seems to me that you have not quite grasped what I have tried to explain. But in the light of all the examples I've presented, what is your (own) opinion?

Given the presence of the word 'usually' in the decision, it is clear that the words 'ground temporarily dug up in connection with course maintenance' do not apply in every case.

Therefore, some holes may be permanent and they may or may not be associated with course maintenance.

I have seen no explicit or implicit reference to the concept of 'intent to reinstate'.

So my opinion is that the hole does not have to be temporary nor for there to be an intent to reinstate.

Do you agree?

[ColinL]

I was expecting comments of much higher quality from you, Colin, but apparently you have made up your mind and refuse to think out of your box. Good day to you.

Nothing said other than reasoned argument and a bit of humour.  Sorry if the humour didn't work for you.  As to refusing to think out of my box, could it not  simply be  that you haven't yet persuaded  me that I'm wrong?

But I'd appreciate your answer to my question.  Would you grant allow relief from interference by the hole on the former temporary green when there is no intention to fill it in?

[Ignorant]

But I'd appreciate your answer to my question.  Would you grant allow relief from interference by the hole on the former temporary green when there is no intention to fill it in?

Certainly.

[Ignorant]

Given the presence of the word 'usually' in the decision, it is clear that the words 'ground temporarily dug up in connection with course maintenance' do not apply in every case.

Therefore, some holes may be permanent and they may or may not be associated with course maintenance.

I have seen no explicit or implicit reference to the concept of 'intent to reinstate'.

So my opinion is that the hole does not have to be temporary nor for there to be an intent to reinstate.

Do you agree?

Not quite. As I've said before, if a hole or indentation is concidered (by the staff or the Committee) to be of such nature that it needs no filling and it is just tough life if a player's ball ends up in there, no relief. Giving relief from all possible holes made by a greenkeeper would end up in an impossibe situation to handle.

Afa as a temporary hole is concerned, there has to be a reason for such hole to exist, such as Colin's winter green hole. Most often such holes contain something that makes them IO's so the hole in itself is of no importance. But as you very well know these kinds of decisions are made on the course as the situation arises.

[Ignorant]

If the area is considered as being "in play" - that is, in an area which is otherwise mowed rough - then I would definitely mark it as GUR.  It would be unfair to force some players to play from what is clearly abnormal ground.  That's a no brainer.

And if instead of cut rough there would be tall grass, say 2 feet tall..?

[Rulesman]

Not quite.

What do you suggest is the purpose of the word 'usually' in the decision?

[Ignorant]

What do you suggest is the purpose of the word 'usually' in the decision?

It means that there are other types of holes as well, such as one remaining in the ground once a sign post has been removed. I cannot envisage it possible to cover all possible types of holes in a Definition, and that is the reason why this discussion evolved in the first place.

Now off to course avoiding all but one type of holes...

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

If the area is considered as being "in play" - that is, in an area which is otherwise mowed rough - then I would definitely mark it as GUR.  It would be unfair to force some players to play from what is clearly abnormal ground.  That's a no brainer.

And if instead of cut rough there would be tall grass, say 2 feet tall..?

If the ball lies in a place where it would not usually be playable under normal conditions, then I would not mark it as GUR.  Such areas are not considered as being in the normal area or line of play, and as such the player gets what he earned.

[rogolf]

If the ball lies in a place where it would not usually be playable under normal conditions, then I would not mark it as GUR.  Such areas are not considered as being in the normal area or line of play, and as such the player gets what he earned.

It's quite unusual for tournament committees to mark as GUR anything that is off the closely-mown areas.  Imo, it would need to really be exceptional in an area that was not closely-mown in order for me to mark it as GUR.  Remember that "abnormal ground condition" means abnormal for the specific golf course.  If the golf course has numerous bare dirt patches on numerous holes, they are not abnormal.

[Ignorant]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

If the ball lies in a place where it would not usually be playable under normal conditions, then I would not mark it as GUR.  Such areas are not considered as being in the normal area or line of play, and as such the player gets what he earned.

It's quite unusual for tournament committees to mark as GUR anything that is off the closely-mown areas.  Imo, it would need to really be exceptional in an area that was not closely-mown in order for me to mark it as GUR.  Remember that "abnormal ground condition" means abnormal for the specific golf course.  If the golf course has numerous bare dirt patches on numerous holes, they are not abnormal.

So, referring to my question to Fourputt you would not mark that area in the rough (= off the closely-mown areas) as GUR?

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogolf

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

If the ball lies in a place where it would not usually be playable under normal conditions, then I would not mark it as GUR.  Such areas are not considered as being in the normal area or line of play, and as such the player gets what he earned.

It's quite unusual for tournament committees to mark as GUR anything that is off the closely-mown areas.  Imo, it would need to really be exceptional in an area that was not closely-mown in order for me to mark it as GUR.  Remember that "abnormal ground condition" means abnormal for the specific golf course.  If the golf course has numerous bare dirt patches on numerous holes, they are not abnormal.

So, referring to my question to Fourputt you would not mark that area in the rough (= off the closely-mown areas) as GUR?

I can answer that for him, since he already did answer it.  If it is not abnormal ground for the course, then no.    If it is abnormal for the course then it might or might not be marked.  This is an issue that can only be truly decided on a case by case basis.  You can't give a player free relief from what is a normal condition for the course just because he has found a lie that is worsened by vehicle travel.  That would be unfair to all the other players who happen to find themselves with terrible lies in the same area, but because they are not in the tire rut, they don't get relief.  Although the term "fairness" is never mentioned in the rules, it still must be considered when setting up a course for competition.

[Ignorant]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignorant

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogolf

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

If the ball lies in a place where it would not usually be playable under normal conditions, then I would not mark it as GUR.  Such areas are not considered as being in the normal area or line of play, and as such the player gets what he earned.

It's quite unusual for tournament committees to mark as GUR anything that is off the closely-mown areas.  Imo, it would need to really be exceptional in an area that was not closely-mown in order for me to mark it as GUR.  Remember that "abnormal ground condition" means abnormal for the specific golf course.  If the golf course has numerous bare dirt patches on numerous holes, they are not abnormal.

So, referring to my question to Fourputt you would not mark that area in the rough (= off the closely-mown areas) as GUR?

I can answer that for him, since he already did answer it.  If it is not abnormal ground for the course, then no.    If it is abnormal for the course then it might or might not be marked.  This is an issue that can only be truly decided on a case by case basis.  You can't give a player free relief from what is a normal condition for the course just because he has found a lie that is worsened by vehicle travel.  That would be unfair to all the other players who happen to find themselves with terrible lies in the same area, but because they are not in the tire rut, they don't get relief.  Although the term "fairness" is never mentioned in the rules, it still must be considered when setting up a course for competition.

What I read from rogolf's answer was that he (and some others, too) would not mark an area in the rough as GUR, so you are not answering my question. Besides I would like to have an answer from rogolf as he most likely is the one who can elaborate his own thoughts better than any other person. And for further clarity I am referring to my question in post #33.

[Rulesman]

The way I/we see this is that I/we are not interpreting the Rules but giving rulings based on Rules and course conditions. A hole made by a greenkeeper has not been scrupulously determined in the Rules so ad hoc interpretations are a must.

It seems that as well as Colin you are also missing the concept, but as with Colin I will not spend time trying to convert you as I know from previous experience that is not worth a shot.

However, I will throw in a question for you:

On a straight 394 meter long par4 there is an area in the deep rough 30 meters left from the left edge of the green partially 'ruined' by maintenance vehicles (tire marks and such) and it might be very difficult to play a ball from that area, depending on the lie the ball takes. The green is 20 meters wide and the hole is in the middle. Would you as a referee mark that area as GUR?

What if that area would be in the woods where there are sticks & stones as well as big trees, would that make a difference?

What if that hole would be 320 meters in length and the flag would be in the right side of the green?

Just curious to understand your thinking...

This is one of those 'You have to be there to give a definitive answer'. It all depends on too many local variables.

What is the state of the course in general? Is it likely to be in play given the standard of the players in the competition? Has the competition already started? Have any others played this hole already?

[rogolf]

What I read from rogolf's answer was that he (and some others, too) would not mark an area in the rough as GUR, so you are not answering my question. Besides I would like to have an answer from rogolf as he most likely is the one who can elaborate his own thoughts better than any other person. And for further clarity I am referring to my question in post #33.

As above, imo, it would need to really be exceptional in an area that was not closely-mown in order for me to mark it as GUR.  I would have to be there to examine it.

Same answer to your questions in post #33 - there is no "automatic" answer or marking.

[ColinL]

It

As above, imo, it would need to really be exceptional in an area that was not closely-mown in order for me to mark it as GUR.  I would have to be there to examine it.

Same answer to your questions in post #33 - there is no "automatic" answer or marking.

By coincidence, I am about to designate at my own club, a fairly large area that is not closely mown as GUR.    The reason is that it  has been seriously affected by the contractors who were in building a new new green.  What we have is a surface of  compacted subsoil full of  embedded stones and it was decided we had to make the area GUR in the interests of players' safety.

[Fourputt]

It

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogolf

As above, imo, it would need to really be exceptional in an area that was not closely-mown in order for me to mark it as GUR.  I would have to be there to examine it.

Same answer to your questions in post #33 - there is no "automatic" answer or marking.

By coincidence, I am about to designate at my own club, a fairly large area that is not closely mown as GUR.    The reason is that it  has been seriously affected by the contractors who were in building a new new green.  What we have is a surface of  compacted subsoil full of  embedded stones and it was decided we had to make the area GUR in the interests of players' safety.

Which is obviously a case where such treatment would be justified.  I think that all of us (except maybe Ignorant) are in agreement that there is no absolute answer to his question.  Every case has to evaluated on its own merits.  There are times even in closely mowed parts of the course when an area of patchy grass and bare ground would be marked as GUR on one course, while a similar area would not be so designated on another course.

Again it can depend on what is normally in play for the course.  I'm not going to mark 25% of the fairways on a low dollar muni as GUR, as that could affect play (and pace of play) more than just leaving them alone.  If such an area also has other damage, then it would be marked as needed, but not necessarily to give relief from the bare spots, only from the additional damage.

Golf does not require an absolutely perfect playing field.  Overcoming adversity is a significant part of the game, and should not be completely legislated out by the committee.  The PGA Tour tries to do this and it leads to too many questions when a player finds himself in a spot where he feels that he should receive relief, but isn't so marked.  If they weren't so pampered day in and day out, they might not feel so entitled every time they have an iffy lie.

In my opinion, it's better to let the players play golf, and if they feel that they have a legitimate issue, the they can invoke 3-3 and let the committee sort it out after the round.

[rogolf]

Which is obviously a case where such treatment would be justified.  I think that all of us (except maybe Ignorant) are in agreement that there is no absolute answer to his question.  Every case has to evaluated on its own merits.  There are times even in closely mowed parts of the course when an area of patchy grass and bare ground would be marked as GUR on one course, while a similar area would not be so designated on another course.

Again it can depend on what is normally in play for the course.  I'm not going to mark 25% of the fairways on a low dollar muni as GUR, as that could affect play (and pace of play) more than just leaving them alone.  If such an area also has other damage, then it would be marked as needed, but not necessarily to give relief from the bare spots, only from the additional damage.

Golf does not require an absolutely perfect playing field.  Overcoming adversity is a significant part of the game, and should not be completely legislated out by the committee.  The PGA Tour tries to do this and it leads to too many questions when a player finds himself in a spot where he feels that he should receive relief, but isn't so marked.  If they weren't so pampered day in and day out, they might not feel so entitled every time they have an iffy lie.

In my opinion, it's better to let the players play golf, and if they feel that they have a legitimate issue, the they can invoke 3-3 and let the committee sort it out after the round.

Agree.

When I'm marking a course, my objective is to use the absolute minimum of white paint.  We're usually there as guests of the course and there is no need to embarrass them.